RonPurewal Wrote:saptadeepc Wrote:In option 'E'
When Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted the Declaration of Sentiments that was adopted at the Seneca Falls Women’s Rights Convention in 1848, she included in it a call for female enfranchisement.
The declaration of Sentiments is restricted by "that". Therefore does the sentence mean Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted the Declaration of Sentiments after it was adopted at Seneca Falls ?
I thought after she drafted the DOS, it was adopted at the Seneca Falls.
you seem to think that "that" modifiers imply something about the time order of events; this is wrong. "that" modifiers carry no implications whatsoever about time sequence.
e.g.
i am wearing a shirt that my grandfather owned when he was alive --> clearly, my grandfather owned the shirt before i did.
but
i designed the dress that my wife wore to the party --> clearly, i designed the dress before she wore it.
both are correct.Adding to it, please also let me know the flaw in 'B'
thanks
the modifier "that Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote" is placed after the name of the convention; this is illogical. she wrote the document, not the convention.
Hi Ron,
In the sort of structure (NOUN1 + prep + NOUN2 + THAT..., or NOUN1 + (modifier ending with NOUN2) + THAT...), the "that"-modifier can actually modify either NOUN1 or NOUN2. So it isn’t necessary that THAT follows the noun it is referring to immediately.
And because Option B doesn't have this sort of structure, it is incorrect. Is my reasoning correct ?
If I follow the same rule for D then is the usage of THAT fine there. And if yes then is it the incompleteness of D what makes it wrong.
A call....., <modifier> , that was adopted.
If we remove the THAT from the above sentence would it be correct ?
A call....., <modifier> , was adopted.
Thanks