SC: A report by the American Academy for the Advancement

[vinodeswar]

A report by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science has
concluded that much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North
Americans are exposed comes from the incineration of wastes.

(A) much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Americans are
exposed comes
(B) much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins that North Americans are exposed
to come
(C) much of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and that North Americans
are exposed to comes
(D) many of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and North Americans are
exposed to come
(E) many of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Americans are exposed come

Any reason why B is not the right answer? Is Dioxin countable?

Thanks,
Vins

[tomslawsky]

I haven't seen the guide you're referring to, but to me using "many" indicates the TYPES of dioxins only. Using "much" gives you a rough idea that "a lot" refers to the exposure of dioxins in the aggregate.

[NIKESH_PAHUJA]

@vinodswar

Can you please post complete question ? ( option E is not complete)

Also please provide OA .

I believe the correct option would be as follows :

many of the currently uncontrolled dioxins that North Americans are exposed
to come

Please correct me if I am wrong

[RonPurewal]

A report by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science has
concluded that much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North
Americans are exposed comes from the incineration of wastes.

(A) much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Americans are
exposed comes
(B) much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins that North Americans are exposed
to come
(C) much of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and that North Americans
are exposed to comes
(D) many of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and North Americans are
exposed to come
(E) many of the currently uncontrolled

Any reason why B is not the right answer? Is Dioxin countable?

Thanks,
Vins

at least three reasons.

* "much of the dioxins" is not good.
if you're going to use uncountable quantity words, like "much", then you should use them with singular mass nouns (money, furniture, water, etc.)

* "that north americans are exposed to" is WRONG.
you shouldn't end modifiers with prepositions.
this should be "to which north americans are exposed".

* "much" is singular (as are all uncountable quantity words - "much", "little", as well as more/less etc. when used with uncountable quantities), so the plural verb "come" is wrong.

[tankobe]

A report by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science has
concluded that much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North
Americans are exposed comes from the incineration of wastes.

(A) much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Americans are
exposed comes
(B) much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins that North Americans are exposed
to come
(C) much of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and that North Americans
are exposed to comes
(D) many of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and North Americans are
exposed to come
(E) many of the currently uncontrolled

Any reason why B is not the right answer? Is Dioxin countable?

Thanks,
Vins

* "that north americans are exposed to" is WRONG.
you shouldn't end modifiers with prepositions.
this should be "to which north americans are exposed".

the problem also appears in OG. for D, OG say we have to repeat that in the clause that North Americans are exposed to.
1# if context force us to parrallel the two ralative clauses--dioxins that only trees can absorb and that North Americans are exposed to, is it ok? what about dioxins that ozones can interact with and that North Americans are exposed to,if it is not OK, how to change?

2# regardless the prepositions, if the clause is dioxins that are uncontrolled and North Americans face, is it still wrong? in another word, should it be dioxins that are uncontrolled and that North Americans face?

i am sorry for asking several seemly unrelated questions; acctually, i just want to go one step from the test problem and thus to learn more actively.

[RonPurewal]

ok, first things first.

the CORRECT answer to this problem is, unfortunately, the missing answer choice (e):

(E) many of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Americans are exposed come

--

also:

you cannot end a modifier with a preposition.

so:
dioxins that north americans are exposed to --> INCORRECT
dioxins to which north americans are exposed --> correct.
etc.

for an official example, see #16 in the first edition purple Verbal OG Supplement (= #20 in the second edition blue one).

now for your questions:

the problem also appears in OG. for D, OG say we have to repeat that in the clause that North Americans are exposed to.
1# if context force us to parrallel the two ralative clauses--dioxins that only trees can absorb and that North Americans are exposed to, is it ok? what about dioxins that ozones can interact with and that North Americans are exposed to,if it is not OK, how to change?

all of these examples are inherently wrong, because they contain modifiers that end with prepositions (contra what i wrote above). therefore, i'll just use new ones.

basically, it's ok to omit "that" if the sentence is still legitimately parallel without it.
for instance:
food that is nutritious for cats but that is poisonous for dogs
food that is nutritious for cats but is poisonous for dogs
food that is nutritious for cats but poisonous for dogs
all correct.

hand signs that natives use and that appear in local rituals --> correct.
these are both [i]that-clauses that modify "hand signs", so the parallel structure works.
BUT
hand signs that natives use and appear in local rituals --> INCORRECT.
the second of these doesn't work because the right-hand component of the parallel structure is appear in local rituals (i.e., active verb whose subject is "hand signs"). there is no verb in the left-hand side that is parallel to this, so this makes no sense.

2# regardless the prepositions, if the clause is dioxins that are uncontrolled and North Americans face, is it still wrong? in another word, should it be dioxins that are uncontrolled and that North Americans face?

yes.
see the "hand signs" example -- same thing, pretty much exactly.

i am sorry for asking several seemly unrelated questions; acctually, i just want to go one step from the test problem and thus to learn more actively.

nah, these are good questions.

[kvin2kool]

Ron, can you pls explain what is wrong with the original sentence. when i read the question, did not notice any thing wrong wit it and went wit A)

thnks,

[RonPurewal]

Ron, can you pls explain what is wrong with the original sentence. when i read the question, did not notice any thing wrong wit it and went wit A)

thnks,

first, we'll thank you not to abbreviate words in this way. please take the extra fraction of a second to type "with" instead of "wit".

--

the problem with (a) is posted above:

* "much of the dioxins" is not good.
if you're going to use uncountable quantity words, like "much", then you should use them with singular mass nouns (money, furniture, water, etc.)

[gur.rulz]

hand signs that natives use and appear in local rituals --> INCORRECT.

Ron: Could you please explain this example again.

[RonPurewal]

hand signs that natives use and appear in local rituals --> INCORRECT.

Ron: Could you please explain this example again.

that's incorrect parallelism.

the right-hand structure is "appear in local rituals", a structure based on a verb.
there's nothing on the left to which this is properly parallel. the only verb on the left is "use", which is NOT parallel to "appear" -- the former is something that natives do, while the latter is something that the hand signs do.

[ericyuan0811]

Hi Ron

my understanding is:

many of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and that North Americans are exposed to come

the 1st that= "subject" of "are"
the 2nd that= "object" of "are exposed to"

since they don't serve the same grammatical function , we should have the 2nd that here.

am i correct?

[jlucero]

Hi Ron

my understanding is:

many of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and that North Americans are exposed to come

the 1st that= "subject" of "are"
the 2nd that= "object" of "are exposed to"

since they don't serve the same grammatical function , we should have the 2nd that here.

am i correct?

Your understanding is correct and your sentence is better than option (D), but you still have the problem of ending with a preposition, which Ron talks about above.

[DiJ92]

Dear Ron,

If I want to fix the choice(D) in the way that dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and to which North Americans are exposed come,

Are the two subordinators, that and to which, in parallel form?
I mean that the subordunators does not have to be the same.

Please justify my thinking.

Thanks in advance

[RonPurewal]

yes, that's a valid structure, but it's bad writing. (compare it to the OA of this problem; read both of them, trying to pretend you are someone who has never seen either.
note that your "edited" version much harder to understand.)

since style issues are not tested on this exam, this is yet another case of "you won't see that, but you don't need to know why not" (which happens virtually every time someone tries to "edit" a GMAC sentence).

[harika.apu]

ok, first things first.

the CORRECT answer to this problem is, unfortunately, the missing answer choice (e):

(E) many of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Americans are exposed come

--

also:

you cannot end a modifier with a preposition.

so:
dioxins that north americans are exposed to --> INCORRECT
dioxins to which north americans are exposed --> correct.
etc.

for an official example, see #16 in the first edition purple Verbal OG Supplement (= #20 in the second edition blue one).

now for your questions:

the problem also appears in OG. for D, OG say we have to repeat that in the clause that North Americans are exposed to.
1# if context force us to parrallel the two ralative clauses--dioxins that only trees can absorb and that North Americans are exposed to, is it ok? what about dioxins that ozones can interact with and that North Americans are exposed to,if it is not OK, how to change?

all of these examples are inherently wrong, because they contain modifiers that end with prepositions (contra what i wrote above). therefore, i'll just use new ones.

basically, it's ok to omit "that" if the sentence is still legitimately parallel without it.
for instance:
food that is nutritious for cats but that is poisonous for dogs
food that is nutritious for cats but is poisonous for dogs
food that is nutritious for cats but poisonous for dogs
all correct.

hand signs that natives use and that appear in local rituals --> correct.
these are both [i]that-clauses that modify "hand signs", so the parallel structure works.
BUT
hand signs that natives use and appear in local rituals --> INCORRECT.
the second of these doesn't work because the right-hand component of the parallel structure is appear in local rituals (i.e., active verb whose subject is "hand signs"). there is no verb in the left-hand side that is parallel to this, so this makes no sense.

2# regardless the prepositions, if the clause is dioxins that are uncontrolled and North Americans face, is it still wrong? in another word, should it be dioxins that are uncontrolled and that North Americans face?

yes.
see the "hand signs" example -- same thing, pretty much exactly.

i am sorry for asking several seemly unrelated questions; acctually, i just want to go one step from the test problem and thus to learn more actively.

nah, these are good questions.

Hi Ron ,
As per the example of hand-signs
dioxins that are uncontrolled and North Americans face
In second part verb - "face" refers to North Americans
in First part there is no such active verb except "are"
and "uncontrolled" is adjective modifying dioxins
Is my understanding correct?