The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of

[NL]

You make me think about Steve Jobs. He had lived in a cabin & gained incredible insights during/from that time (according to some books, but I believe). I have a neither car nor cabin, should I use a closet instead?
Ok, stop here.

[tim]

Wow, a tangent to the tangent. Back on topic please or we'll have to lock the thread.

[neetub951]

Quote:
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

The correct answer is

As an actress and, more importantly, as a teacher of acting, Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, training several generations of actors whose ranks included MB and RDN.

My issue with the correct choice in this sentence is that in though the ING modifier, training, had to refer to an idea in the previous clause. As exampled in the Emily Dickinson Problem:

http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/emi ... t6529.html

Here I don't see how Stella Adler was one of the most influential artist in the American Theater have anything to do with training several generations of actors whose ranks included MB and RDN.

Is the ING Verbing used in a different form here?

Hi Ron,

How to elimination option B.
Stella Adler, one of the most influential artists in the American theater, trained several generations of actors who include --> is who wrong here because it refers to several generation.
if it is ",which" instead of who, would it be right?

[RichaChampion]

Hi,

I remember that some time if the thing before the ",which" is appositive phrase, which can modify the NOUN before the phrase. So if the ",which includes" in D change to ",which include" will it be correct?

it would still be inferior, though for reasons that are probably too subtle to be tested on the gmat.
specifically, if you had "tools, which include X", then the implication would be that X is actually a component of each tool. (for instance, "...tools, which include carbon-fiber handles" --> each of the tools includes a carbon-fiber handle.)
by contrast, "tools, including X" implies that X is one of the tools.

is "including" in E somehow may modify the subject of the sentence?

Thanks

nope -- "including" is an exception to the usual comma -ing rules.
the best way to think about "including" is to consider it a preposition, i.e., don't think about it as a -ing construction at all.

usually, comma + "including" refers to the noun or noun phrase that is located before the comma, as it does in the correct answer here.

Ron Sir,

So here "including" is modifying what? "Germany" or " tools found in Germany"
I think it is modifying " tools found in Germany"

But how to decide that what will it modify noun(germany) or noun phrase( tools found in Germany)

[RonPurewal]

it modifies the tools -- that's quite clear from context.

But how to decide that what will it modify noun(germany) or noun phrase( tools found in Germany)

you make this decision the same way you'd make any other such decision (for any modifier that's allowed to do more than one job) -- with a combination of context + common sense.

[RichaChampion]

it modifies the tools -- that's quite clear from context.

But how to decide that what will it modify noun(germany) or noun phrase( tools found in Germany)

you make this decision the same way you'd make any other such decision (for any modifier that's allowed to do more than one job) -- with a combination of context + common sense.

Ok Thanks Sir.

[tim]

[RonPurewal]

ok.

[AaronB457]

I understand that the OA here is E, and it is pointless to argue whether another answer is 'better'. However after carefully comparing D and E I struggle to understand WHY E is the better choice (I believe D is the better choice). Could experts please weigh in on the below?

Confining the discussion to option D and E (as the other answer options have major flaws other have pointed out): option E uses the participle modifier "including". I understand that while a "COMMA + verb-ing" is typically used as a verb/clause modifier it can technically be used as a noun modifier. However it is my understanding that it cannot modify nouns that sit within prepositions, only 'main nouns' (subjects or objects of main verb). In this case it would modify "the examination". It definitely doesn't work as a clause modifier because the verb "have emerged" does not make sense when modified with "including three wooden spears". When used as a verb modifier it also needs to make sense with the subject of the sentence however it does not - "The new image ... as hunters" does not make sense with the modifier "including three wooden spears".

D appears to be more correct. "Which" can skip over nouns if they are mission critical, and the pronoun "which" is not capable of modifying the 'mission critical' nouns that stand in the way. Here Germany cannot be the target of "which", since it is a place and requires the relative pronoun "where". The singular verb "includes" following the "which" means the antecedent is singular so it cannot be "tools". This unambiguously leaves "the examination" as the modified noun; just as in answer option E. However since the "which" is not capable of acting as a clause modifier, it is less ambiguous and more concise than answer option E.

Either way I struggle to see how either answer is acceptable as they both introduce potential ambiguities or incorrect modification, however forced to pick I think answer D is superior though not ideal (I don't think "the examination including three wooden spears" makes sense - the correct modification should be "which include" i.e. the verb "include" should be plural, so that it clearly modifies "tools", however this is not an option).

Thoughts?

[RonPurewal]

comma + "including" doesn't fall under the category of "comma + __ing" modifiers. you need to think of "including" as though it didn't end in "__ing".

see here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p102407

__

MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY

...you should be able to eliminate choice D IMMEDIATELY!
...tools found in Germany, which includes... (singular verb)

clearly the subject of that verb SHOULD be "tools"... but "tools" is plural.
therefore, immediate elimination.

subject-verb disagreement is an absolutely fundamental, completely black-and-white error. if a choice contains a subject and verb that don't agree, you shouldn't even look at anything else in that choice.

[SD501]

and here is what I think

“hunters of large animals, rather than mere scavengers of meat”

could have the possibility of being construed as “ hunters of large animals, rather than of mere scavengers of meat”

but, sure, it is illogical to a large extent

Nonsense interpretations can always be rejected.

If a nonsense interpretation exists, it does not compromise the correct reading of the sentence. Just ignore it.

More importantly, remember that the first step of SC should always be "Read the original sentence and figure out what it means".
If you're even inventing interpretations like this one, I'd suggest that you aren't doing a good enough job of step #1. With a strong grasp of the intended meaning, you shouldn't even think of nonsense interpretations.

Hi Ron,

Sorry for reviving this post. I have two questions.
1. According to your comments, if there exist more than one interpretation in a choice but only one interpretation is logically correct, we should not eliminate it. Right? But in another prep question

A recent review of pay scales indicates that CEO’s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times in 1980.

A. that CEO’s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times
B. that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times
C. that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
D. CEO’s who now earn on average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
E. CEO’s now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times

you responded

choice b is badly worded: 'compares to 42 times in 1980' seems to say that, on forty-two different occasions in 1980, the ceo:blue-collar ratio reached 419:1. this is not what we are trying to say.

Did you eliminate choice B because it has an illogical interpretation (while a logical interpretation also exists)? I am quite confused about ambiguity. Please clarify.

2. Is "emerged from examining ..." less preferable than "emerged from the examination of"? Or is "emerged from examining ..." just incorrect?

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

This is a good discussion to have, and there are a few different issues at play. First, as Ron said, it's important to figure out what the sentence is trying to say. For this we need to use common sense and the knowledge that GMAT deals with serious, real-world scenarios, not absurdities.

If the grammar of the sentence points to an absurd meaning, then we can eliminate that answer choice. I'd say that answer D in the Stone Age problem falls into that category. It suggests that Germany includes the tools, which doesn't make sense.

Sure, we have to apply a principle of charity here: we can't be too fussy about alternative meanings and should give the benefit of the doubt in some circumstances. I would suggest that's why, in the Stone Age problem, 'tools found in Germany, which include' vs. 'tools found in Germany, including' isn't given as a deciding split. They could, charitably, be said to have the same meaning.

There's definitely some subjectivity here: what do we include in the name of charity or discard as absurd? The CEO pay question is a good example that can help us strike the right balance. But, remember, we only need to find the best answer, not the absolutely correct one. In that problem, even though we could be charitable with answer B, we can see that answer C is clearer.

[SD501]

2. Is "emerged from examining ..." less preferable than "emerged from the examination of"? Or is "emerged from examining ..." just incorrect?

Thanks for clarifying! Any comments on this question?

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

In my assessment, 'emerged from examining tools' has a slight ambiguity in that it could mean that it's emerged from the tools themselves, so that 'emerged from the examination of tools' is preferable. However, again, this is not tested as a critical split.