Doubtful SC: A March 2000 Census Bureau survey showed

[RonPurewal]

ok, i understand why you're asking this question.

first—i trust that i don't have to explain the intended meaning; in this context, there is only one thing that this phrase could possibly mean.
if the intended meaning is unclear, just think about it for a bit (with ordinary common sense—don't try to 'bend' the words into some weird/farfetched interpretation).

--

with this sort of thing—as usual—the best protocol is to memorize a few illustrative examples.
then, when you see other constructions of this sort in the future, make analogies to the ones you've memorized—until you've developed a sufficient intuition.

here are some examples:

800 is the highest score that anyone can get on the GMAT.
250 is a score that anyone can get on the GMAT.

When she was alive, Florence Griffith-Joyner could run faster than any other woman.
Unlike Mariah Carey, whose songs use most of her legendary vocal range, Britney Spears mostly sings songs that any other woman could also sing.

you'll notice a pattern here:
• if 'anyone' is compared with a comparative or superlative (faster, fastest, higher, highest, better, best, worse, worst, etc.), then it usually means the same sort of thing that it means in the sentence at hand.
• if not, then it is more likely to mean 'any individual person at all'.

again, though, context is king, and common sense is queen.
ALL of these examples have one thing in common—namely, there is only one reasonable interpretation for each sentence.
this is why the word 'anyone' can play two roles that are so starkly different—there's no way that any of these sentences could possibly be ambiguous.

[RonPurewal]

you could also try googling things like "that anyone has" (with the quotes). just read the things that come up. (try to pay more attention to search results that appear in well-written publications.)

[aflaamM589]

Hello Ron,
is tense also problematic in E?
Can you tell us a bit more about this tense?
or perhaps give us a link in which you have discussed it.
Thanks in anticipation.
Have a nice day

[RonPurewal]

in this context, those two ("largest to be X" / "largest to have been X") are basically equivalent. there isn't much you need to know or notice about the latter one (the one in choice E), other than that it uses unnecessary words compared to its counterpart in choice D.

no matter what, you should be eliminating those choices on the grounds of the modifier "having...", because that modifier doesn't make any sense (Mexico doesn't HAVE anything in the context of this sentence).

[RichaChampion]

Mr. Purewal,



Mr. Purewal I have taken some notes from your previous explanations →

An appositive noun modifier, a type of modifier that NEVER appears in spoken language but that appears on the GMAT a lot. The reason is that, unlike relative pronouns such as 'which', these modifiers don't have to touch their referent.
For instance: The general tried to get his troops to retreat before being surrounded, a strategy that ultimately failed.
Exceptions - If you have an appositive modifier that's an abstract noun - such as "strategy", "figure", "statistic", "findings", "situation", "change", "difference", etc. - then such an appositive may be allowed to describe the entire situation described in the previous clause.
For instance, the example I gave above with "a strategy..."Also, for further examples, see #59 and #79 in the purple verbal supplement OG book.
In #79 this modifier is part of the underline and is useful in choosing the correct answer. In #59 it's not part of the underline, so you don't have to use it, but you're exposed to it so that you can use it later.

My Doubt in this Question: the largest share that any country has contributed → I think here it is modifying the United States and this changes the meaning in the correct option, which is B

the largest: Noun
that any country has contributed: Noun Modifier.
Noun+Noun Modifier. Infact this is an appositive modifier.
Here I do not think that we have the case of abstract Noun. The appositive modifier seems to be modifying United States and this gives Nonsensical meaning. Isn't it?

[RonPurewal]

you must be quoting something that's more than 5 years old.

don't worry about "abstract noun" vs. other nouns.

just know that these modifiers...
...CAN describe the single noun in front of them,
...CAN ALSO describe the whole phrase/sentence/idea in front of them.

if either of these interpretations makes sense, then the modifier is fine.

[RonPurewal]

the largest share that any country has contributed → I think here it is modifying the United States

^^ you can't possibly think this unless you are COMPLETELY ignoring the meaning of the words.
this interpretation is clearly nonsense (the US is a country; the US is not "a share" of anything).

if you did not IMMEDIATELY reject this interpretation, then, honestly, i'm worried about your thought process here... that would mean you're treating the words as though they were basically algebra variables, without any meaning at all.

[solitaryreaper]

if you're looking at
Since xxxx, yyyy
or
[/i]Yyyy since xxx[/i]

then...

'yyyy' should be....
...'has/have __ed' if its timeframe is 'up to the present'
or
...'had __ed' if its timeframe is 'up to some past point' (= NOT 'up to the present')

'xxxx' is normally a date or a past-tense construction.

Hi Ron!

Though it's an old post but I have a doubt in this piece.
My thought process:
Since the census was done in 2000 (a point in the past), shouldn't the past perfect construction make more sense here?
Share of Mexican born citizens is accounted for a period starting from 1980 till 2000 when the census was done. Using a present perfect would give a connotation that this figure is calculated beyond 2000 to the present moment.

Please correct me if there are any(or many) gaps in my understanding.

Regards
SR

[RonPurewal]

the implication is that this is the largest percentage from any single country since 1890 (...until NOW).

[Seafood]

it would be possible to write a sentence like this...
Mexico accounted for more than a quarter of all foreign-born residents of the United States, having contributed large numbers of immigrants to the American population every year for the past several decades.

this sentence makes sense, because...
1/
the __ing actually applies (mexico actually has contributed large numbers of immigrants to the US),
and
2/
the __ing provides further description of/elaboration upon/explanation of the previous sentence (as is customary for comma + __ing).

Dear Instructors,

Ron mentioned before in some posts that Comma+V-ing modifies the preceding clause and applies to the subject of that clause.
I dont fully understand what D and E modify here? The sentence "A March 2000 Census Bureau survey show that XXX" or the clause after "Mexico accounted for XXXXX"
Can I rule out D and E simply because the subject of the preceding sentence is Survey rather than Mexico.

Thank you very much.

[RonPurewal]

i've discovered that this problem is from the OG verbal supplement.

we can't discuss OG problems here. this thread is now locked.