can "with..." instead of "whose..."?

[hiphopdidi7623]

This is my note collected from this forum but forget its origin.


california, whose hispanic population has been growing by X people per year, has...

can we do that as well?

=> california, with hispanic population that has been growing by X people per year, has...

From other thread, I read that the usage of "with" must be actully "with" those things.

I wonder whether the replacement is available.

thanks for explaination

[tim]

i'm not entirely sure what your question is, but California is not a person so you definitely cannot use "whose" to modify it..

[hiphopdidi7623]

thanks, tim

1. you said that the usage of "whose" is reverse to the thread Ron had clearified. I cited the example he provided. Below is the link:
council-on-economic-priorities-t6559.html

I still wonder whether "whose" is able to modify the inanimate things.

2. From my replacement, are there differences in meaning of the two boldface modifier:
N, with..., V...
N, whose..., V...
In my opinion, they are both the same meaning of having something.

please clarify
Thank in advance

[RonPurewal]

thanks, tim

1. you said that the usage of "whose" is reverse to the thread Ron had clearified. I cited the example he provided. Below is the link:
council-on-economic-priorities-t6559.html

I still wonder whether "whose" is able to modify the inanimate things.

yes, "whose" can refer to inanimate things. the thread to which you are linking is correct.

see also OG12 #114 and OG12 #102, in which "whose" is used correctly in this way. in #114 it's in the non-underlined part, but in #102 you must actually select "whose" from among other options.

[RonPurewal]

can we do that as well?

=> california, with hispanic population that has been growing by X people per year, has...

in general, it's not a good idea to try to write additional versions of sentences; you should have your hands full enough already with the existing answer choices. almost every time a student writes some alternative answer choice, something other than the original problem under discussion becomes wrong with it; language is extremely complicated, and it's unreasonable to expect wholesale substitutions to work very well.

that's what happens here -- if you make this substitution, you've introduced another problem: your version isn't correct unless it says "with a hispanic population that..."
the gmat doesn't test the usage of a/an/the, so i'm not going to go into a detailed explanation here -- the main takeaway is that you should stick with studying the existing answer choices, unless you are at a point where you can explain exactly what is wrong with literally every one of them.

depending on the meaning of the rest of the clause (which you've omitted from your post), that alternative version could be correct.

From other thread, I read that the usage of "with" must be actully "with" those things.

ya, but "with" can also mean "having".

I wonder whether the replacement is available.

repeated just for the sake of emphasis: this isn't a good way to approach the problems.
in fact, the name "sentence correction" is rather ironic, since that's exactly what you shouldn't do (correct the sentences). it's most productive for you to restrict yourself to discussing why the existing answer choices are correct or incorrect.

[tim]

i stand corrected; thanks, Ron. The lesson here, everyone, is to remember that the GMAT makes the rules and we have to follow those rules even if they seem to conflict with whatever else we know. i'm sure you would all agree - and many of us learned in a textbook - that in real life it does not make logical sense for "whose" to refer to an inanimate object, but that doesn't matter. The GMAT wants to let it be okay, so we have to suspend our disbelief for now and accept "whose" as a modifier of an inanimate object..

[hiphopdidi7623]

thank you, Ron & tim

I read the thread (in-1988-the-council-on-economic-priorities-began-publishing-t5735.html)

In 1988, the council on Economic Priorities began publishing Shopping for a Better World, with the sample thesis of consumers having the power to change companies by the simple expedient of refusing to buy.

D. with a thesis that is a simple one: consumers have
E. whose thesis was simple: consumers have

again, this comparison is confusing me

I knew that I should learn the precise use from correct and incorrect options. Coincidently, the replacement I was trying to figure out is now appearing between option D and E.

1.Are they the same points to what I was confusing?

2.Is there other point beyond the concept for me to forfiet D?
(meaning or grammar)

[RonPurewal]

i'm sure you would all agree - and many of us learned in a textbook - that in real life it does not make logical sense for "whose" to refer to an inanimate object

lol @ "we'd all agree" -- i wouldn't agree with that statement; it makes perfect sense, if you just realize that whose is the possessive of which or that.

in any case, if you're going to claim that this is illogical, then you've backed yourself into an uncomfortable corner: in order to maintain consistency, you would then also have to say that it's "illogical" for they or to refer to inanimate objects.
i.e., the relationship between it/they and he/she/they is the same as the relationship between that/which/whose and who/whose. there's no difference.

The GMAT wants to let it be okay, so we have to suspend our disbelief for now

this is definitely not just the gmat.
from milton's "paradise lost", one of the great works of english literature --
... Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste brought death into the world...

the gmat is in pretty esteemed company here.

[RonPurewal]

In 1988, the council on Economic Priorities began publishing Shopping for a Better World, with the sample thesis of consumers having the power to change companies by the simple expedient of refusing to buy.

D. with a thesis that is a simple one: consumers have
E. whose thesis was simple: consumers have

the problem with (d) is probably best characterized as "extreme wordiness" -- but, since wordiness itself isn't really an error, we can conclude that the wordiness here is so egregious that the gmat actually considers this an idiom error.

i.e.,
takeaway --> "NOUN is/was an ADJ one" is unidiomatic; there's always at least one better way to write it, usually "NOUN is/was ADJ".