SC: Unlike [u]the short flights of the shuttle and

[tim]

what do you think is "unlike the short flights"?

[chiuhanyi0215]

Hi,

I had no problem choosing D as the right answer.
However, I was wondering if the "which" in D is ok.
I thought "which" modifies only the noun precedes it, but I was not sure if "which" can modify two nouns together.
I know the answer to my question should be yes since this is the correct option. But I just want to confirm that this usage is ok.


Thanks in advance!

[messi10]

Yes it can. The way to check is the verb following which. In this case, it is 'were' and that makes it clear that it is referring to the the compound noun before the comma

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

I had no problem choosing D as the right answer.
However, I was wondering if the "which" in D is ok.
I thought "which" modifies only the noun precedes it, but I was not sure if "which" can modify two nouns together.
I know the answer to my question should be yes since this is the correct option. But I just want to confirm that this usage is ok.


Thanks in advance!

not only is this correct, but, in the case of "X and Y", it's pretty much the only way to do things here.
i.e., if you have "X and Y" followed by ", which...", then, at least in the formal variant of english that's tested by exams like this one, the "which..." should essentially always be talking about both x AND y.

a simpler way to think about this: "X and Y" is a single noun.
(note that says "SINGLE noun", not "singular". the majority of nouns of the form "x and y" are plural.)

[sunruiapply]

Here's what such a sentence would look like,

Unlike the short flights of the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, with sufficient power in fuel cells and batteries for their short flights , a permanently orbiting space station will have to generate its own electricity.

You are certainly correct that such a sentence would be incorrect. Remember that this sort of ambiguity is actually pretty rare on the GMAT, and usually presents as a split between noun phrase (e.g. those companies) and pronouns (e.g. them).

Can "comma +with" structure be used both as " adj modifier" and "adv modifier"?
All I know is that "comma+with" sturcture is only used as "adv modifier"-to modify the verb.
EX: Jim walked in the park, with smile on his face.
Can someone confirm on this point and give some examples for "with" structure used as "adj modifier"?

Your reasoning above is sound. Because you want adj modifiers next to the noun they modify, you wouldn't use a comma before the with. In adv modifiers, you need a comma to express that it's modifying something that's often times farther away in the sentence and helps to clarify what you are modifying.

The hat with style fell to the ground

vs

The hat fell to the ground, with style.
With style, the hat fell to the ground.
The hat, with style, fell to the ground.

hi ,jlucero
you say "Because you want adj modifiers next to the noun they modify, you wouldn't use a comma before the with."
I have a doubt, if the noun modifier is unnecessary, we can use comma to seperate it from the modified noun.
for example
THAT girl, with a long hair, is my sister

in choice b, I think "with+..." is also an unnecessary modifier for space and shuttles, so "with+..." can be noun modifier.
thus choice b is wrong because of the ambiguity of the "with" structure.

do I reason right? hope for your reply

[jnelson0612]

Hi sunruiapply,

Not quite. The problem is that "with" can introduce either a noun or an adverbial modifier. Let me give you some examples:
"The girl with long hair is my sister."
Here I am using "with" as a noun modifier--"with long hair" is describing "the girl".

I looked out my window and saw my cat stalking a bird, with tail waving and whiskers twitching.
Here the "with tail waving and whiskers twitching" is describing the "cat stalking". It is modifying a subject and verb (clause), so it is an adverbial modifier.

If I use "with" to introduce a noun modifier I do not use a comma before it so that it is "touching" the noun it modifies; if I use "with" as an adverbial modifier I do use a comma before it.

[crusade]

Hi,

What exactly is wrong with A?

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

What exactly is wrong with A?

Thanks

the core structure of the sentence formed with (a) is
Unlike the short flights ..., a permanently orbiting space station will have to generate its own electricity.

this comparison is not logical; it's not "short flights vs. space station".
"space station" is not underlined, so you need to figure out what is being compared to the space station. in context, it should be clear that the other half of the comparison has to be the shuttle (and/or other spacecraft).

you should be drawn to this like a magnet, by the way -- you should notice right away that it's an issue.
first, there's "unlike", which should automatically trigger the "Hey, comparison!" thought process in your head.
second, there's a clear split between things in the comparison at the beginning of the answer choices.

[rte.sushil]

three question on the above questions

1.) Why not flights of space and space craft can be compared?
Flight is noun , Orbit is noun. Unlike compares noun vs noun.

Even logical: i felt, flights are carrying electricity as compared to electricity in space has to be generated automatically

2.) Noun , which --> this which modifies noun. As in example: which is with spacecraft ? how about shuttle? So does it mean A and B, which ; can also represent A and B both? or depends on meaning?

3.) Essential needs? is it redundant? this is similarly as basic needs, advanced needs.

4.) Similar to 3, w.r.t above question, sufficient enough is redundant? For example: less enough, more enough, similarly sufficient enough (enough which is not more not less but that much enough how much it is required)

Although these questions may sound illogical to few people. But i hope some people may have these questions too.

Thanks!!

[RonPurewal]

1.) Why not flights of space and space craft can be compared?
Flight is noun , Orbit is noun. Unlike compares noun vs noun.

The noun "orbit" does not appear in this sentence.

2.) Noun , which --> this which modifies noun. As in example: which is with spacecraft ? how about shuttle? So does it mean A and B, which ; can also represent A and B both? or depends on meaning?

Normally both.

If "which" were only intended to describe thing B, this construction would be dangerous to use, because of the potential ambiguity. If it were completely obvious that "which" only referred to thing B, then the construction would probably be OK"”but it would still be better to write an unambiguous construction, e.g., B, which xxxxxxx, and A.

[RonPurewal]

3.) Essential needs? is it redundant? this is similarly as basic needs, advanced needs.

It appears you've posted this question on the wrong thread. Neither of these words appears anywhere in this problem.

4.) Similar to 3, w.r.t above question, sufficient enough is redundant? For example: less enough, more enough, similarly sufficient enough (enough which is not more not less but that much enough how much it is required)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking here.

Yes, "sufficient enough" is redundant. This point has already been addressed in the thread.

"Less enough" and "more enough" are wrong. (Something could decrease enough to achieve some result, or could increase enough to have some effect, but "more enough" and "less enough" are nonsense.)

[Suapplle]

HI, instructors, I understand why choice B is wrong, but I have a question about the usage of "comma+with" here.
In choice B , "with sufficient enough power in fuel cells ..." modify the preceding noun "the shuttle and earlier spacecraft" or the following main sentence "a permanently orbiting space station will have to..."?
Please clarify, thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

HI, instructors, I understand why choice B is wrong, but I have a question about the usage of "comma+with" here.
In choice B , "with sufficient enough power in fuel cells ..." modify the preceding noun "the shuttle and earlier spacecraft" or the following main sentence "a permanently orbiting space station will have to..."?
Please clarify, thanks in advance!

In context, it's pretty clear that the first of these is the intended reference.

If you're trying to make the point that this modifier is placed in a bad place"”in which it could theoretically describe either the stuff before it or the stuff after it"”then, yes, that's a good point.

[Suapplle]

HI, instructors, I understand why choice B is wrong, but I have a question about the usage of "comma+with" here.
In choice B , "with sufficient enough power in fuel cells ..." modify the preceding noun "the shuttle and earlier spacecraft" or the following main sentence "a permanently orbiting space station will have to..."?
Please clarify, thanks in advance!

In context, it's pretty clear that the first of these is the intended reference.

If you're trying to make the point that this modifier is placed in a bad place"”in which it could theoretically describe either the stuff before it or the stuff after it"”then, yes, that's a good point.

Thank you,Ron~

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.