Confusion in - SC Question BANK-Q 7

[enggbs]

This is the Q from Manhattan SC Question Bank

Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.

A) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.

B) The tomato, though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna, and it was therefore once thought to be poisonous itself.

C) Once thought to be poisonous itself, the tomato is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world, and is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna.

D) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and known to be harmless, the tomato was once considered poisonous because it is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna.

E) A member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, the tomato was once considered poisonous even though it is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world.


Tutors, I agree with the correct answer mentioned ;however, i disagree with the reasoning that is mentioned to eliminate some of the incorrect choices.

[enggbs]

I disagree with the following reasoning mentioned for B ...

"The pronoun "it" is ambiguous as it could refer either to "the nightshade family" or "belladonna" or "tomato." Additionally, the phrase "though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless" contains two elements that are not parallel."


My view is "IT" is clearly referring to "Tomato" in B because pronouns such as " IT" because subjective pronouns always (mostly) refer to the subject of Preceding clause .So "IT’ after a conjunction "˜and’ is clearly referring to "Tomato" ; however, B does have other problems of not becoming the best choice as mentioned in the second line i.e. "considered poisonous because it is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family"

PLEASE COMMENT...

[Aragorn]

I would pick D. What is OA?..I haven't done the exercises yet for SC

itself is awkward

[Guest]

The sentence has modifier and Pronoun issues:

A) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result. [Itself - emphasis the Subject - but the second Independent clause missing Subject - eliminates it]

B) The tomato, though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna, and it was therefore once thought to be poisonous itself. [It has no clear referent - eliminate it]

C) Once thought to be poisonous itself, the tomato is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world, and is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna. [Not clear - eliminate it]

D) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and known to be harmless, the tomato was once considered poisonous because it is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna. [Hold it]

E) A member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, the tomato was once considered poisonous even though it is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world. [Incorrectly modifies including - eliminate it]

Answer: D

[RonPurewal]

I disagree with the following reasoning mentioned for B ...

"The pronoun "it" is ambiguous as it could refer either to "the nightshade family" or "belladonna" or "tomato." Additionally, the phrase "though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless" contains two elements that are not parallel."


My view is "IT" is clearly referring to "Tomato" in B because pronouns such as " IT" because subjective pronouns always (mostly) refer to the subject of Preceding clause .So "IT’ after a conjunction "˜and’ is clearly referring to "Tomato" ; however, B does have other problems of not becoming the best choice as mentioned in the second line i.e. "considered poisonous because it is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family"

PLEASE COMMENT...

here's the order in which you should consider pronoun issues:
(1) AMBIGUITY
(2) GRAMMATICAL PARALLELISM
this is absolute. you should not even think about grammatical parallelism (the subject/object issues above) until you have conclusively determined that there are NO choices with strictly unambiguous pronouns.
this hierarchy is strictly borne out by our observations of official problems.

so:
since choice (d) has a technically unambiguous pronoun, while choice (b) has a technically ambiguous pronoun (although the intended reference is clear), (d) is superior.
fortunately, the pronoun issue is not the only reason (d) is superior; that would be unreasonable, as official questions rarely hang by that thin of a thread.

step one before step two!

[syflysun1]

here's the order in which you should consider pronoun issues:
(1) AMBIGUITY
(2) GRAMMATICAL PARALLELISM
this is absolute. you should not even think about grammatical parallelism (the subject/object issues above) until you have conclusively determined that there are NO choices with strictly unambiguous pronouns.
this hierarchy is strictly borne out by our observations of official problems
step one before step two!

But, usually we will use grammatical parallelism to identify the ambiguity of pronoun issues.

I am confused here. Could you give me a example of how you identify pronouns issues. Or do you have any useful thread i can refer to?

Thanks ron

[gorav.s]

thanks RON ,
I think I need these golden words of advise to get all SC correct -

I agree in B , pronoun "it" is not that clear.
D has no unamboguous "it" and also - construction although X, because Y" construction is needed to make meaning more clear - to show the contrast.
Agree D is the answer

[gorav.s]

In my views -
in B - there is a awkward construction at the end " it was once considered poisonous itself"
we do not even need this itself - i think - hence B is wrong

[RonPurewal]

In my views -
in B - there is a awkward construction at the end " it was once considered poisonous itself"
we do not even need this itself - i think - hence B is wrong

there's a world of difference between "we don't need it" and "it's wrong". you should not immediately eliminate answers that satisfy only the first, and not the second, of these.

in this sentence, although it's "unnecessary", the word itself lends emphasis to the idea in the sentence.
for another example of the same sort of thing, see here --> industrialization-and-modern-methods-usage-of-while-and-but-t1871.html
in that example, see "while at the same time". in that wording, "at the same time" is technically unnecessary, but it adds emphasis in the same way as does "itself" in this example.

[edyong]

I'm still unclear regarding C & D where the explanation said The phrase "including belladonna" does not properly modify anything. I though it modifies the family.

[patrick.andriola]

Ron,

Do we not see a change of the meaning when we go from the original sentence in which the tomato is solely "harmless" to choice D in which the tomato is "known to be harmless?"

The idea that the tomato is currently known to be harmless does not seem to be found in the original sentence.

[vishalsahdev03]

I used the following reasoning


Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.

A) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.

as a result is incorrectly used !
This option also seems to have some modifier problems, the subject not being close to the modifier !!
Please throw some light on this on !!

B) The tomato, though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna, and it was therefore once thought to be poisonous itself.

seemed awkward and "itself" as you said lays emphasis to the meaning of the sentence any were the redundancy may do so, then how may we decide to eliminate the option having redundancy as emphasis ??

C) Once thought to be poisonous itself, the tomato is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world, and is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna.

I think the "and"s are not properly placed, please provide your view !

D) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and known to be harmless, the tomato was once considered poisonous because it is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna.

The bold part is redundant but rest all is best among others

E) A member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, the tomato was once considered poisonous even though it is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world.

Is including belladonna, properly used ?

Could not find some real cause here but, the meaning seems to be changing, it says that tomato was considered poisonous only because it belongs to a poisonous, even though they knew it is harmless !

I took D !!

Staff Please provide your correction on this !

Best Regards,
Thanks !

[helloriteshranjan]

I used the following reasoning

D) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and known to be harmless, the tomato was once considered poisonous because it is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna.

The bold part is redundant but rest all is best among others

I took D !!

I would not say that there is redundancy at all in option D.
If you see the original sentence, it says/means that tomato is harmless now. Tomato was harmless always!! Now, its known as harmless. Another thing - adding "known" in option "D" creates parallelism.

Have a look at the original sentence's initial part :

"Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless,..."

"though now" is modifying "harmless".

It would be better to say that its now known as harmless. Initially it was not known as harmless or whatever.

I think I am thinking right.

thanks.

[vishalsahdev03]

I used the following reasoning

D) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and known to be harmless, the tomato was once considered poisonous because it is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna.

The bold part is redundant but rest all is best among others

I took D !!

I would not say that there is redundancy at all in option D.
If you see the original sentence, it says/means that tomato is harmless now. Tomato was harmless always!! Now, its known as harmless. Another thing - adding "known" in option "D" creates parallelism.

Have a look at the original sentence's initial part :

"Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless,..."

"though now" is modifying "harmless".

It would be better to say that its now known as harmless. Initially it was not known as harmless or whatever.

I think I am thinking right.

thanks.

There are few cases where I have seen "to be" kind of construction to be called redundant or passive !!

Please share your knowledge and thinking about "to be" construction, when it is redundant and when its not or any other rule may can relate with !!

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

Do we not see a change of the meaning when we go from the original sentence in which the tomato is solely "harmless" to choice D in which the tomato is "known to be harmless?"

The idea that the tomato is currently known to be harmless does not seem to be found in the original sentence.

two things.

1 * sure, but it's the good kind of change in meaning: the meaning used to be absurd, but now it makes sense.
in particular, the original version said "now blah blah blah and harmless". this would indicate (illogically) that the tomato "is now harmless" - i.e., that, at some point in the past, it wasn't harmless.
"now known to be harmless", on the other hand, makes perfect sense - we once didn't know that it was harmless, but now we do know that it's harmless.

2 * remember, meaning is subordinate to issues of grammar, usage, and other things that are black/white right/wrong.