SC:is descended or has descended ?

[agarwalmanoj2000]

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

"Evidence" is singular so it should take suggests not suggest and I excluded option A, D and E and landed with wrong answer.

Please advise, why it is wrong to exclude based on suggests and suggest?

[tim]

if you like "suggests", you shouldn't have gotten rid of A. D and E are not relevant to a subject-verb agreement analysis, because they use the infinitive "to suggest"..

[thanghnvn]

" be descended from sb" is idiom which is shown in my English-Vietnamese dictionary. NO DISCUSSION. you are more than satisfied already.

I wish to discuss B and C. PLESASE, HELP.

in C, " aquatic animal with trunks..." is wrong because it should be that the elephan has trunk, not aquatic animal.

in B, why " , its trunk originally involving..." is wrong.

absolut phrase provides context for main clause. The context of the action that the elephant is descended is not " its trunk involving" . That is why B is wrong.

Am I correct?, pls, help

[RonPurewal]

PLESASE, HELP.

please note that this sort of entreaty, in all capital letters, will not make us answer posts sooner -- we answer all posts in order from oldest to newest.

in C, " aquatic animal with trunks..." is wrong because it should be that the elephan has trunk, not aquatic animal.

this is accurate.

in B, why " , its trunk originally involving..." is wrong.

i don't think the problem is with that phrase.
two other elements of that answer choice are problematic:
* "has suggested" --> this is the present perfect, which is used to look back on past events that have some sort of relation to the present situation. so, "has suggested" would signify that, at some point in the (probably recent) past, this evidence has suggested what is stated here -- but that it doesn't suggest those notions anymore.
* "descended" (without "is") --> if you mean to state an evolutionary relationship, you should use "is descended". "descended", used alone, signifies literal downward motion.

[RonPurewal]

PLESASE, HELP.

please note that this sort of entreaty, in all capital letters, will not make us answer posts sooner -- we answer all posts in order from oldest to newest.

in C, " aquatic animal with trunks..." is wrong because it should be that the elephan has trunk, not aquatic animal.

this is accurate.

in B, why " , its trunk originally involving..." is wrong.

i don't think the problem is with that phrase.
two other elements of that answer choice are problematic:
* "has suggested" --> this is the present perfect, which is used to look back on past events that have some sort of relation to the present situation. so, "has suggested" would signify that, at some point in the (probably recent) past, this evidence has suggested what is stated here -- but that it doesn't suggest those notions anymore.
* "descended" (without "is") --> if you mean to state an evolutionary relationship, you should use "is descended". "descended", used alone, signifies literal downward motion.

[davetzulin]

i don't think the problem is with that phrase.
two other elements of that answer choice are problematic:
* "has suggested" --> this is the present perfect, which is used to look back on past events that have some sort of relation to the present situation. so, "has suggested" would signify that, at some point in the (probably recent) past, this evidence has suggested what is stated here -- but that it doesn't suggest those notions anymore.
* "descended" (without "is") --> if you mean to state an evolutionary relationship, you should use "is descended". "descended", used alone, signifies literal downward motion.

the present perfect always confuses me.

when i read the mgmat verb tense mood guide it mentions that present perfect is used when the "action" or its "effect" lasts until now or even into the future.

In your example of "evidence has suggested", you mention the evidence recently suggested these notions, but they don't suggest these notions anymore. shouldn't the notions (the effect) persist indefinitely? i never thought of present perfect as having a cut off time like past perfect.

The non-underlined part of the question says "australian embryologists have found evidence that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal ... etc"

if i used simple past and said "embryologists find evidence" it changes the meaning. present perfect works well there. Is there some nuance when you have present perfect then another that-clause in present perfect? almost like the first present perfect is giving context for the second?

thank you

[RonPurewal]

dave --

first, you write like a native speaker of english. so:
* if you are, in fact, not a native speaker of english, then you deserve congratulations for learning to write so well.
* if you are a native speaker of english, then go ahead and use your ear for verb tenses (but don't dare use it for pronouns or modifiers!). in general, verb tenses are one of the very few areas of the language in which the spoken and written forms are largely the same.

when i read the mgmat verb tense mood guide it mentions that present perfect is used when the "action" or its "effect" lasts until now or even into the future.

well, yeah. verb tenses are very subtle and complicated -- so, when you write a book, you simply can't mention everything about them. you have to strike some sort of balance between simplicity and accuracy; if we wrote sixty pages about the present perfect, then the end result would simply be that everybody would wind up confused.

also note that verb tenses are a minor topic on this test. they aren't tested very frequently in the first place -- and, when they are, they are usually tested along with areas that are more pervasive (parallelism, pronouns, modifiers, etc.) so, if they confuse you, the good news is that they don't matter as much as those topics do.

In your example of "evidence has suggested", you mention the evidence recently suggested these notions, but they don't suggest these notions anymore. shouldn't the notions (the effect) persist indefinitely? i never thought of present perfect as having a cut off time like past perfect.

so, here's the deal. these are definitely not rules that i've memorized ahead of time; i'm just thinking about a ton of different examples.

if you are using the present perfect for point actions -- i.e., for things that happened at a definite time in the past and don't persist (although their effects may persist) -- then this is a non-issue in the first place, because those events occurred at one point and that's it. therefore, in the case of such events, the present perfect must refer to the impact of the event on the present situation.
for instance, if i say i have earned a graduate degree in chemistry, then this is obviously something that happened in the past; the use of the present perfect indicates that it is somehow relevant to the current situation.

on the other hand, if you are talking about states, conditions, titles, jobs, etc. -- i.e., things that persist over a period of time -- then there are two possible uses of the present perfect:
1/ (IF A SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME IS MENTIONED) continuing into the present. e.g.,
i have been self-employed for 18 years. (this means up until now; notice that "for 18 years" is a specific timeframe)
i have been lonely since she left (up until now; "since she left" is also a specific timeframe)
2/ (if no specific timeframe is mentioned) these things have been true in the past, but aren't anymore. e.g.,
i have been self-employed. (without the timeframe, this means i'm not self-employed anymore. if i were still self-employed, then i would either use a timeframe, like #1, or write "i am self-employed")
i have been lonely. (i don't feel this way anymore. if i do, then i have to use a timeframe, as in #1, or use the present -- "i am lonely.")

i will also note that writing a good chapter about verb tenses is extremely difficult, because ALL native speakers use verb tenses completely subconsciously. for instance, in any conversation between two native speakers of english, the above meanings will be instantly and accurately understood: any native speaker of english will understand, for instance, that "i've lived in florida" means i don't live there anymore, but "i've lived in florida for ten years" means i still live there. the frustrating thing is that 99.99% of those native speakers won't even begin to be able to explain why these things mean what they mean -- so, to even attempt writing such a text demands and exceptional level of language awareness that very few people have (and that native speakers don't need anyway, unless they happen to make their living teaching english).

if i used simple past and said "embryologists find evidence" it changes the meaning.

i'm confused here -- are you saying that "find" is past tense? (it's not; past tense would be "found".)

[davetzulin]

2/ (if no specific timeframe is mentioned) these things have been true in the past, but aren't anymore. e.g.,
i have been self-employed. (without the timeframe, this means i'm not self-employed anymore. if i were still self-employed, then i would either use a timeframe, like #1, or write "i am self-employed")
i have been lonely. (i don't feel this way anymore. if i do, then i have to use a timeframe, as in #1, or use the present -- "i am lonely.")

bingo, thanks that really nailed it. btw I am a native speaker, and you're right, i seem to subconsciously understand that when someone says "i've lived in florida" [without a time period] that they aren't living there anymore.

so can I assume that
"i lived in florida" vs. "i've lived in florida" are on the surface similar because they are point actions that are over, but using present perfect hints that the effects of living in florida, or the experience of living there is relevant to something in the conversation or the rest of the sentence?

if i used simple past and said "embryologists find evidence" it changes the meaning.

i'm confused here -- are you saying that "find" is past tense? (it's not; past tense would be "found".)

yes, thanks for pointing that out. I did mean the simple past "found". The previous example with simple past vs. present perfect is the same question.

[RonPurewal]

bingo, thanks that really nailed it. btw I am a native speaker, and you're right, i seem to subconsciously understand that when someone says "i've lived in florida" [without a time period] that they aren't living there anymore.

i figured as much.
if you are a native speaker, here's what you should do about verb tenses:
* don't study them
* sound them out with your mental "ear"

note that this would be absolutely horrible advice for just about any other aspect of a sentence. however, verb tenses are one of the (very, very few) things that work almost exactly the same way in the written language as in the spoken language.

so can I assume that
"i lived in florida" vs. "i've lived in florida" are on the surface similar because they are point actions that are over, but using present perfect hints that the effects of living in florida, or the experience of living there is relevant to something in the conversation or the rest of the sentence?

yes.

[morymory_1983]

Hi Ron

Why in E we don't see a subjunctive format for suggest??I mean why here to Suggest that the elephant be descended.... is not in any choice and choice E is correct?

[HSI5858]

Hi Ron

In answer E, does the answer still work if the second "that" is removed?

e) to suggest that the elephant is descended from
an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally
evolved

e) to suggest that the elephant is descended from
an aquatic animal and (-that) its trunk originally
evolved

You and Tim stated that "and without comma" requires parallelism. If e is without a second "that", then would the below sentence be parallel?
to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron

In answer E, does the answer still work if the second "that" is removed?

e) to suggest that the elephant is descended from
an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally
evolved

e) to suggest that the elephant is descended from
an aquatic animal and (-that) its trunk originally
evolved

You and Tim stated that "and without comma" requires parallelism. If e is without a second "that", then would the below sentence be parallel?
to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved

that would still technically be parallel, but it would be extremely hard to read and understand (hence the second "that").
you shouldn't see that kind of "correct but ugly" option on the official test.

[deepak0201]

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
----------------------------------------------------------

I selected A because 'evidence' is singular so 'suggests' should be used and rejected all the other choices. Is this reasoning wrong.

[arnabgangully]

After so much discussion still none answered why A is wrong

Please refrain from writing irrelevent stuff

[tim]

Deepak, yes your reasoning is incorrect because A is not the correct answer. Read the thread..

Arnab, i already explained why A is wrong. Read the thread..