GMATprep SC question

[esledge]

Hi Experts - with option A , what is "THAT" referring to - neutrino's or elementary particles ?

I thought "THAT" referred to elementary particles and subsequently eliminated option A

My Reasoning : it cannot be elementary particles that are produced in nuclear reactions. It cannot be elementary particles that interact weakly with matter

It is the neutrino's specifically that are produced in nuclear reactions. It is the neutrino's that interact weakly with matter.

Hence i eliminated A

Where is the gap in my logic ?

Grammatically, I think "that" has to be modifying "elementary particles," because you generally can't jump over a verb to make "that" modify "neutrinos." In fact, this example is the only thing preventing me from saying that you definitely can't jump over a verb like this.

Logically, however, I'd say there's not much difference between those two nouns: the verb "are" basically equates them. And since they are equivalent nouns, your reasoning above is overkill. Yeah, it's particles that are produced in nuclear reactions, but we were told that the particles produced are neutrinos.

Here's another example:
Celosia are edible and ornamental plants that are part of the amaranth family and that are named for their flame-like flower heads.

Both of the "that" modifiers specifically pertain to celosia, not to "edible and ornamental plants" in general.

[JbhB682]

Logically, however, I'd say there's not much difference between those two nouns: the verb "are" basically equates them. And since they are equivalent nouns, your reasoning above is overkill. Yeah, it's particles that are produced in nuclear reactions, but we were told that the particles produced are neutrinos.

Here's another example:
Celosia are edible and ornamental plants that are part of the amaranth family and that are named for their flame-like flower heads.

Both of the "that" modifiers specifically pertain to celosia, not to "edible and ornamental plants" in general.

Hi Emily - thank you so much.

My take-away is : if the verb is a to-be verb (is / are / am / ...), the "THAT" modifier refers to both nouns

example :

1) Hyenas are predators that have 32 teeth and that eat rotten flesh

Here the "that" modifier refers to predators and the "that" modifier refers to hyenas both (as hyenas and predators are the same , given the to-be verb)
--------------

But if the verb is an action verb -- the "THAT"modifier has to refer to the noun closest to it.

2) Hyenas eat predators that have 32 teeth and that eat rotten flesh

here the verb is not a to-be verb but an action verb (eat)

Here the "that modifier" refers to "predators" only and not hyena

[esledge]

I think that's a good take-away! Good discussion, thanks.

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts - Regarding E - I don't see how one can eliminate option E based on meaning specifically.

i) E makes logical sense even without the non-essential modifier between the comma's
ii) The "THAT modifier" is an essential modifier and hence cannot be dropped when talking about the core of option E.
iii) Option E when you drop the non essential modifier but keep the essential modifier is an legitimate example of "FORTUNATELY"

FORTUNATELY these elementary particles are neutrinos that interact very weakly with matter.

It seems like an example of "FORTUNATELY" that these are neutrinos that interact weakly.

Is what is wrong with "E" perhaps not meaning but the word "these" ?

It should be "those" it seems like to me ...

Thoughts

Thank you,

[esledge]

Hi Experts - Regarding E - I don't see how one can eliminate option E based on meaning specifically.

i) E makes logical sense even without the non-essential modifier between the comma's
ii) The "THAT modifier" is an essential modifier and hence cannot be dropped when talking about the core of option E.
iii) Option E when you drop the non essential modifier but keep the essential modifier is an legitimate example of "FORTUNATELY"

FORTUNATELY these elementary particles are neutrinos that interact very weakly with matter.

It seems like an example of "FORTUNATELY" that these are neutrinos that interact weakly.

I think that is the problem actually--removing the "harmless products of nuclear reactions" modifier reveals that (D) and (E) have different meanings around what is "fortunate" than the other three choices do:

(a) ... fortunately, neutrinos are harmless elementary particles ...
(b) ... fortunately, neutrinos(, which are harmless,) are elementary particles ...
(c) ... fortunately, neutrinos are harmless elementary particles ...
(d) ... fortunately, these harmless elementary particles are produced in nuclear reactions ...
(e) ... fortunately, these elementary particles ... are neutrinos ....

It makes logical sense that the author is relieved that the neutrinos are harmless particles (ABC, though A/C do this better than B, as I probably should drop the "which" modifier in B). It doesn't make as much sense that the author is relieved that the particles are produced in nuclear reactions (D) or that the particles are neutrinos that interact weakly (E), especially since it's not explained how "interacting weakly" or "produced in nuclear reactions" is good. "Harmless" doesn't need to be explained--it's got a positive meaning, even if you don't know the science for this question.

Is what is wrong with "E" perhaps not meaning but the word "these" ?

It should be "those" it seems like to me ...

"These" is correct, and I think "those" would be wrong. We tend to use these (plural) and this (singular) when talking about close things (in either time or distance), and use those (plural) and (that) singular for more distant things (in either time or distance).

In this sentence, "100 billion neutrinos" have already been introduced in the first part of the sentence, so it's a topic that "belongs to us," so to speak. And they are physically close to the word "these."