* concept doubt about modifiers

[kartik1979]

i have read the manhattan Gmat book 3 rd edition as well as have gone through several questions from kaplan, manhattan, gmatprep. but my reasoning about a certain concept in modifier is lacking

Pls help

example

By installing special electric pumps, farmers' houses could be heated by the warmth from cows' milk, according to one agricultural engineer.
(A) farmers' houses could be heated by the warmth from cows' milk, according to one agricultural engineer
(B) the warmth from cows' milk could be used by farmers to heat their houses, according to one agricultural engineer
(C) one agricultural engineer reports that farmers could use the warmth from cows' milk to heat their houses

(D) farmers, according to one agricultural engineer, could use the warmth from cows' milk to heat their houses

(E) one agricultural engineer reports that farmers' houses could be heated by the warmth from cows' milk



in this sentence , option D , what does "could" modify -farmers or engineer

as per modifer rule only adverbial modifier such as the below is right

1)the earth quake shook the building, causing a lot of damage to property

is the below sentence also right

the earthquake, which shook the building, caused a lot of damage to property
or
John, who is big and strong, goes to study in ABC school everyday


here does caused modify- building or earthquake

does the phrase :which shook the building only needs to be corelated with the main subject" the earthquake"


Another sentence which thoroughly confuses me

A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose, was recently discovered, is not only a natural sweetener but also prevents tooth decay.

(A) A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose, was recently discovered

in this sentence does "50 times sweeter than sucrose" modify licrose plant or "A substance " and does "was" modify "sucrose" or "plant

(B) A substance, which was recently discovered, from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose,
(C) A substance from the licorice plant, which was recently discovered to be 50 times sweeter than sucrose, - what does which modify a substance or licrose

(D) A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose , which was recently discovered,
(E) A recently discovered substance, 50 times sweeter than sucrose from the licorice plant

[Ben Ku]

Please cite the source (author) of these problems. We cannot reply unless a source is cited (and, if no source is cited, we will have to delete the post!). Thanks.

[mikrodj]

in this sentence , option D , what does "could" modify -farmers or engineer

could modify farmers, although I'd say that the placement of according to is not the best one. I think you just can remove according to ... because is back ground information, in other words a non-essential modifier.

By installing special electric pumps, farmers could use the warmth from cows' milk to heat their houses

as per modifer rule only adverbial modifier such as the below is right

1)the earth quake shook the building, causing a lot of damage to property

is the below sentence also right

the earthquake, which shook the building, caused a lot of damage to property

here does caused modify- building or earthquake

does the phrase :which shook the building only needs to be corelated with the main subject" the earthquake"

caused modifies the earthquake.

IMO both sentences are fine but there is a difference in meaning

the earthquake shook the building, causing a lot of damage to property

you're explicitly saying that the shaking of the building caused the damage.


the earthquake, which shook the building, caused a lot of damage to property

in this other version, as I understand it, the two things are not related. At least for me is not clear whether the shaking of the building caused the damage. If you remove the modifier the sentence should retain the meaning and is not the case

the earthquake caused a lot of damage to property

(A) A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose, was recently discovered

in this sentence does "50 times sweeter than sucrose" modify licrose plant or "A substance " and does "was" modify "sucrose" or "plant

I think you should first remove the modifiers and isolate the core of the sentence

A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose, was recently discovered

If you remove the modifiers the sentence should retain the meaning

A substance was recently discovered

was refers to the substance. However is a little ambiguous whether "50 times sweeter than sucrose" refers to the substance or the plant.

I believe that "50 times sweeter than sucrose" is an appositive and therefore modifies the previous noun, even if that noun comes in a prepositional phrase that modifies another noun. Thus I'd say that "50 times sweeter than sucrose" modifies the plant rather than the substance.

Wait for other opinions because I'm not 100% sure.

(C) A substance from the licorice plant, which was recently discovered to be 50 times sweeter than sucrose, - what does which modify a substance or licrose

In this case, as the previous one, which is a little ambiguous but I'd say that it modifies the licorice plant.

In 99% of the cases which refers to the previous noun, unless the previous noun is part of a prepositional phrase that modifies another noun.

Some examples of official problems

Changes in sea level result not only from changes in water temperature, which affect water density, but also from the melting of glaciers

here which refers to changes. There is not ambiguity since changes is plural and temperature is singular

dolphins are more closely related to some of the oldest known even-toed ungulates"”a group of hoofed mammals that today includes cows, camels, pigs,

That refers to group since includes is third person singular.

Also look at problems D40 OG12, 116 OG 11, and 34 verbal review second edition.


f you have trouble with modifiers, MGMAT has a workshop for SC that will help you out. If you can afford it, go for it. I think it's really good.