Tough SC: Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that

[RonPurewal]

I agree that A is best. I will eliminate b.

but, pls help

why B is wrong. I am uneasy with "was approved " and "making" but do not know why.

"was approved" is not problematic. the use of the passive here is exactly equivalent to the modifier "approved" that appears in the correct answer.

the modifier comma + "making" is illogical, because it would have to modify "was approved on {date x}" -- thus implying that the act made these things happen as a result of the date on which it was ratified. that's nonsense -- these are two different facts about the act, (a) the date when it was ratified and (b) what it actually did.

there's also a rather big problem with "the act of congress, which..."
that's a non-restrictive modifier -- i.e., it can't narrow the scope of the noun that it modifies -- so it actually implies that this act was THE act of congress. in other words, this choice implies that congress has enacted exactly one act of legislation -- this one -- in the entire history of its existence.

[mcmebk]

Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established the Library of Congress.

A. Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established
B. The act of Congress, which was approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established
C. The act of Congress approved April 24, 1800, which made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., and established
D. Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act of Congress also established
E. Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also establishing


I chose E, the supposed OA is A.

A = the act of Congress that made ...., also established <--- not an indepednet claushe, WRONG!!

anyone?

that is, indeed, an independent clause. the problem is that it's a very long independent clause - the 'middleman' itself is longer than most actual sentences. that's a doozy.

remember that you should either condense or eliminate these interloping constructions (modifiers, prepositional phrases, and the like) so that you can better understand the structure of the sentence. if you do that here, you get the following:
the act that did X ... also did Y
that's an independent clause.

--

the big problem with choice e is that it strips 'the act of congress' of a necessary modifier - so that, instead of saying 'the act of congress that did blah blah blah', it just says 'the act of congress' - as if congress has only ever performed one act in its history. that's an unacceptable (and absurd) change in meaning.

Hi Ron, didn't you say it is wrong to have only one comma to separate the main sentence from the modifier?

Thought there should be a comma before "that clause", and of course that should be replaced by which (but then it would become a non-restrictive modifier, and would be wrong like D); or we should remove the comma before "also established".

Would like to understand why that rule is not working here.

Thank you.

[jlucero]

Notice that the comma before "also established" is not used to separate "that made provision...." but to offset the modifier "Washington, D.C." which describes "the new city." If they didn't include Washington, D.C. here, there would be no commas after the opening modifier.

[mcmebk]

Notice that the comma before "also established" is not used to separate "that made provision...." but to offset the modifier "Washington, D.C." which describes "the new city." If they didn't include Washington, D.C. here, there would be no commas after the opening modifier.

Excellent, thank you Joe.

[tim]

:)

[jp.jprasanna]

Hi Ron - Please correct me if im worng - I simply knocked out D because of the modifier issue

D. Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act of Congress also established

Here - What was Approved April 24, 1800 should be act of congress not provision hence D WRONG!? Am I right?

Als If E were to be rephrased

ORGINAL
Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also establishing

Modified

Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also estabilished - This version will be correct right!?

Hi Tim -Thanks for your response. Yes i did see Ron's explanation but wanted to confirm whether my understanding was right.

Modifier + Modifier + Clause is correct only when 2nd modifier modifies the 1st or the other way round . In the below example blue modifies the black hence OK

Writing many great plays, plays that are still played at operas, Jake is known to have won many awards

For the problem under discussion there are is such relation ship hence it can be considered wrong ?

D. Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act of Congress also established

Pls correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers

[jlucero]

JP-

I think you're missing Ron's point on the error in D. Although it can get ugly, you can have multiple warmup modifiers at the beginning of the sentence that each modify the subject of the sentence:

Sitting on the floor (modifies dog), anxiously waiting for its owner (modifies dog), the dog wagged its tail.

The error in (D) is that the main clause of the sentence is illogical:

the act of Congress also established the Library of Congress.

As Ron said:

if that's the case -- i.e., if these modifiers are allowed to be nonessential -- then that means "the act of congress" can stand on its own.
that would imply that there has only been one act of congress, ever.
not good.

[jyothi h]

Hi Ron - Please correct me if im worng - I simply knocked out D because of the modifier issue

D. Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act of Congress also established

Here - What was Approved April 24, 1800 should be act of congress not provision hence D WRONG!? Am I right?

Als If E were to be rephrased

ORGINAL
Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also establishing

Modified

Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also estabilished - This version will be correct right!?

Hi Tim -Thanks for your response. Yes i did see Ron's explanation but wanted to confirm whether my understanding was right.

Modifier + Modifier + Clause is correct only when 2nd modifier modifies the 1st or the other way round . In the below example blue modifies the black hence OK

Writing many great plays, plays that are still played at operas, Jake is known to have won many awards

For the problem under discussion there are is such relation ship hence it can be considered wrong ?

D. Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act of Congress also established

Pls correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers

Let me take a shot at it.
What Ron and Joe mean is -

the sentence intends to say - , "The approved act of Congress THAT made blah blah , also established ........" . But D ignores that particular act of congress THAT made blah blah , and in general says "The approved act of congress also established " ( as Ron said , indicating that there is only one particular act), not mentioning about "that particular act that made blah blah" - is the one "that established" something.

Instructors, free to correct me , if I am wrong.

[tim]

Joe already responded to jp.jprasanna. Please let us know if there is any further confusion about this one..

[apoorva17590]

Hi

I have a basic question which might be because I am a native.

Approved April 24, 1880, The act of Congress....


This sounds to me like

the act of congress approved date(24 april)...how can the act approve date....(if we just go by the meaning aspect which Ron repeatedly emphasizes.)
It should be approved on april 24, 1880...otherwise the meaning changes.
Kindly help :(

[RonPurewal]

Hi

I have a basic question which might be because I am a native.

Approved April 24, 1880, The act of Congress....


This sounds to me like

the act of congress approved date(24 april)...how can the act approve date....(if we just go by the meaning aspect which Ron repeatedly emphasizes.)
It should be approved on april 24, 1880...otherwise the meaning changes.
Kindly help :(

officially correct answers are not wrong!
do not question them!

far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; please note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort. i.e., exactly 0% of the time that you spend posting "isn't this official answer wrong?" is productive, and exactly 100% of that time is wasted.

"is this correct?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking -- you will suddenly find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you dispose of the idea that they might be wrong.

--

considering that this wording appears in the officially correct sentence, there's nothing to help with here -- you just have to know that this is also an acceptable construction, essentially equivalent to the one you're suggesting (with "on").

[HanzZ]

hi,instructors,i have a question.

<Modifier>,<Modifier><Subject>
is this form definitely wrong in SC?

THANKS IN ADVANCE.

no, it's perfectly possible to write a sentence with that kind of form. for example:
last night, after sixteen achingly long years of her childhood had passed, melanie got behind the wheel of a car for the first time.

---
Hello Ron,

In your above example, the second modifier seems to modify the first modifier, 'last night'. Is this why it's ok here? I remember reading that it's not cool to compound modifiers.

e.g.

Jumping high, yelling hi, Peter waved to his friend coming from the distance.

Is the above constrcution ok? Both modifiers modify 'Peter'?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Jumping high, yelling hi, Peter waved to his friend coming from the distance.

Is the above constrcution ok? Both modifiers modify 'Peter'?

Thanks!

I don't love that construction. I can't say that it's 100% incorrect, but I would bet lots of money that GMAC will never put it in a correct answer choice.
... especially because almost all such constructions could be written with some sort of connector. (e.g., in your sentence here, you can place "and" between the two modifiers.)

[soulwangh]

Can anyone tell me why D is wrong?

The core structure is Approved..., making provision for...., the act of Congress also established....

Any error in it? Pls help to explain, thanks!

(d) is incorrect because it purports to modify "the act of congress" with nonessential modifiers (i.e., modifiers that are set off by commas). if that's the case -- i.e., if these modifiers are allowed to be nonessential -- then that means "the act of congress" can stand on its own.
that would imply that there has only been one act of congress, ever.
not good.

another example:

The course offered on Wednesdays will fit nicely into your schedule. --> in this example, "offered on wednesdays" is an essential modifier, signifying that there are also other courses (and so we need the essential modifier to narrow the possibilities to one).

Offered on Wednesdays, the course will fit nicely into your schedule. --> this time we have a nonessential modifier, indicating that "the course" can stand on its own. this doesn't make sense unless there is only one course.

Hi Ron,

D. Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act of Congress also established the Library of Congress.

Except the nonessential modifier reason, D is also wrong for "making provision for the removal of the government" has no relation with the verb in the following clause--established the Library of Congress.

Right?

I make this judgement depending on what you said in this post: http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/minivans-carry-as-many-as-seven-passengers-t6094-30.html?sid=81f8952e6493254baa8b21cb2051401b

John, running to catch the bus, slipped on the icy pavement and fell.
--> It would be nonsense to take away the commas, because "John" -- who is just one person -- is impossible to narrow down.
--> "Running to catch the bus" describes John.
--> Importantly, "running to catch the bus" is related to the action of the sentence. (John was running when he slipped and fell.)

--

If this kind of relationship doesn't exist, the __ing modifier is inappropriate.

*Jesse, standing almost eight inches taller than me, is my brother.
--> Nonsense, because a height difference has no relationship to the fact that we are brothers.

--

"Which"/"who"/"whom"/"whose" implies no such relationship.

Jesse, who stands almost eight inches taller than me, is my brother.
--> This sentence is fine.


Looking at the examples above -- especially the first two -- you should be able to tell what's wrong with "carrying...". The biggest problem is the complete lack of any relationship between this capacity and the other ideas that follow (gas mileage, smooth ride, etc.)

Please confirm my line of reasoning.
Thanks in advance！

[RonPurewal]

Yes. Nicely done.