The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of

[RonPurewal]

Had the "that" being refereed to "tools", shouldn't it be in plural form i.e. "those"?
So in that case, use of "that" is anyways wrong.
Please correct if I am interpreting it wrong?

for this kind of "that", you're wrong -- the plural and singular forms are both "that".
e.g.
Here is a box that once contained sacred relics.
Here are two boxes that once contained sacred relics.
both correct

---

you are thinking of a different kind of "that" -- namely, the type of "that" that appears in comparisons.
for instance
the economy of country X is more stable than that of country Y
the senators from state X are more conservative than those from state Y
both correct.

[vikram4689]

The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, which include three wooden spears that archaeologists believe to be above 400,000 years old.

What does which refer to in above sentence. Clearly it cant be Germany because that is logically incorrect (Germany cannot include 3 wooden spears).

More specifically i want to know can "which" refer to "tools"

Through this answer i would like to check the validity of rule which states "TO FIND ANTECEDENT OF PRONOUN one can look for prospective noun (by traversing backwards from pronoun) till one encounters a VERB as pronoun CANNOT modify any noun preceding the VERB.". So according to this rule "which" cannot refer to "tools" as verb FOUND is present before noun TOOLS

[RonPurewal]

The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, which include three wooden spears that archaeologists believe to be above 400,000 years old.

What does which refer to in above sentence. Clearly it cant be Germany because that is logically incorrect (Germany cannot include 3 wooden spears).

which answer choice is this?

[vikram4689]

I had a hard time choosing between C and E.
Outside the parallelism error, why is the usage of including better than that.. ?

by far the easiest way to kill (c) is subject-verb agreement: "includes" (singular) doesn't make sense, because "tools" (the clearly intended antecedent) is plural.

there is also a VERY subtle difference in meaning here, which is wholly idiomatic.
namely:
if you say "tools that include X", then X is A COMPONENT of the tools. so, for instance, "tools that include a bottle opener" means that a bottle opener is one of many attachments.
on the other hand, "tools(,) including X" implies that X is ONE OF the tools. so, for instance, "tools(,) including a bottle opener" means that the bottle opener itself is one of the tools in question.

clearly, S-V agreement is the easier way to go.

thanks ron for explanation difference between "tools that include X" and "tools(,) including X"
i would like to know how different are above construction from "including" (without any comma). (see og12-49 diagnostic section). if "including" meant same as "comma+including" then "generations of actors including" would be correct construction but explanation in og disputes this reasoning.
please help

[tim]

there is a good description in the Modifiers chapter of our SC guide that goes through the difference among all these types of modifiers. let us know if you have any specific questions after reading that section..

[vikram4689]

there is a good description in the Modifiers chapter of our SC guide that goes through the difference among all these types of modifiers. let us know if you have any specific questions after reading that section..

tim,
i have read sc guide but my question is not related to general -ing modifiers. here my question is related to above description of "including". i understood the difference between the 2 constructions mentioned above but there is a 3rd construction also - "including" (without any comma). i would like to know description of 3rd construction in a manner that ron gave for the earlier two constructions.

please read my last reply for structure of constructions, og question in which 3rd construction appears and doubt in that construction

[tim]

hi Vikram,
i must just not be understanding your question. you ask about using an -ing word without a comma, but that is covered very thoroughly in our SC guide. can you please clarify what it is that you want me to address that isn't already in the SC guide?

[vikram4689]

from the-new-image-of-stone-age-people-as-systematic-hunters-of-t2421.html#p26344
we can see that "including" does not act as all other -ing modifiers work and the 2 ways in which "including" works is described in that post but i would like to know usage of "including" in a 3rd way "including" (without any comma) because it is used in an og question (see og12-49 diagnostic section)

my original query (for reference): post69656.html#p68622
if "including" meant same as "comma+including" then "including" in "generations of actors including" (equivalent to "generations of actors, including" ) would modify "actors" in the same way as "including" modifies "tools" in "tools(,) including X" implies that X is ONE OF the tools

but OG disputes this meaning

[tim]

okay, i think i may see what you're getting at. if i'm interpreting your question correctly, here is the answer:

"X including Y" is equivalent to "X that includes Y" (essential modifier)

"X, including Y" is equivalent to "X, which includes Y" (nonessential modifier)

does that help at all? i'm still not sure what makes you think the OG contradicts with anything though; can you be more specific about what you feel the contradiction is?

[vikram4689]

As an actress and, more importantly, as a teacher of acting, Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.

ok, let me present it in more direct manner. in above sentence, can you explain why usage of "including" is incorrect and why it cannot mean that X is ONE of the actors as in "tools(,) including X" implies that X is ONE OF the tools

[tim]

okay, i think i finally see what you're getting at, and thanks for your patience. as near as i can tell, the OG explanation is wrong on this point. go with what Ron says, as he knows better than the people who write the OG explanations. :) remember, the ANSWERS to OG questions are always correct (barring typos that have largely been cleared up since the second printing of OG12), but their EXPLANATIONS often leave a lot to be desired (and for SC are sometimes just flat out wrong)..

[vikram4689]

actually ron has not said anything about "including" (without any comma). he mentioned following 2 constructions:
a) that include X
b) "including" (with comma)

are you saying that i can consider that "including" (without any comma) means same as "including" (with comma)


**above sentence reminds me that i want to ask is "consider that" a correct construction - i.e. can "that" be used with "consider" ( i know "as" with "consider" is incorrect)

[tim]

i think "consider that" would depend on the context, so i can't answer your question without more of the sentence to look at..

when Ron put parentheses around the comma, that means it could be included or omitted, so in that sense he did refer to "including" without a comma..

[duyng9989]

I have a question:

Is that any possible that choice C is correct? : "which include three wooden spears ..." modify tools (Suppose that include is in plural form).

Could it be the touch rule exception like this sentence:

"The use of lie detectors is based on the asumption that lying produces emotional reactions in individual THAT in turn create unconscious physiological responses.

In choice C:

The new image of Stone age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than as mere meat scavengers, has emerged from examining tools found in Germany that includes three wooden spears...

"That includes..." is separated by very short modifier "found in Germany"

ManhattanGMAT SC has a part about touch rule exception. accordingly, if a very short predicate falls between, shifting a very long modifier back, modifier does not need to touch the noun it modifies.

Could you clarify the point?

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

I have a question:

Is that any possible that choice C is correct?

no.
there is no possibility that the official answer is wrong.

Could it be the touch rule exception like this sentence:

no.
this kind of modifier could do that in another context, but it won't work here because "tools" (plural) doesn't agree with "includes" (singular).