SC:is descended or has descended ?

[RonPurewal]

nope. not that kind of modifier at all, actually.

here's a discussion of this kind of modifier (whose name i can't remember):
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p92305

[YingC357]

WOW Ron~~ you're so so so amazing!! You always make complicated ideas into easy-to-understand sentences.(and a sound "wow~" echos in my mind as I read the posts.)

I learn a lot from posts on this forum.

Thank you

nope. not that kind of modifier at all, actually.

here's a discussion of this kind of modifier (whose name i can't remember):
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p92305

[tim]

[RonPurewal]

You always make complicated ideas into easy-to-understand sentences.

well, basically, i can't really understand anything that a 10-year-old can't understand. so, you call it "making things simple", i call it "putting things into words that ron can actually understand."
(:

yes, i'm serious.

[Arjuna719]

A follow-up question - Can you please give an example on use of comma with "and" in an independent clause ? When will we use command follwed by and ?

well -- as tim stated, "comma + AND" is *normally* used to separate two independent clauses.

however, there are exceptions on both sides of this:
* it is possible to have (independent clause 1) + AND + (independent clause 2), without a comma, if that structure helps to clarify the logic of the sentence (and if clause 1 isn't terribly long).
for an official problem in which this happens, see here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/eve ... t2603.html

Hi Ron

I have trouble in understanding your above comment. In the example that you have cited viz:

Even though her career was cut short when she was in her prime and the fifteen recordings she made were disappointing artistically as well as technically, Olive Fremstad (1871-1951) has never been entirely forgotten by opera aficionados.

This sentence starts with 'even though' which means the part before the comma is DC and after comma it's IC.
Construction is DC,IC.

Can you please suggest some other example in which this type of construction is correct.

Thanks

[AsadA969]

Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
A. that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved
B. that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving
C. suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally evolving
D. to suggest that the elephant has descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved
E. to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved

In A, there is sign of tag (comma+and). So, it is going to be list of at least 3 things. But, there is nothing like list here. So, we can think that it is going to be independent clause because the sentence contains comma (,)+ 'and'. So, here we go to check is it independent clause or not. Hmm, that't the independent clause. So, what's the problem in A?

In B, there is sign of tag (comma+and). So, it is going to be list of at least 3 things. But, there is nothing like list here. So, we can think that it is going to be independent clause because the sentence contains comma (,)+ 'and'. So, here we go to check is it independent clause or not. No, it's not the independent clause-'evolving' is not a verb.
There is another problem in B. Here, 'evidence' suggests the elephant...>ridiculous.
also, 'elephant' plays double roles in this sentence. Sometimes, it treats as subject, sometimes object of the sentence!

In C, 'had' is used in a wrong way. There is no indication that which event is occurred first and which event is occurred last.

In D, the use of pronoun (its) is wrong here. I can't say: Shahin is a member of Manhattan GMAT forum and s/he asks question in this forum most of the times.
I should say: Shahin is a member of Manhattan GMAT forum and asks question in this forum most of the times.

In E,
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal (X) and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel (Y).
The sentence seems perfect to me.
Ron, did I make any mistake in my explanation? Also, can you help me by giving your explanation on BOLD sentence, please?
Thanks...

[RonPurewal]

the answer to "what's wrong with A?" is already elucidated in this discussion thread.

please read the entire thread. thank you.

[AsadA969]

Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
A. that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved
B. that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving
C. suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally evolving
D. to suggest that the elephant has descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved
E. to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved

Source: GMATprep OA E.

Hi Ron,
I'm just talking about E. Here, the correct sentence is:
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
This sentence works like------
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest
a) that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal (x)
and
b) that its trunk originally evolved (y)
So, the whole sentence looks like----
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest x and y. This sentence will also be fine if I say: Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest Mr. Robert and Mr. John.
This x and y should be equivalent to some activities (like tense or clause) to make the original sentence legitimate. We can't say that ''I have found evidence to suggest pen (x) and paper (y)''. We should write the activities of 'pen and paper'. So, the complete sentence will be something like below.
I have found evidence to suggest pen is used to write something on the answer script and paper is used for making answer script.
In the above sentence, there should have a conjunction like THAT to animate the part ''I have found evidence to suggest''. So, the correct sentence will be:
I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script and paper is used for making answer script.
In the above sentence, I suggested two things simultaneously. So, if I break down the whole sentence into several parts, then the sentence will be like following.
I have found evidence to suggest THAT
1) pen is used to write something on the answer script
and
2) paper is used for making answer script.
So, if I write the above sentence into separate parts, then it'll work perfectly. Here are the separate parts of the above sentence:
1/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script.
2/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT paper is used for making answer script.

Now, if I write the sentence like below, then it'll be...
I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script and THAT paper is used for making answer script.
If I breakdown this sentence, then it'll be...
I have found evidence to suggest THAT
a) pen is used to write something on the answer script
and
b) THAT paper is used for making answer script.
So, if I write the above sentence into separate parts, then it'll NOT work perfectly. Here are the separate parts of the above sentence:
1/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script.
--->OK
2/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT THAT paper is used for making answer script.
---->NOT OK
SAME thing is happened in the original sentence of Official Guide!
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
Now, if I break down this sentence into several parts it'll be....
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that
a) the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal
and
b) that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel
So, if I write the above sentence into separate parts, then it'll NOT work perfectly. Here are the separate parts of the above sentence:
1/ Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal.
----->OK
2/ Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
-----> NOT OK (doesn't make sense to me!)

Again,
if we break down the original sentence into several parts like below, then it'll be....
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest
a) that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal (X)
b) that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel (Y)
The whole sentence is something like below....
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest X and Y.
So, the above sentence is ''SENTENCE FRAGMENT''

Ron, it seems that I'm questioning the Official Sentence. I've some confusion in this problem. But, unfortunately, all the confusion is in the correct option, which is E. So, it'll be better for me if you eradicate my confusion.
Thank you Ron and good luck all the times!

Best Regards,
Asad...

[RonPurewal]

the correct sentence is
"evidence to suggest
...that x
and
...that y".
these are the words that actually appear in the sentence.

i can't follow your logic in that post, but... there's exactly one "that" in front of each element. there are not two "that"s in front of "y".

[AsadA969]

the correct sentence is
"evidence to suggest
...that x
and
...that y".
these are the words that actually appear in the sentence.

---hand signs THAT natives use and THAT appear in local rituals.
This sentence is something like official correct sentence (Australian embryologists have found----- THAT x and THAT y)
You said in your Thursdays with Ron study hall on 21st January, 2010 that the green part is okay for its nice parallelism. If the parallelism is okay that doesn’t mean that the whole sentence is OK. The whole sentence is OK or NOT OK it’s totally depends on the red part. If the red part is Independent clause (full sentence, which expresses a complete thought), then the whole sentence makes sense, but if the red part is subordinate clause (there is no main verb), then the whole sentence is nonsense. That means, if I can’t put any Independent clause in the red part, then the whole sentence will be sentence fragment. I mean the sentence will lost its main verb. Ron, can you help me to make the sentence legit by replacing the red part with subordinate clause (in which there is no main verb), please?
If you give me a complete sentence (adding the red part and green part) in which the red part will be replaced by ANY subordinate clause, it’ll be really appreciated.
Thank you and good luck...
Regards,
---Asad

[RonPurewal]

that's a completely different -- and unrelated -- construction.

in this new example, the "that ____" constructions are modifiers of a noun ("hand signs").

in the sentence at hand, the "that ____" constructions are not modifiers -- they're objects of "suggest".
i discussed more constructions like that one here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p47979

[FelixM566]

Instead of using "to suggest" or "that suggests" - which are both correct in this sentence - would it be permissible to use "suggesting that ..."?

Instead of saying:
(1) Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant...

Would it be ok to use the following construction:
(2) Australian embryologists have found evidence suggesting that the elephant...

Putting a present participle right after the noun it is supposed to modify is simply the reduced version of a relative clause I believe... I just want to clarify that option (c) starts off correctly.

Thanks!
Steve

yeah, "suggesting" should be fine in this case.

RON,sorry for bumping such an old thread

I not quite sure about the replacement here between suggesting and that suggests

according to the usage of VING stated in the manhattan SC 4th edition

the "ving" adopts it tense from the main verb of the sentence，in this case--- have found

it seems that suggesting should be replace by have suggested rather than suggests


also，I notice that the adoption of tense is merely explained by sentence using simple tense（there are no examples given regarding the scenario that ving is used in sentence with perfect tense）


so，what"˜s wrong with my thinking ？ please further clarify， thx！

Hi, I read through each one of the messages on this thread and am unable to find the answer to this. Let me see whether I can clarify what is asked.

Ron mentioned earlier that answer form 'suggesting' in C is acceptable, barring 'had descended', but we eliminated answer choice B because has suggested is in its present perfect form. Since a verb-ing (present participle) takes the same tense as the clause that precedes it (in this case 'have found a present perfect), then how can Ron claim that the usage of 'suggesting' be acceptable? Could one of the experts comment on this please?

Thanks!

[StaceyKoprince]

I don't actually have a problem with "suggesting" in choice (C).

I think the issue here is the "had descended" tense (that action didn't happen before some other past activity or time marker that is also in the sentence) and the ambiguity of the "with" modifier.

This would be ok:
She watched the child running in the field with his kite flying behind him.

But the elephant sentence isn't saying that the trunk evolved "with" the aquatic animal, the way the kite flew / moved around the field with the child. Rather, it's trying to say that the fact that the trunk was originally a kind of snorkel is how that aquatic animal eventually evolved into the elephant. (Well, it's one aspect of how that happened—the trunk wasn't the only thing that turned this animal into the eventual elephant!)