Confusion in - SC Question BANK-Q 7

[jlucero]

Glad it helped.

[harpreet1205]

Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.

A) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.

B) The tomato, though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna, and it was therefore once thought to be poisonous itself.

C) Once thought to be poisonous itself, the tomato is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world, and is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna.

D) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and known to be harmless, the tomato was once considered poisonous because it is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna.

E) A member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, the tomato was once considered poisonous even though it is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world.




Hi Ron,

In one of the study halls by Tommy (Jan 5,2012), he eliminated choices A,B,C,E saying that "harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world"
both of the above are not parallel.

So my question to you is though both are adjectives why aren't they parallel, although I agree another participial phrase parallel to "now eaten in large quantities around the world" would be much better ?


Also in one of the study halls by you, you mentioned that "Not all parallel structures have perfectly matching components" and you even provided an example for that:
They argue just as frequently and about the same topic...blah blah...

you said that just as frequently and about the same are parallel. Based on this, my second question to you is :why can't we consider the answer choices(of the question) a special case just like the example you mentioned?


Is there something that I am missing?
Please Clarify

[harpreet1205]

The "including belladonna" thing is a bit problematic, in my opinion - I don't think this is tested in an entirely GMAT-like way on this problem. I'm going to submit this issue for review.

There is actually a problem here; I just don't think the GMAT would test this in this way.

"a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna"

Here's the problem: you've got a phrase, followed by the modifier "including b." The main noun in the phrase is "member," followed by a prepositional phrase describing that main noun.

Does "a member" include belladonna? Or does "the generally toxic nightshade family" include belladonna? Logically, it's the latter, of course. Structurally, though, we expect "including X" to refer to the main noun. We can't describe "a member" as "including belladonna" so that's no good.

We can, however, use "which includes b," because, structurally, a "which" modifier can refer either to the immediately preceding noun (family) or to the preceding main noun (member).

It is mentioned that including doesn't modify nightshade family doesn't modify.But in one of the study halls(Archive) you said that including always modifies the noun(before the comma) preceding the word including.So please clarify on this part.

Also I didn't get this "including is dangling"(mentioned on this thread as well as by Tommy in the study hall) if it is correctly modifying what it has to then how is the modifier including dangling??

[RonPurewal]

I didn't write that comment about "including", but here's my attempt at a fuller explanation of how that word is used.

If you write
XXXXXX blah blah blah NOUN, including YYYYY
then this means that XXXXX did the same thing with YYYYY as it did with the rest of NOUN.

E.g.,
In our English class we're going to read twenty books, including Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.
--> We're going to read twenty books.
--> We're going to read Crime and Punishment.

To receive a certificate, you must complete eight first-aid courses, including a CPR course.
--> You have to complete eight courses in first aid.
--> You have to complete a CPR course.

That's how "including" is used.

So, it doesn't work here. The thing is a member of the nightshade family, but it's not a member of belladonna.

[RonPurewal]

Also I didn't get this "including is dangling"(mentioned on this thread as well as by Tommy in the study hall) if it is correctly modifying what it has to then how is the modifier including dangling??

Sorry, I don't have any idea what "dangling" means.

[harpreet1205]

Thanks a lot. :)

This question makes more sense after your explanation.

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[Tadashi]

Hello Ron, Tim, Stacy & other experts.

Choice B: The tomato, though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna, and it was therefore once thought to be poisonous itself.

May I eliminate B simply because the adverb "therefore" indicates a wrong cause-effect relationship which distorts the meaning of the original sentence?

B: The tomato is a member of nightshade family and it was therefore thought to be poisonous itself.

ARIGATO.

BTW, the sc problem sets in the Manhattan question banks are really hard for me maybe. I thought I had been well prepared before I did 50% of the questions wrong. Anyway, good sc material to practice.

Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

May I eliminate B simply because the adverb "therefore" indicates a wrong cause-effect relationship which distorts the meaning of the original sentence?

Yes.

BTW, the sc problem sets in the Manhattan question banks are really hard for me maybe. I thought I had been well prepared before I did 50% of the questions wrong. Anyway, good sc material to practice.

Tadashi.

The question banks in general (not just the SC one) tend to be quite difficult. In quant, they're often substantially more difficult than anything that would ever actually appear on the official exam.

[Tadashi]

I hate this problem. I've done it wrong twice. T T.

Question about option A:

Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.

Sorry I don't understand the explanation: the phrase "though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless" contains two elements that are not parallel.

Why they are not parallel ? actually they are both adj. modify tomato.

& I don't understand the explanation: "including belladonna" is incorrect left dangling.

Why I can't use including belladonna here. "including blala" is a prep. phrase modifying the preceding noun: toxic nightshade family.

Please shed some light.

Thanks in advance.
Tadashi.

[tim]

Not only is "eaten" a participle, which requires a participle to be parallel, it makes no sense to say the tomato is "now harmless", which A suggests.

The problem with "including" is that it looks like it's supposed to be an adverbial modifier, and as such it is unclear what it modifies.

[harika.apu]

Ron,

Do we not see a change of the meaning when we go from the original sentence in which the tomato is solely "harmless" to choice D in which the tomato is "known to be harmless?"

The idea that the tomato is currently known to be harmless does not seem to be found in the original sentence.

two things.

1 * sure, but it's the good kind of change in meaning: the meaning used to be absurd, but now it makes sense.
in particular, the original version said "now blah blah blah and harmless". this would indicate (illogically) that the tomato "is now harmless" - i.e., that, at some point in the past, it wasn't harmless.
"now known to be harmless", on the other hand, makes perfect sense - we once didn't know that it was harmless, but now we do know that it's harmless.

2 * remember, meaning is subordinate to issues of grammar, usage, and other things that are black/white right/wrong.

Hi Ron ,
In one of your posts about a SC question
Although eradicated in U.S , Polio still is a threat
Here , you have mentioned that -Although X
X need not be a complete clause with subject and verb if immediately followed by subject after comma
Does the same rule apply to option D ?

In more doubt in option E regarding use of including
In one of your sessions "thursdays with Ron" , you have explained the usage of "including"
comma+ including - > modifies preceding noun and more importantly including should not give a full list of items
In option E ,
family ,including X
X may be part of family
in that case it is perfectly fine to use including right?

Could you please help me with this ?

[tim]

To your first question, if there is a rule it applies to ALL choices in ALL problems, so it makes no sense to say effectively, "Hey Ron, I know you said this is a rule, but could you tell me whether it's a rule?"

As for your question about "including", there are times when this construction would be appropriate, because the way the sentence reads does not make any sense. The tomato is not a member of belladonna (or anything like that).

[ZoeZ42]

In our English class we're going to read twenty books, including Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.
--> We're going to read twenty books.
--> We're going to read Crime and Punishment.

To receive a certificate, you must complete eight first-aid courses, including a CPR course.
--> You have to complete eight courses in first aid.
--> You have to complete a CPR course.

Hi RON, i have a question about this, because i am confused according your lecture on sep.23 2010 -- the use of "comma + INCLUDING", second point
FROM the post above, i got the idea that the events XXX follow "INCLUDIGN" is menber of the precede noun YYY, also, both XXX and YYY should be done
From the lecture on sep.23. 2010 ( How “comma + INCLUDING” is used:), point 2 -- should give a list of SOME, BUT NOT ALL of that NOUN
Ponit 1 It modifies the preceding NOUN NOTE: this looks like “comma + -ing” modifier, but DOESN’T work like one modifies the whole clause

Point 2 It should give a list of SOME, BUT NOT ALL of that NOUN.
e.g.1 : The gym teacher asked us to do three body-weight exercises, including sit-ups, push-ups, and chin-ups.
INCORRECT, since we are listing ALL THREE of them
e.g.2 : The gym teacher asked us to do ten body-weight exercises, including sit-ups, push-ups, and chin-ups.
CORRECT. Since we’re only listing 3 of the ten exercises
if both XXX and YYY should be done, then it doesn't matter whether YYY is list of XXX, i think e.g.1 above is correct,
seems i misunderstand, could you please clarify it for me ?

further, i read another forum about "INCLUDING", https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t6878.html
it mentioned that "comma + INCLUDIGN" is preposition,

important:
"INCLUDING" is an EXCEPTION to the otherwise robust rules for comma+ing modifiers.

when you see "comma + including", you should think of "including" as a preposition, not as an -ing modifier. therefore, "including X" will become a prepositional phrase that describes the stuff preceding the comma.

i am confused again, if "comma + including" is preposition, then, it can modifiy the noun "family",
so why "comma + including" is incorrect here?

thanks a lot
have a nice day

>_~

[ZoeZ42]

important:
"INCLUDING" is an EXCEPTION to the otherwise robust rules for comma+ing modifiers.

when you see "comma + including", you should think of "including" as a preposition, not as an -ing modifier. therefore, "including X" will become a prepositional phrase that describes the stuff preceding the comma.

i am confused again, if "comma + including" is preposition, then, it can modifiy the noun "family",
so why "comma + including" is incorrect here?

thanks a lot
have a nice day

>_~

Dear instructors,

please help clarify the "comma + including" vs "comma + which include(s)"
if "comma + including" modifies the preceding noun, why "comma + which include(s)" here is incorrect,

thanks in advance.

have a nice day