Usage of "which"

[arushigupta712]

In answer A, the word right before the comma is 1992, not $167B. It literally needs to be the word right before.



Generally, you'd use 14% higher than here.

Hi,

I find the the explanation above contradicting an explanation elsewhere at a Manhattan forum:

forums/sentence-correction-chapter-7-problem-set-question-5-t8151

An exception to the "touch rule" is when there is an intervening essential modifier. Here, "of our local newspaper" is an essential modifier that tells us which editor we're talking about, and cannot be split up.

Please help me understand...

Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

To date, GMAC has only used "which" to modify two kinds of things:
"- Noun
"- Noun + prep + other noun

That's it.

So, for instance, both of these (beginnings of) sentences work:

New treatments for cancer, which is the leading killer of American adults over 65, ...

New treatments for cancer, which are often too expensive for patients to afford, ...

In this problem, the dollar figure isn't either of these.
"- It's not the first one, since "1992" is in that position.
"- It's not the second one either, since "$xxx in 1992" is not a noun+modifier construction. ("In 1992" describes the entire previous action, with "rose".)

So, not workable.

[750plus]

Thanks Ron for the information above. It's worth noting.

What are the other error(s) in option B apart from 'which' ?

[RonPurewal]

also there's nothing for 'it' to stand for.

[750plus]

also there's nothing for 'it' to stand for.

Thanks, I got it

[tim]

Glad to hear it!

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[MoriofMay]

To date, GMAC has only used "which" to modify two kinds of things:
"- Noun
"- Noun + prep + other noun

That's it.

So, for instance, both of these (beginnings of) sentences work:

New treatments for cancer, which is the leading killer of American adults over 65, ...

New treatments for cancer, which are often too expensive for patients to afford, ...

In this problem, the dollar figure isn't either of these.
"- It's not the first one, since "1992" is in that position.
"- It's not the second one either, since "$xxx in 1992" is not a noun+modifier construction. ("In 1992" describes the entire previous action, with "rose".)

So, not workable.

emmm... Reading your inspring explanation, I am still confused about the noun which refers to. I undertand all things you said in the quoted post. My question is that when the which modifier is used to modifier Noun + prep + other noun, how could we decide the noun which refers to? Should we use agreement as the fundamental method? If the two nouns are both single or both plural, is the use of which ambiguous and the choice wrong?

[Chelsey Cooley]

Are you referring to phrases such as 'the father of the bride, who is wearing a blue hat'? In that one, the grammar would allow 'who is wearing a blue hat' to refer to either the bride or her father. That's technically ambiguous, but like pronoun ambiguity, you shouldn't ever make a decision based on it unless you have no other choice. Others might be able to point out examples, but I can't think of any OG problem where this kind of decision is necessary.

[MoriofMay]

Are you referring to phrases such as 'the father of the bride, who is wearing a blue hat'? In that one, the grammar would allow 'who is wearing a blue hat' to refer to either the bride or her father. That's technically ambiguous, but like pronoun ambiguity, you shouldn't ever make a decision based on it unless you have no other choice. Others might be able to point out examples, but I can't think of any OG problem where this kind of decision is necessary.

OK. I get it. Thank you so much!

[RonPurewal]

My question is that when the which modifier is used to modifier Noun + prep + other noun, how could we decide the noun which refers to?

you decide this issue in exactly the same way as any other meaning issue—with good old-fashioned common sense.