The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built

[danli311]

Dear GMAT experts,

While reading the previous posts, I came across a question and would like to ask for help !

With regarding to appostives, I cannot distinguish the differences in meaning for the sentences below. I thought this may be a relevant place to ask this queston ... let me know if it is not allowed.

1. The HR director mentioned the employee retention, one of the goals the corporation is pursuing, in her letter.
2. The HR director mentioned the employee retention in her letter,one of the goals pursued by the corporation.

My question: 'one of the goals' blocked by commas on both sides seems to be the appositive part in 1 and modifies employee retention in a very close style. However, sentence 2 seems okay to me in the meaning, but is farther away from 'employee retention' ,does this mean sentence 2 is ambiguous or inappropriate??

Thanks so much for your time and attention!

[RonPurewal]

#2 is wrong, because it suggests that "her letter" is one of the organization's goals.
This kind of modifier should be adjacent to whatever it is describing. Like "which".

[danli311]

#2 is wrong, because it suggests that "her letter" is one of the organization's goals.
This kind of modifier should be adjacent to whatever it is describing. Like "which".

Thank you for your instant reply!!!

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[manhhiep2509]

you can't say 'each that had...' (can't follow 'each' with a relative pronoun - if you're going to use a relative pronoun, it has to come directly after the thing it's trying to modify)

Hello Ron.

Your above explanation seems to indicate C is wrong because of grammatical issue, not only because of meaning issue.

Is the use of 'each" wrong because "each" is a pronoun and a pronoun cannot be used in an appositive structure, as the choice C does?

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

I'm lost with the grammar terms ("appositive", etc.) I also don't remember what a "relative pronoun" is; I almost certainly used Google before writing that post.

Aaaaaanyway ...
There's also an issue of meaning: "each that had ___" implies that we're not talking about all the rooms.

E.g.,
You should throw away each page that has markings and keep each that is still blank. (You don't need to say "page" again.)

Note the use of "each that is still blank" here. Like all other "...that is ___" modifiers, this one narrows down the group of things we're talking about. If I just wrote "each", that would be all the pages. But each that is still blank is only a subset of the pages.

Also, if you don't intend to narrow anything down -- i.e., if you are actually talking about everyone/everything in some sentence -- then this kind of modifier is inappropriate. For instance, at a party where all guests are over 20 years old, a reference to guests who are over 20 years old would be illogical.
In other words, a reference to things that xxxx only makes sense if there also exist things that don't xxxx.

So, each that had been connected seems to suggest that there were even more buildings -- some of which weren't connected -- but that we're only talking about the ones that were connected.

[manhhiep2509]

I'm lost with the grammar terms ("appositive", etc.) I also don't remember what a "relative pronoun" is; I almost certainly used Google before writing that post.

Aaaaaanyway ...
There's also an issue of meaning: "each that had ___" implies that we're not talking about all the rooms.

E.g.,
You should throw away each page that has markings and keep each that is still blank. (You don't need to say "page" again.)

Note the use of "each that is still blank" here. Like all other "...that is ___" modifiers, this one narrows down the group of things we're talking about. If I just wrote "each", that would be all the pages. But each that is still blank is only a subset of the pages.

Also, if you don't intend to narrow anything down -- i.e., if you are actually talking about everyone/everything in some sentence -- then this kind of modifier is inappropriate. For instance, at a party where all guests are over 20 years old, a reference to guests who are over 20 years old would be illogical.
In other words, a reference to things that xxxx only makes sense if there also exist things that don't xxxx.

So, each that had been connected seems to suggest that there were even more buildings -- some of which weren't connected -- but that we're only talking about the ones that were connected.

Hello.

Can I interpret other modifiers in the same way I interpret "that" modifier, i.e. to narrow down a group of things a sentence mentions? Or the function is the exclusive function of "that" modifier?
I find that other modifiers, or at least prepositions, seem to have the same functions as that of "that" modifier. For example

The books of ABC are in the first shelf.
"of ABC" indicates that there are books of other authors in other shelves.

----

As I understand your explanation, it seems that if we want to mention features that all members in a group have in common, we cannot use modifiers that possess the above-discussed function, or at least "that" modifiers, can we?

---
Finally, is the use of "each" wrong because "each" is a pronoun and a pronoun cannot be used in an appositive structure, as the choice C does? (I post the question again because I did not see your above explanation mentioned the issue)

*To save you time, I wrote an example related to appositive structure.

John has bought a new car, a newest model of company ABC that costs XXXX dollars.

Thank you.

[thanghnvn]

[quote="rschunti"]The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, were connected by a complex regional system of roads.
A. with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, were
B. with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each,
C. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms, each that had been
D. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms and with each
E. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms each had been


we have this pattern in general grammar books

main clause+with+noun+noun modifier

"with+..." modifies the main clause, which is an adverbial showing reason or detail of main clause.

we also have following pattern

noun+noun modifer

the person, his arm nice, is my friend
" his arm nice" is purely adjectival which only modifies "the person". its name is appositive.

appositive can be a prepositional phrase.

the structures, each, of 50 rooms , are nice.

form 2 above patterns we can now know that B is our answer.

"of 600... each" only modifies "structures"

"connected...." modifies "structures" .

there are 2 noun modifiers and we can not let both of them touch the noun modified. this pattern happen alway in formal writen english. so, never alway lood for modidifer touching noun. we have to eliminate a modifier not touching noun only when there is a modifier touching noun. this situation is a preference,not a rule

do you agree with me? if you find my posting helpfull, pls say thanks

[thanghnvn]

Hi Ron,
In choice B, two modifiers are not connected by and. is that ok?
I was expecting something like '..of up to 600 rooms each and conneted...'
Can you please comment?
Thanks in advance,

nope, that would be incorrect.

the current form is the correct modifier, because it's modifying the 75 structures (of up to 600 rooms each).

if you added "and", then that would lock the following word, connected, into a parallel structure.
the problem is that "connected" is a past participle, and the only other word in the sentence that could be parallel to it is the past participle "built".

so, by adding "and", you'd be unwittingly creating the following parallel structure:

The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were
built on a spectacular scale with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, and
connected by a complex regional system of roads.

this is wrong, since it implies that the settlements themselves were connected by a system of roads. it's the structures that were thus connected.

it is possible that two noun modifier do not need "and" because they are at different level. gmat will not test this point.

lets come bank the our problem

if "and" is added, there would be a problem

remember

"of 600 each" modifies "structure". this is logical
"connected..." modifie "75 structures". this means 75 structures are connected with one onother. this is logical

if we add " and", grammatically, "connected..." will modify "structures". This means each structure is connected by road system. this is not logical.

do you agree with me?

[thanghnvn]

another thing happen if we add "and"

we can not use "and" between the 2 adjectival which are at different level.

" of 600 room each" modifies each structure
"connected..." modifies "75 structures".

why we can use "and " here when one adjectival modify each structure and other modify the total number of structures.

[manhhiep2509]

I'm lost with the grammar terms ("appositive", etc.) I also don't remember what a "relative pronoun" is; I almost certainly used Google before writing that post.

Aaaaaanyway ...
There's also an issue of meaning: "each that had ___" implies that we're not talking about all the rooms.

E.g.,
You should throw away each page that has markings and keep each that is still blank. (You don't need to say "page" again.)

Note the use of "each that is still blank" here. Like all other "...that is ___" modifiers, this one narrows down the group of things we're talking about. If I just wrote "each", that would be all the pages. But each that is still blank is only a subset of the pages.

Also, if you don't intend to narrow anything down -- i.e., if you are actually talking about everyone/everything in some sentence -- then this kind of modifier is inappropriate. For instance, at a party where all guests are over 20 years old, a reference to guests who are over 20 years old would be illogical.
In other words, a reference to things that xxxx only makes sense if there also exist things that don't xxxx.

So, each that had been connected seems to suggest that there were even more buildings -- some of which weren't connected -- but that we're only talking about the ones that were connected.

Hello.

Can I interpret other modifiers in the same way I interpret "that" modifier, i.e. to narrow down a group of things a sentence mentions? Or the function is the exclusive function of "that" modifier?
I find that other modifiers, or at least prepositions, seem to have the same functions as that of "that" modifier. For example

The books of ABC are in the first shelf.
"of ABC" indicates that there are books of other authors in other shelves.

----

As I understand your explanation, it seems that if we want to mention features that all members in a group have in common, we cannot use modifiers that possess the above-discussed function, or at least "that" modifiers, can we?

---
Finally, is the use of "each" wrong because "each" is a pronoun and a pronoun cannot be used in an appositive structure, as the choice C does? (I post the question again because I did not see your above explanation mentioned the issue)

*To save you time, I wrote an example related to appositive structure.

John has bought a new car, a newest model of company ABC that costs XXXX dollars.

Thank you.

Thank you thanghnvn.

By the way, still need more explanation from experts.

[RonPurewal]

it is possible that two noun modifier do not need "and" because they are at different level. gmat will not test this point.

lets come bank the our problem

if "and" is added, there would be a problem

remember

"of 600 each" modifies "structure". this is logical
"connected..." modifie "75 structures". this means 75 structures are connected with one onother. this is logical

if we add " and", grammatically, "connected..." will modify "structures". This means each structure is connected by road system. this is not logical.

do you agree with me?

I don't understand this post.
First, you say that "connected" is correct if it describes the structures. Next, you say that "connected" is incorrect if it describes the same structures.

In any case, "and" is incorrect for the reason you quoted above, i.e., it would create parallelism between "built" and "connected", two words that shouldn't actually be in parallel.

[RonPurewal]

Hello.

Can I interpret other modifiers in the same way I interpret "that" modifier, i.e. to narrow down a group of things a sentence mentions? Or the function is the exclusive function of "that" modifier?
I find that other modifiers, or at least prepositions, seem to have the same functions as that of "that" modifier. For example

The books of ABC are in the first shelf.
"of ABC" indicates that there are books of other authors in other shelves.

This is the general idea distinguishing modifiers separated by commas from modifiers not separated by commas. The former don't narrow things; the latter do.

GMAC has never written a question depending on this distinction, and likely never will. (Doing so would give a tremendous advantage to native speakers of some languages and a tremendous disadvantage to speakers of others.)

[RonPurewal]

As I understand your explanation, it seems that if we want to mention features that all members in a group have in common, we cannot use modifiers that possess the above-discussed function, or at least "that" modifiers, can we?

Example(s) please. Thanks.

I'll answer what I think is your question: If a modifier doesn't narrow what it describes, then you shouldn't use the modifier without commas.

E.g.,
All of the new firefighters who passed the physical endurance test are listed here.
--> Implies that not all of the new firefighters passed the test. The ones who did pass the test are listed.

[RonPurewal]

Finally, is the use of "each" wrong because "each" is a pronoun and a pronoun cannot be used in an appositive structure, as the choice C does? (I post the question again because I did not see your above explanation mentioned the issue)

I don't really know the grammatical terms you're using, but there's no blanket prohibition on pronouns in constructions like the one in choice C.

E.g., The musician enjoys playing shows for children, especially those who are ill or disabled.

Without a qualifier like "especially", the sentence could still work, but, in such cases, you'd most likely use a construction with "the" instead.
E.g., The musician sent Christmas cards to 500 children, those whose parents had signed them up for his fan club --> This sentence is ok, but it would be better written as The musician sent Christmas cards to the 500 children whose parents had signed them up for his fan club.