SC:is descended or has descended ?

[jessie-cn2007]

Thank you Ron. Your explanation is the best~

[RonPurewal]

Thank you Ron. Your explanation is the best~

glad it helps

[sudaif]

Ron:
What is there was an answer choice that read:
"to suggest that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved"

Wouldn't that be correct, since "descending" happened before the evolution of the trunk?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Ron:
What is there was an answer choice that read:
"to suggest that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved"

Wouldn't that be correct, since "descending" happened before the evolution of the trunk?

Thanks!

nope. that would still be incorrect, since the usage of "descend" in the active voice -- in a tense -- doesn't signify evolutionary ancestry.

did you read the previous posts in this thread? if not, please go back and read them; this concept has already been explained.
start here:
post26886.html#p26886

[pradeepchandy]

I chose A , because in E It looked like scientists found the evidence with the purpose of suggesting something

if they did not have the purpose , they would not have found the evidence

A seemed correct because evidence drove the finding

Is my reasoning correct?

[RonPurewal]

I chose A , because in E It looked like scientists found the evidence with the purpose of suggesting something

if they did not have the purpose , they would not have found the evidence

A seemed correct because evidence drove the finding

Is my reasoning correct?

your reasoning is not correct, since the official answer to the problem is (e).

--

did you read the thread?
post33647.html#p33647

[vjsharma25]

Hi Ron,
First-sorry to open an old thread that already contains lots of discussion points.
Actually i thought on the same line as "pradeepchandy" had.
I have also read the explanation provided by you that both the forms of "evidence that suggests" and "evidence to suggest" are right and not the basis of elimination of an answer choice. But because in the span of three words there were two "that" we can eliminate the answer (A).
I am not questioning the official answer but wants to understand that if there are not two "that" in the first choice,i can't rephrase the sentence though,would (A) be a better choice than (E)?

[RonPurewal]

I am not questioning the official answer but wants to understand that if there are not two "that" in the first choice,i can't rephrase the sentence though,would (A) be a better choice than (E)?

i don't understand -- if you "can't rephrase the sentence", then there will still be two that's in that version.

in any case, all three of the following are legitimate:
evidence to suggest...
evidence that suggests...
evidence suggesting...

you will never have to choose between two choices that are fully correct; if you see 2 legitimate versions of some idiom, then something will be wrong elsewhere in one of the choices.

[manassingh]

While answering this question i narrowed down to A vs E and picked A, which is wrong.

now when i compare A and E, i see one more difference. i.e use of comma before and

A. that suggests that the elephant is 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

What is the use of comma in this case ? Basically when should we use command and when not use a comma ?

Thanks in advance.

[tim]

without the comma, the "and" sets up parallelism that is used properly in the correct answer. the comma in A sets up what follows as an independent clause, which is inappropriate in this case. in general, an "and" without a comma indicates parallelism, while the use of a comma will often separate independent clauses..

[manassingh]

Many thanks Tim.

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 ?

[RonPurewal]

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:
even-though-her-career-was-cut-short-t2603.html

* it's also possible to have a comma in front of AND within one independent clause -- although, if this happens, it is purely coincidental placement: i.e., the comma is going to belong to one structure while the AND belongs to a different structure.
for instance:
i ate a meal of quinoa, a protein-rich grain from south america, and chicken breast.
here you have a comma in front of AND, but notice that the comma belongs to the modifier (in orange) while the AND belongs to the parallel structure in blue. therefore, the overall structure isn't really "comma + AND" -- it's really the purely coincidental placement of a comma and an AND, from two different structures, next to each other.

[violetwind]

Hi, Ron,

I'm not sure if the "with its trunk...." part in C is OK, could you give some explanation on that?

Thank you!

[jnelson0612]

Hi, Ron,

I'm not sure if the "with its trunk...." part in C is OK, could you give some explanation on that?

Thank you!

First, here's a thread with a good post by Tim on the use of the word "with". Worth a look: usage-of-with-in-modifiers-t10197.html

Here, because there is no comma between aquatic animal and with its trunk I think that there could be confusion as to whose trunk is referred to--the elephant or the aquatic animal. I don't like the use of "with" here.

[violetwind]

Hi, Ron,

I'm not sure if the "with its trunk...." part in C is OK, could you give some explanation on that?

Thank you!

First, here's a thread with a good post by Tim on the use of the word "with". Worth a look: usage-of-with-in-modifiers-t10197.html

Here, because there is no comma between aquatic animal and with its trunk I think that there could be confusion as to whose trunk is referred to--the elephant or the aquatic animal. I don't like the use of "with" here.

Thank you~