"plural X + preposition + Y, which have" - which refers X?

[divineacclivity]

I know the following question has been answered in the forum but no discussion explains the query I have about E & A options. Please help.

Sunspots, vortices of gas associated with strong electromagnetic activity, are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on the Sun's poles or equator.
(A) are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on
(B) are visible as dark spots that never have been sighted on the surface of the Sun
(C) appear on the surface of the Sun as dark spots although never sighted at
(D) appear as dark spots on the surface of the Sun, although never having been sighted at
(E) appear as dark spots on the Sun's surface, which have never been sighted on

Hi,

I have one confusion about the option E.
I'm not able to rule out E out of E and A

spots on sun's surface, which have .. --> "which have" clearly refers to spots (plural) rather than sun's surface (singular). Also, grammar says:
In "x preposition y, which ..", "which" would refer to the most logically connecting & grammatically correct noun of X & Y. So, E shd be right. Please help me understand why it is not so.

Thanks
Divine

[Willy]

I know the following question has been answered in the forum but no discussion explains the query I have about E & A options. Please help.

Sunspots, vortices of gas associated with strong electromagnetic activity, are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on the Sun's poles or equator.
(A) are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on
(B) are visible as dark spots that never have been sighted on the surface of the Sun
(C) appear on the surface of the Sun as dark spots although never sighted at
(D) appear as dark spots on the surface of the Sun, although never having been sighted at
(E) appear as dark spots on the Sun's surface, which have never been sighted on

Hi,

I have one confusion about the option E.
I'm not able to rule out E out of E and A

spots on sun's surface, which have .. --> "which have" clearly refers to spots (plural) rather than sun's surface (singular). Also, grammar says:
In "x preposition y, which ..", "which" would refer to the most logically connecting & grammatically correct noun of X & Y. So, E shd be right. Please help me understand why it is not so.

Thanks
Divine

Nice question Divine.

In option E, I also think the usage of "Which" is correct. The main problem is option E changes the meaning by not mentioning the BUT and hence option E is not contrasting as is option A.

[vivs.gupta]

I agree with Willy. Option E changes the meaning by removing the contrast element 'BUT'

[samiift]

I have another question related to this question. Are idioms "sighted on" and "sighted at" both correct and in which context we can use them?

[divineacclivity]

Thanks Willy!

Would you please tell me how E changes the meaning and what the intended meaning is and what new meaning option E changes that intended meaning to?

Thank you!

.Divine

[Willy]

Thanks Willy!

Would you please tell me how E changes the meaning and what the intended meaning is and what new meaning option E changes that intended meaning to?

Thank you!

.Divine

Lets see the option A [without modifier (part in commas) as this part i.e. modifier doesn't change the meaning even if we remove it.]

Sunspots are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on the Sun's poles or equator.

Here, in this sentence we are contrasting with the usage of BUT. i.e. Sunspots are visible on the surface of Sun but not on the Sun's poles or equator.

Option E says [again without the modifier]

Sunspots appear as dark spots on the Sun's surface, which have never been sighted on the Sun's poles or equator.

Here by not mentioning BUT the whole meaning is changed. Now, it is just saying (if I change WHICH with 'dark spots') -

Sunspots appear as dark spots on the Sun's surface, dark spots have never been sighted on the Sun's poles or equator.

Contrast is lost in this sentence.

Hope, I am making some sense.

[tim]

if there are any further questions on this one, please let us know the source of the original problem and what your questions are..

[divineacclivity]

Thanks Willy!

Would you please tell me how E changes the meaning and what the intended meaning is and what new meaning option E changes that intended meaning to?

Thank you!

.Divine

Lets see the option A [without modifier (part in commas) as this part i.e. modifier doesn't change the meaning even if we remove it.]

Sunspots are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on the Sun's poles or equator.

Here, in this sentence we are contrasting with the usage of BUT. i.e. Sunspots are visible on the surface of Sun but not on the Sun's poles or equator.

Option E says [again without the modifier]

Sunspots appear as dark spots on the Sun's surface, which have never been sighted on the Sun's poles or equator.

Here by not mentioning BUT the whole meaning is changed. Now, it is just saying (if I change WHICH with 'dark spots') -

Sunspots appear as dark spots on the Sun's surface, dark spots have never been sighted on the Sun's poles or equator.

Contrast is lost in this sentence.

Hope, I am making some sense.

Makes sense, thanks.

[RonPurewal]

the big problem with choice (e) is that the modifier creates an unacceptable change of meaning.
if you have
dark spots on the sun's surface, which have never been sighted...
then the problem is that the "which" modifier is actually talking about the spots described in the previous clause. in other words, this version of the sentence is inadvertently talking about the same spots seen on the sun's surface -- in other words, those SAME spots have not been seen on the poles or equator.
this is not the intended meaning. instead, the sentence is simply meant to say that the vortices in general have been seen on the surface of the sun, but that the same vortices in general have not been seen on the poles or at the equator.

the correct answer does not have this issue.
in the correct answer, you have a compound verb construction (are visible ... but have never been seen ...). the subject of this entire verb construction is "sunspots" (in general), as intended.

[divineacclivity]

the big problem with choice (e) is that the modifier creates an unacceptable change of meaning.
if you have
dark spots on the sun's surface, which have never been sighted...
then the problem is that the "which" modifier is actually talking about the spots described in the previous clause. in other words, this version of the sentence is inadvertently talking about the same spots seen on the sun's surface -- in other words, those SAME spots have not been seen on the poles or equator.
this is not the intended meaning. instead, the sentence is simply meant to say that the vortices in general have been seen on the surface of the sun, but that the same vortices in general have not been seen on the poles or at the equator.

the correct answer does not have this issue.
in the correct answer, you have a compound verb construction (are visible ... but have never been seen ...). the subject of this entire verb construction is "sunspots" (in general), as intended.

SUpercoooool is the way Manhattan experts explain. thankssss

[tim]

:)

[rte.sushil]

I have one query on CLAUSE :-

In the sentence :-
John said that If Marc achieves his target this month and wants him to buy product next month is also a good option

Clause is "If Marc achieves his target this month and wants him to buy product next month "

Ques1: I found this construction of the sentence not correct. Am i right?
When i read more about clauses used as subject, i found as following examples:-
That his theory was flawed soon became obvious.

So the question aroused:
question 2:) if i want to use entire clause as subject do i need to use That? i think not necessarily , it depends, right? i am not able to distinguish the examples?
que3:) In case we have a condition (if)as shown in the query example , best construction is:
- if marc.......months , that is also a good option?
- That if....months is also a good option?
que 4.) -if marc.......months, then it is also a good option...here it is referring to entire clause? is it acceptable ? please share some link with the usage of IT when it refers to complete clause

[tim]

you appear to be looking for a huge list of specific rules when common sense would serve you better in most of these cases. beyond that, i can't help you with specifics here because your examples and what appear to be your questions are so full of grammatical errors it is difficult to tell what we should be focusing on or what help you hope to get from us. please try again and pay very close attention to your grammar throughout your post so that it will be clear what you are asking..

[rte.sushil]

Ok , i agree that i didn't write in a clear form.

I rephrase my queries:

I came across one sentence in which that was referring to the entire clause
e.g.: That his theory was flawed soon became obvious.
here "that" is referring to "his theory was flawed".

I am looking for some example, where clause has condition in it
e.g. That If A goes then B comes became obvious(just an illustration)
here : If A goes then B comes is clause having if

So my query is:
1.) According to me, this kind of construction (That If A goes then B comes became obvious) is correct? right?
2.) Similarly i can replace "that" with "it",
as in :-
his theory was flawed , it soon became obvious. "it" refers to entire clause.
3.) Can i also write: "His theory was flawed soon became obvious" (i removed that or it here)

It may be too gramatical or simple and seems right based on common sense, but since i had doubt so I asked to confirm.

Thanks!!

[jlucero]

That/it serve similar purposes, but will differ in when they are idiomatically acceptable:

That (his theory was flawed) became obvious.
S modifier v

I can also say:

It became obvious (that his theory was flawed).
S V sub clause

Notice that (that/it) can't replace one another in those two examples. They are two very different expressions that require their specific pronoun usage.

1) you don't use "that IF X" to start a sentence b/c it's unidiomatic. *edit- apparently it's technically ok, but as Ron mentions in a later post, it's almost unreadable*
2) yes, that's a correct expression
3) no, again, b/c it's unidiomatic