Simply because they are genetically engineered does not make

[tim]

pretty much everything Ron posts is plain awesome! :)

[davetzulin]

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..

Tim,

not trying to prove Ron wrong here, just wanted to ask about this example

"that she was thirty years old, we couldn't believe"
"that she was thirty years old, was unbelievable"
"that you arrived on time today was a surprise to everyone"

so in the first case the that-clause seems to be acting as the object of "believe". i assume this is ok

in the second one, the that-clause is acting as the subject. In another thread Ron mentioned that the second one is OK because it is like saying "the fact that". But "that" is a subordinating conjunction, and that whole that clause is acting as a subject. this seems a bit contrary to what was mentioned by Ron earlier in the thread.

the third is Ron's actual example from another thread, so this must be right.

[tim]

i don't think your first example would work on the GMAT, because i've only ever seen such subordinate clauses placed after the thing they're modifying. your second example would be fine if it weren't for the comma. and of course the third example is indeed correct. you are right about the "that" being a subordinating pronoun, but in examples 2 and 3 the "that" is subordinate to the understood but omitted phrase "the fact"..

[davetzulin]

i don't think your first example would work on the GMAT, because i've only ever seen such subordinate clauses placed after the thing they're modifying. your second example would be fine if it weren't for the comma. and of course the third example is indeed correct. you are right about the "that" being a subordinating pronoun, but in examples 2 and 3 the "that" is subordinate to the understood but omitted phrase "the fact"..

ahhh! i see, great explanation.

so to summarize, since this is not covered in the guide, "the fact that" is not wordy or redundant when used to create a clause acting as a subject

the fact that he fought in iraq made him intimidating
that he fought in Iraq made him intimidating

i assume both of these are OK and the first is not necessarily more wordy than the second

the below, however, I would eliminate since the first sub-clause is not acting as a subject.

after the fact that he went home, he took a nap
after he went home, he took a nap <--better

[RonPurewal]

after the fact that he went home, he took a nap
after he went home, he took a nap <--better

the first of these is incorrect.
"the fact that..." is not an actual event -- it's just the fact that something happened, not the actual thing that happened -- so it makes no sense to construct a timeline around it. i.e., something can't "happen after" or "happen before" a fact, since facts aren't things that happen.

[jp.jprasanna]

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.

Hi apart from the error mentioned above , in C, are there any other errors!?
Cheers

[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.

Hi apart from the error mentioned above , in C, are there any other errors!?
Cheers

well, "being genetically engineered" is talking about a plant, so look at the following:
(c)
being genetically engineered does not make it any more likely... (worse)
(d)
being genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely... (better)

i don't think this is a black-and-white issue of right and wrong, but, it a side-by-side comparison, (d) is definitely superior to (c).

--

just wondering, why do all of your questions end with "!?" instead of just a question mark?

[shankar245]

Hi Ron,

I'm sorry if this is already noted but can we eliminate A as "it" does not have proper antecedent.
"C" also has similar issue but since it falls under the exceptions, it + that+ Independant clause .it is correct.

Is this legitimate.?

Thanks

[jp.jprasanna]

Hi Ron,

I'm sorry if this is already noted but can we eliminate A as "it" does not have proper antecedent.
"C" also has similar issue but since it falls under the exceptions, it + that+ Independant clause .it is correct.

Is this legitimate.?

Thanks

I think this is very busy season for Manhattan Instructors.....

And NO!

THE ONLY PRONOUNS ON THE GMAT THAT DON'T HAVE TO STAND FOR NOUNS:
It + description + that + complete sentence (independent clause)
It + description + to + verb (infinitive)
It + (TO BE verb) + NOUN + that/who + verb

So the "it" in Option A belongs to the 2nd of these category posted above. "It" is not really an issues here.

A has no clause. the idiom is Because X , Y here Y has to be a clause but in option A we have another modifier so BYE BYE A!

[jlucero]

Hi Ron,

I'm sorry if this is already noted but can we eliminate A as "it" does not have proper antecedent.
"C" also has similar issue but since it falls under the exceptions, it + that+ Independant clause .it is correct.

Is this legitimate.?

Thanks

I think this is very busy season for Manhattan Instructors.....

And NO!

THE ONLY PRONOUNS ON THE GMAT THAT DON'T HAVE TO STAND FOR NOUNS:
It + description + that + complete sentence (independent clause)
It + description + to + verb (infinitive)
It + (TO BE verb) + NOUN + that/who + verb

So the "it" in Option A belongs to the 2nd of these category posted above. "It" is not really an issues here.

A has no clause. the idiom is Because X , Y here Y has to be a clause but in option A we have another modifier so BYE BYE A!

Well explained. "It" is one of those pronouns that can be used pretty ambiguously. However, (B) & (E) do require "it" to have a singular antecedent "plant"; something they both do. The best way to check if it needs to agree with the antecedent is to plug the antecedent into the sentence and see if it makes sense:

(A)Simply because they are genetically engineered does not make it any more likely for plants to

Plug in "plants" for the pronouns "they" and "it". Plants make sense for the pronoun "they", but not for "it". This is because "it" is a pronoun that refers to the idea of "because the plants are genetically engineered"

(B)Simply because it is genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely to

In this case "it" is easily replaced by the word "plant" so the pronoun and antecedent need to match up.

[mcmebk]

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

Hi Ron

In Manhattan SC guide, it says "always use than with a comparative form", but in this case "that" is found nowhere, could you please explain when it is not needed to be present?

Much thanks

[mcmebk]

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

Hi Ron

In Manhattan SC guide, it says "always use than with a comparative form", but in this case "that" is found nowhere, could you please explain when it is not needed to be present?

Much thanks

[RonPurewal]

In Manhattan SC guide, it says "always use than with a comparative form", but in this case "that" is found nowhere, could you please explain when it is not needed to be present?

Much thanks

i'm not following the second part here -- why would we have to use "that"?

in any case, if the comparison is explicit and contained within the same clause, then, yes, you should use "than". (unless idiomatic usage demands something else; for instance, you would have to write "twice as much AS", not "twice as much THAN".)
e.g.,
This shoe was produced two seasons earlier than that one.

On the other hand, if the comparison is made with something mentioned earlier -- i.e., not in the same clause anymore -- and is thus implicit, then there's no need for "than"; in fact, you can't use "than" in that case, because there's nothing to put after it.
e.g.,
The shoes shown here were all produced for the Spring/Summer 2012 season, but you're looking for a model that was produced two seasons earlier.
i.e., the meaning here is "2 seasons earlier than SS 2012", but SS 2012 is in the previous clause so you don't have to use "than".

[HanzZ]

I've seen this one before - this is the only official question in 10 years that I have seen use "being" correctly. So it is still generally a good rule to avoid being, but use it more as a tiebreak - look for other stuff first.

So you knew to get rid of A and C. 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.

And just study D from the point of view of: this is one of the only ways to use "being" correctly, so familiarize yourself with it.

Hello Stacey,

Could you please give two examples seperately for using an objective pronounc and possessive pronouns before nouns, just for comparison purposes?

Thanks a lot!

[RonPurewal]

(B) is also wrong for a much more tangible reason: it doesn't have a subject. Same problem with (A).

Those choices are trying to use "Simply because xxxxx" as a subject. Nope.

Basically, there are 3 things in the world that can be subjects of a verb:
1/ nouns,
2/ pronouns, and
3/ clauses with "that" in front of them.

I'll assume #1 and #2 are self-explanatory.
An example of #3 is "That you were on time was a surprise to everyone". In that sentence, the entire italicized thing is the subject.