PREP2 SC：The bones of Majungatholus atopus

[guessmeguy]

A very basic question ..how will I identify that a word is used as a 'participle' or past
tense verb.....Do I just have to consider the function it performs..or are there any other rules???
Thx in advance...

let's say you have "X VERBed", and you're wondering whether "VERBed" is a participle or a past-tense verb.

* if you can answer "did X VERB?" with a yes, then it's a past tense verb.

* if you can answer "did someone/something VERB X?" with a yes, then it's a past tense verb.

examples:

the speaker dedicated her speech to her late father
"did the speaker dedicate something?" --> yes
"did someone dedicate the speaker?" --> no
hence, past tense verb

the speech dedicated to Mr. Smith was very long
"did the speech dedicate something?" --> no
"did someone dedicate the speech?" --> yes
hence, participle

hope that helps

Hi Ron,
I guess that was a typo? I believe you meant participle.

Cheers,
Sheva

[saptadeepc]

The bones of Majungatholus atopus, a meat-eating dinosaur that is a distant relative of
Tyrannosaurus rex and closely resembles South American predatory dinosaurs, have been
discovered in Madagascar.
(A) The bones of Majungatholus atopus, a meat-eating dinosaur that is a distant relative of
Tyrannosaurus rex and closely resembles South American predatory dinosaurs, have been
discovered in Madagascar.
(B) The bones of a meat-eating dinosaur, Majungatholus atopus, a distant relative of
Tyrannosaurus rex and with a close resemblance to South American predatory dinosaurs, has been discovered in Madagascar.
(C) In Madagascar, the bones of a meat-eating dinosaur, Majungatholus atopus, distantly related to Tyrannosaurus rex and closely resembled South American predatory dinosaurs, have been discovered.
(D) A distant relative of Tyrannosaurus rex, bearing a close resemblance to South American predatory dinosaurs is Majungatholus atopus, a meat-eating dinosaur, the bones of which have been discovered in Madagascar.
(E) A distant relative of Tyrannosaurus rex and closely resembling South American predatory dinosaurs, the bones of a meat-eating dinosaur, Majungatholus atopus, have been discovered in Madagascar.

THE OA is A, why not C?

Modifiers set within comma are not essential to the meaning of the sentence and can be struck off without hampering the meaning. Let's give C a thought on this

(C) In Madagascar, the bones of a meat-eating dinosaur, Majungatholus atopus, distantly related to Tyrannosaurus rex and closely resembled South American predatory dinosaurs, have been discovered.

C can be changed to a sentence written in bold without changing the meaning, but does it make sense ? NO

Therefore it could be struck off from probables

[RonPurewal]

Modifiers set within comma are not essential to the meaning of the sentence and can be struck off without hampering the meaning. Let's give C a thought on this

(C) In Madagascar, the bones of a meat-eating dinosaur, Majungatholus atopus, distantly related to Tyrannosaurus rex and closely resembled South American predatory dinosaurs, have been discovered.

C can be changed to a sentence written in bold without changing the meaning, but does it make sense ? NO

Therefore it could be struck off from probables

this analysis is incorrect.
both "Majungatholus atopus" and "distantly related to Tyrannosaurus rex and closely resembled South American predatory dinosaurs" are modifiers, so the resulting sentence is just "the bones of a meat-eating dinosaur have been discovered."

the problem with that choice lies in "resembled", which is used as if it were a participle, but isn't actually a participle.

[sushmit]

B can noway be correct. has refers back to bones --> incorrect. But why not D.what is wrong with D?

[nonameee]

I am also wondering about the use of tenses:

How can a dinosaur, an extinct animal, resemble anyone (present simple)? I would say that past simple is a more logical choice.

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

I am also wondering about the use of tenses:

How can a dinosaur, an extinct animal, resemble anyone (present simple)? I would say that past simple is a more logical choice.

Thanks

despite its name, the "present tense" doesn't necessarily have to talk about things that are true in the present. if something is a permanent or timeless truth, then the present tense is appropriate to express it.

in this particular context, either the present tense or the past tense may be justified, depending on the author's intent.
if the author wants to emphasize the fact that the two dinosaurs literally resembled one another when they were alive -- and if there were actually a timeframe in which both existed -- then the past tense would make sense.
on the other hand, if the author just wants to point out an anatomical resemblance without confining it to a particular timeframe or historical setting, than the present tense makes sense.

[nonameee]

Ron, thanks a lot for your explanation.

[RonPurewal]

sure thing

[davetzulin]

Ron,

Is it Ok for me to strike these answer choices this way?

(C) In Madagascar, the bones of a meat-eating dinosaur, Majungatholus atopus, distantly related to Tyrannosaurus rex and closely resembled South American predatory dinosaurs, have been discovered.

the two bolded items are modifying "dinosaur" in sequence. but one is an appositive and one is a participle; therefore it is not parallel. It'd be the same as writing:

the dinosaur, Majungatholus and distantly related to Trex, is big.

(D) A distant relative of Tyrannosaurus rex, bearing a close resemblance to South American predatory dinosaurs is Majungatholus atopus, a meat-eating dinosaur, the bones of which have been discovered in Madagascar.

underlined:
i see a subj/verb inversion, and when i invert it back i see "majungatholus atopus" being modified by an appositive and comma + verb-ing.

bolded:
this looks like a bad version of an absolute phrase, where the absolute phrase does not properly modify the preceding clause.

[RonPurewal]

dave, your heart is in the right place -- that is to say, you've identified the correct type of error -- but you haven't classified the minutiae of that error correctly.

in the erroneous version that you cited, the first part is an adjective-style modifier (participle). however, the second part is actually a verb, so you've got a serious problem on your hands.
in other words, "resembled" would only make sense here as an actual verb, as in This dinosaur resembled that other dinosaur.

you can't put verbs in parallel to things that are not verbs, so there is your issue.

[davetzulin]

dave, your heart is in the right place -- that is to say, you've identified the correct type of error -- but you haven't classified the minutiae of that error correctly.

in the erroneous version that you cited, the first part is an adjective-style modifier (participle). however, the second part is actually a verb, so you've got a serious problem on your hands.
in other words, "resembled" would only make sense here as an actual verb, as in This dinosaur resembled that other dinosaur.

you can't put verbs in parallel to things that are not verbs, so there is your issue.

thanks Ron I totally missed the second half of that modifier! thanks for pointing that out.

[RonPurewal]

sure

[samwong]

I eliminated answer C for the following reason:

"the bones of a meat-eating dinosaur, Majungatholus atopus,"

This construction seems to suggest that ALL meat-eating dinosaur is called "Majungatholus atopus." This is nonsense because the intended meaning is suppose to say Majungatholus atopus is a type of meat-eating dinosaur. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

I eliminated answer C for the following reason:

"the bones of a meat-eating dinosaur, Majungatholus atopus,"

This construction seems to suggest that ALL meat-eating dinosaur is called "Majungatholus atopus." This is nonsense because the intended meaning is suppose to say Majungatholus atopus is a type of meat-eating dinosaur. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you.

Nope. That's just describing "a meat-eating dinosaur". No implication about others.

E.g.,
The residents of the house, Martha and George Winston, were out of town when the fire broke out.
"”"”> No one lived in the house except Martha and George.

A resident of the building, James Smith, alerted the fire department to the blaze.
"”"”> James is only one of many residents of the building.

[VikramK730]

Hi Ron,

Sorry to revive an old thread. While i was answering this question, i was stuck between a and d. I ultimately rejected a on the grounds parallelism that the second clause after 'and' missed a 'that' - 'that closely resembles'.
I understand from the thread that you can neglect a that in the second clause.

I therefore chose D. Choice D seemed ok to me though it looked a bit convoluted. The appositive phrase - 'A distant relative of Tyrannosaurus rex' and an , ing modifier both describe Majungatholus atopus.

Can you please let me know what is wrong in option D?