Mary found certain evidence that even the Crime Scene ....

[RahulB226]

Mary found certain evidence that even the Crime Scene Investigators (CSI) could not find.

In the above sentence listed by an instructor on Gmatclub it is stated that 'that' is simply a connector. However, as per Manhattan strategy guide for sentence correction when 'that' follows a noun it becomes the subject of the following clause and acts as a relative pronoun.
On the Gmatclub blog it is stated that the subject of the second clause is CSI and the verb is could not find.
This particular sentence seems different to the the "noun-that-verb- construction taught in the strategy, can you explain how?

[RonPurewal]

"...that the investigators could not find" is just a modifier of "evidence".

this is a VERY common kind of modifier. it's definitely something that you've seen many thousands of times in written english.
if this is something that you claim not to understand, you should seriously re-think the methods that you're using to "analyze" these sentences.

[RahulB226]

Trust me, I read a lot and I read a lot of good material as well, such as HBR, NY Times, etc. However, I had never studied grammar in my schooldays and these sentence correction books have turned my world upside down. Everything looks suspect to me now.

Coming back to the above sentence, in my opinion "...that the investigators could not find" is just a modifier of "evidence", and "that" refers to "evidence" and follows "noun-that-verb" strategy highlighted in the strategy guides while the blog says that in this sentence "that" is just a connector.
What is it that I am missing here?

Thanks for your patience.

[RonPurewal]

in fact, this kind of modifier is so common that i used it 3 different times just in that last post!

highlighted in color, here: (the nouns that are modified are bold+underline)...
this is a VERY common kind of modifier. it's definitely something that you've seen many thousands of times in written english.
if this is something that you claim not to understand, you should seriously re-think the methods that you're using to "analyze" these sentences.


__

the point is that, when you're processing constructions that are THIS common, you should NOT have to think explicitly about "grammar rules" or what you're calling "strategies".

when it comes to COMMON constructions, you should just be able to recognize correct examples of those constructions (and be able to write your own SIMPLE examples of them).
this process should be quick and -- after sufficient exposure -- effortless.

e.g., if i write a "sentence" like
My brother, who lives in Texas.
...i'm sure you just recognize that this "sentence" isn't actually a complete sentence, without having to consider explicit "rules" to make that judgment.

same thing with something like My dogs has fleas—i'm sure you don't have to think EXPLICTLY about the notions of "singular" and "plural" to just recognize that such a thing is WRONG.

[RahulB226]

the point is that, when you're processing constructions that are THIS common, you should NOT have to think explicitly about "grammar rules" or what you're calling "strategies".

when it comes to COMMON constructions, you should just be able to recognize correct examples of those constructions (and be able to write your own SIMPLE examples of them).
this process should be quick and -- after sufficient exposure -- effortless.

I needed this advice more than anything else at this juncture. While, after studying, my accuracy in CR and RC has improved to above 80%, my accuracy in SC has gone down from 65% to 50%. My natural instincts were faring better than I am faring now with this new knowledge that I have acquired.

I will try to go back to the natural instincts plus an application of the new knowledge, instead of solely relying on one.

Regards.

[RonPurewal]

excellent.