Simply because they are genetically engineered does not make

[RonPurewal]

B violates a little known thing that the GMAT writers follow though it is not an official grammar rule - more a choice. It introduces a subject pronoun before the noun itself. Subject pronouns and nouns can be directly interchanged; as such, the test writers prefer to use the noun first and then later use a subject pronoun (if necessary). Note that I am specifically limiting this to subject pronouns, not object or possessive pronouns. Most people read a subject-pronoun-first situation as "awkward" though they don't really know why.

Is this the only reason to eliminate B ? Can we take subject-pronoun-first as a valid rule ALWAYS in GMAT ?

what stacey is saying here is all true, but there is a much easier way to eliminate that choice: it tries to use a clause starting with "because" as a subject. that is NEVER allowed.

i.e., you can't say "because SUBJECT VERB ... is ...". this sentence is trying to use "(simply) because it is genetically engineered" as a subject.
in fact, you cannot use ANY clause starting with a conjunction (either a coordinating or subordinating conjunction -- look these up if you need to refresh yourself on what they are) as a subject. ever.

[manish1sinha]

Is it true that "more likely" has to be followed by "to"?
Thanks in advance.

not necessarily.
for instance, you could be talking about the probability of some event. in that case, you can just say that event x is likely, but event y is even more likely. or something along those lines. in the probability construction, you can also pair "likely" with "that", as in it is more likely that x will occur.

if you're talking about what someone or something is likely to do, though, you must use "likely TO". there may be other words in the way as "noise" - for instance, bob is more likely than gary to pass the test - but "likely to" is the basis of the construction.

Hi Ron
Please explain whether "more likely" can be used without "than" or not.

You explained here:http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post29754.html

"you don't say 'it is X times MORE likely that A will happen, RATHER THAN B'; 'more' is supposed to go with 'THAN', and is incompatible with 'rather than'. the proper construction would be 'it is X times more likely that A will happen than that B will happen.' "

I am confused ...plz help

[tim]

Ron made it very clear: "more likely" requires "than"..

[vicksikand]

The only way is ---"Being" used as Modifier? am I correct?

Please comment on the correct usage os Being.

Saurabh Malpani

nope. if 'being' were a modifier, then it wouldn't make sense in its current location, as you'll soon see:

this sentence has the following form: X does not make...
therefore, whatever goes in the 'x' slot has to be, or function as, a noun. this rules out a-b immediately (these are subordinate clauses, which can't function as nouns).

in choices c-d-e, the 'being' is a gerund (the -ing form that functions as a noun, as in the sentence taking overdoses of vitamins isn't good for your health). since gerunds function as nouns, that structure is permissible.

Getting back to the question - simply is an adverb: simply being genetically engineered.... - simply cant modify being (an adverb cant modify a noun(or a Gerund I believe)).

[vicksikand]

B violates a little known thing that the GMAT writers follow though it is not an official grammar rule - more a choice. It introduces a subject pronoun before the noun itself. Subject pronouns and nouns can be directly interchanged; as such, the test writers prefer to use the noun first and then later use a subject pronoun (if necessary). Note that I am specifically limiting this to subject pronouns, not object or possessive pronouns. Most people read a subject-pronoun-first situation as "awkward" though they don't really know why.

Is this the only reason to eliminate B ? Can we take subject-pronoun-first as a valid rule ALWAYS in GMAT ?

what stacey is saying here is all true, but there is a much easier way to eliminate that choice: it tries to use a clause starting with "because" as a subject. that is NEVER allowed.

i.e., you can't say "because SUBJECT VERB ... is ...". this sentence is trying to use "(simply) because it is genetically engineered" as a subject.
in fact, you cannot use ANY clause starting with a conjunction (either a coordinating or subordinating conjunction -- look these up if you need to refresh yourself on what they are) as a subject. ever.

I tend to differ on the last part of what Ron said.
Dependent clauses can be used as subjects or objects.
Dependent clauses that serve as subjects or objects are called noun clauses (or nominal clauses). They are introduced by if, that or a wh- word such as why, what or when.

A dependent clause(adverbial clause) includes a subordinating conjunction( such as although or because), which indicates how the dependent and independent clause are related(in expressing cause and effect, for example).

Examples:
Because the wind had blown down power lines, the whole city was without electricity for several hours.

Because it was hot, we went swimming .

An adverb clause may precede or follow an independent clause.
Punctuation: A "," is used if the adverbial clause comes first.

A dependent clause cannot stand alone by itself, it needs to be tacked onto an independent clause.

DC,IC is a perfectly valid construction in standard English usage.

[tim]

Sorry, Vicks. If you want to prove Ron wrong you’re going to have to come up with an example where a clause starting with a conjunction is actually used as a subject. You haven’t done that here. Please understand also that any phrase used as a subject is by definition not a dependent clause, so dependent clauses are not where you should be looking..

[ritalun]

Ron's answer helps me a lot ,thanks.

[tim]

Glad to hear it..

[vicksikand]

Sorry, Vicks. If you want to prove Ron wrong you’re going to have to come up with an example where a clause starting with a conjunction is actually used as a subject. You haven’t done that here. Please understand also that any phrase used as a subject is by definition not a dependent clause, so dependent clauses are not where you should be looking..

Relative pronouns, eventhough they introduce dependent clauses just as subordinating conjunctions do, do not count as subordinators(subordinating conjunctions). Thats the concept I messed up!
The relative pronouns below begin a noun clause(dependent clause) that serves as a subject. I went back referenced a couple of sources and one of them talked about "my-error in reasoning".

Whoever she is is not important.

Whatever is in the box is a mystery.

Who loves Tim is a secret.

Whatever you do is your business.

Any comments?

[tim]

nope. glad to see you went back to check on what you might have missed..

[thanghnvn]

pls, help
there are 2 correct patterns:

make it likely that ( a clause). Inhere, "it" is fake object which refers to no noun

make something likely to do

both patterns are correct and in the question, C shows the first pattern and D shows the second pattern.

This means both C and D are correct.

We choose D because it is more concise. Is it right?

[RonPurewal]

no.
choice (c) says that "plants" (plural) can become "an invasive or persistent weed" (singular). since multiple plants can't become one weed, that's incorrect.

this is not the sort of thing that you have to notice in every single sentence in the world -- but the explicit split between a singular form ("plant") and a plural form ("plants") should call your attention to this error.

[thanghnvn]

Manhantan experts, members, pls, help

We have only 3 correct patterns. Is my thinking right?

make it likely (for somebody) to do something. "it" is fake pronoun which dose not refer to any noun.

make it likely that something happens. "it" is fake pronoun.

make something likely to happen.

we do not have

//make something likely that the thing is good.//

[RonPurewal]

Manhantan experts, members, pls, help

We have only 3 correct patterns. Is my thinking right?

make it likely (for somebody) to do something. "it" is fake pronoun which dose not refer to any noun.

make it likely that something happens. "it" is fake pronoun.

make something likely to happen.

these three patterns are correct, but there are other ways in which the word likely can be used. for instance, you can also write ...to make this event likely, or this event is likely.

just as a helpful hint -- no one is really going to be able to come up with all of the particular uses of some word, in some neat list -- that's not how the human brain works. (as an illustration of why not, imagine if i ask you "what are all of the things you can do with a pencil?" you would definitely be able to come up with a list of things, but you definitely wouldn't be able to list everything that someone can do with a pencil.)

We do not have

//make something likely that the thing is good.//

yes, that's incorrect.

[lakshay]

what stacey is saying here is all true, but there is a much easier way to eliminate that choice: it tries to use a clause starting with "because" as a subject. that is NEVER allowed.

i.e., you can't say "because SUBJECT VERB ... is ...". this sentence is trying to use "(simply) because it is genetically engineered" as a subject.
in fact, you cannot use ANY clause starting with a conjunction (either a coordinating or subordinating conjunction -- look these up if you need to refresh yourself on what they are) as a subject. ever.

Ron, this is plain awesome. :)