SC: Based on accelerator mass spectrometry, an advanced

[Gui]

Veritas Practice Test

Based on accelerator mass spectrometry, an advanced technique that makes it possible to obtain radiocarbon dates from samples much smaller than that necessary for traditional radiocarbon dating, scholars have been able to determine impressively precise radiocarbon ages for samples of Glyptodon and Holmesina recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits, extinct large mammals similar to armadillos.

A) Based on accelerator mass spectrometry, an advanced technique that makes it possible to obtain radiocarbon dates from samples much smaller than that necessary for traditional radiocarbon dating, scholars have been able to determine impressively precise radiocarbon ages for samples of Glyptodon and Holmesina recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits, extinct large mammals similar to armadillos.

B) Based on accelerator mass spectrometry, an advanced technique that makes it possible to obtain radiocarbon dates from samples much smaller than necessary for traditional radiocarbon dating, scholars have been able to determine impressively precise radiocarbon ages for samples of Glyptodon and Holmesina, extinct large mammals similar to armadillos, recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits.

C) Using accelerator mass spectrometry, an advanced technique that makes it possible to obtain radiocarbon dates from samples much smaller than those necessary for traditional radiocarbon dating, scholars have been able to determine impressively precise radiocarbon ages for samples of Glyptodon and Holmesina, extinct large mammals similar to armadillos, recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits.

D) Basing them on accelerator mass spectrometry, which allowed them to obtain radiocarbon dates from samples much smaller than those necessary for traditional radiocarbon dating, scholars have been able to determine impressively precise radiocarbon ages for samples of Glyptodon and Holmesina, extinct large mammals similar to armadillos, recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits.

E) The use of accelerator mass spectrometry, an advanced technique that makes it possible to obtain radiocarbon dates from samples much smaller than those necessary for traditional radiocarbon dating, have enabled scholars to determine impressively precise radiocarbon ages for samples of Glyptodon and Holmesina recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits, extinct large mammals similar to armadillos.

OA: C

Doubt: In the OA "C", the use of 2 modifiers before the noun that is referring to, scholars, is not an ackward construction? Shouldn't the modifiers be divided alongside "scholars"?

[PhuongD794]

Hello,

I will add my 2 cents on your concern. I'm not an expert, but hope this helps.

C) Using accelerator mass spectrometry, an advanced technique that makes it possible to obtain radiocarbon dates from samples much smaller than those necessary for traditional radiocarbon dating, scholars have been able to determine impressively precise radiocarbon ages for samples of Glyptodon and Holmesina, extinct large mammals similar to armadillos, recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits.

There are 2 modifiers in front of "scholars", but they are not modifying the same entity - scholars. To speak explicitly, the first modifier (red color) modifies "scholars", while the second one (blue color) modifies its preceding noun "accelerator mass spectrometry". That's why, I think the sentence is fine.

By the way, I find that your question may commit a grammatical error (sorry, maybe I'm a nitpicker)
....the use of 2 modifiers before the noun that is referring to....
I think "that" should be replaced by "they", whose antecedent is "2 modifiers".

Still look forward to responses from Manhattan experts.....

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Well done PhuongD794, that's a neat explanation! Thanks for helping out. You're right that the two modifiers at the start of sentence C modify different things.

As for describing sentences as 'awkward', I encourage my students not to use this vague term. SC problems often involve compromise, since you're asked to find the best answer, not the ideal one. You should look for real errors, such as misplaced modifiers, sentences lacking verbs, wrong idioms, and so on, not just whether a sentence is awkward (which is pretty subjective anyway). I know that the OG explanations often use the phrase 'awkward and wordy', but the OG explanations aren't actually 'official' ones and often contain contradictions.

[NicholeL817]

C) Using accelerator mass spectrometry, an advanced technique that makes it possible to obtain radiocarbon dates from samples much smaller than those necessary for traditional radiocarbon dating, scholars have been able to determine impressively precise radiocarbon ages for samples of Glyptodon and Holmesina, extinct large mammals similar to armadillos, recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits.

Hi experts,

I have a trouble with NOUN MODIFIER in the correct option. Would you please shed a bit of light on whether ,recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits modifies Glyptodon and Holmesina or armadillos. It seemingly skips an appositive to modify Glyptodon and Holmesina according to the original sentence, but is it ok to do that with an ambiguity of describing armadillos?


Thanks in advance!

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

First you should be aware that this is not an official problem (you can see that it's from Veritas), although in my opinion it's a good problem.

The central issue of this SC problem is all the modifiers: our job is to pick the best answer choice, not an ideal one. So you should first take time to understand the significant errors in all the other options.

I would say answer C is a good example of the kind of compromises that we often need to make when using multiple modifiers. We know that the principle is that noun modifiers should be placed as close as possible to the noun that they're modifying. However, we can't always get things to touch the noun they modify, especially if there are multiple modifiers. First of all, use your logic to decide what "recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits" should be modifying. (Hint: it's not those strangely named animals.) Answer: it's modifying "samples", since they're the things that were recovered. Now, try to come up with a better way to squeeze the three modifiers: "of Glyptodon and Holmesina"; "extinct large mammals similar to armadillos"; and "recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits" into the sentence and I'll be impressed, because I can't.

[NicholeL817]

First you should be aware that this is not an official problem (you can see that it's from Veritas), although in my opinion it's a good problem.

The central issue of this SC problem is all the modifiers: our job is to pick the best answer choice, not an ideal one. So you should first take time to understand the significant errors in all the other options.

I would say answer C is a good example of the kind of compromises that we often need to make when using multiple modifiers. We know that the principle is that noun modifiers should be placed as close as possible to the noun that they're modifying. However, we can't always get things to touch the noun they modify, especially if there are multiple modifiers. First of all, use your logic to decide what "recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits" should be modifying. (Hint: it's not those strangely named animals.) Answer: it's modifying "samples", since they're the things that were recovered. Now, try to come up with a better way to squeeze the three modifiers: "of Glyptodon and Holmesina"; "extinct large mammals similar to armadillos"; and "recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits" into the sentence and I'll be impressed, because I can't.

Thank you for ur excellent explanation.

So right now we can conclude that when we deal with multiiple modifiers, a NOUN MOIDIFER could skip another NOUN MOIDIFER to work, even though the latter modifies a different NOUN.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

That's correct. Good to hear my explanation was effective.