Correct 'Too' Placement

[ManishH404]

Read this at my work-place, and I think because of the misplaced 'too', the meaning has become illogical.

"Are you wearing your security pass?
Look after your guests onsite, make sure they wear a security pass too"

Illogical because 'too' in the end seem suggests that staff should ensure that their guests wear security pass too, (along with clothes, shoes, etc.), and does not sound parallel to first sentence.

It would make more sense to put 'too' after 'they' so that it modifies guests. Correct version - "... Look after your guests onsite, make sure they too wear a security pass."

Can mods please confirm / correct?
I often get confused with placement of 'too'.

TIA

[RonPurewal]

Yes, you're right. Quite insightful, in fact.

"Wear a security pass too" would be more logical if the context were something like "Make sure they're wearing a security pass in addition to these other 3 items they should also be wearing."

There's also the fact that this sentence is a run-on (= complete sentence #1 + , + complete sentence #2).

[RonPurewal]

Other things to note here:

• If you're disappointed when you see writing errors on signage, then you're going to face a lot of disappointment in life.
"People who make signs" and "highly skilled editors" are not the same people.

• If you're presented with a decision point regarding the placement of "only"—e.g., some answer choices are like the original, but others resemble your alternative—THEN you should go through this thought process.
If this issue is NOT a decision point, though, there's no reason to think about it. On the test, DO NOT "hunt for errors". ALWAYS start from a concrete difference in the choices.

[ManishH404]

Thanks for the explanation Ron; reaffirms my understanding.

Other things to note here:
....On the test, DO NOT "hunt for errors". ALWAYS start from a concrete difference in the choices.

That's a very useful insight Ron. I always start with looking for errors, then move to answer choices and see which one fixes the error. And I can see why you recommend that approach. I need to start getting into habit of splitting answer choices first and then looking for correct fit.

I think I have seen an article on this (and I have read way too much on this forum in last couple of days). If you can, can you please point me to that article that elaborates on this strategy?

Thanks again.
Manish

PS: I am prone to OCDs. And I am pretty certain that, with solid GMAT reasoning, signage errors are going to make my life hell.

[RonPurewal]

That's a very useful insight Ron. I always start with looking for errors, then move to answer choices and see which one fixes the error.

There's nothing sacred about choice A. So, IF "looking for errors" were a viable strategy, you could do exactly the same thing with the other four choices, and you'd never get anything wrong.

It should be plain, by the way, that this strategy is MUCH more difficult than using splits/decision points.

There are at least 2 very, very serious disadvantages of trying to "hunt for errors":

1/
You have no idea where to focus. No idea at all. Errors could be lurking absolutely anywhere at all.
With splits, of course, you can just focus on the location of an actual difference in the choices.

2/
Even if your eyes do happen to alight on the site of an actual error, you'll still have no idea what aspect of that construction is actually being tested.
E.g., if "fewer" catches your eyes, then you could be looking at ...
... fewer vs. less
... non-parallel comparison (between the two blanks in "fewer ____ than ____")
... fewer vs. fewest
... any number of other things.

I think you get the point.

[RonPurewal]

I need to start getting into habit of splitting answer choices first and then looking for correct fit.

Don't forget that this is step 2.

Step 1 is to read the original sentence, without giving any thought to grammar/structure--as though you were reading a normal book or magazine. (If you're starting to face the same distractions from reading books/magazines as from reading signs, well, think about how you always read them before.)

You should come away from step 1 with a PRECISE understanding of everything about the intended meaning of the sentence.

If you've done this step well, then, for ANY split involving differences in meaning, you should already understand which meaning is intended.
If you have to go back and reason out the meaning at this point, then you failed at step 1.

[RonPurewal]

I think I have seen an article on this (and I have read way too much on this forum in last couple of days). If you can, can you please point me to that article that elaborates on this strategy?

I don't generally write articles here. Just forum posts.

If you're talking about an article written by someone else, then I'd have to Google it just as you would.

If you're talking about a forum post... well, this is my 13,317th post on this forum. In terms of whether I remember everything I've written, you know what that means. (:

[RonPurewal]

PS: I am prone to OCDs. And I am pretty certain that, with solid GMAT reasoning, signage errors are going to make my life hell.

You have two options here.

A/
This is going to make my life hell.

B/
I'm going to do something in a concrete effort to fix, or at least attenuate, the problem. Medicines, therapies, etc.

It seems you're picking A. The correct answer is B.

[ManishH404]

Thanks Ron!

Understand now. First step is to read sentence as is and understand the intended meaning. Second step os to split / re-split answer choice that fixes the grammatical errors, if any, without changing the intended meaning of the sentence.


And don't worry about the article. I think it was by Stacey. I will google it - but largely it explained similar strategy.

Thanks so much for taking time to reply to our posts with this detail. This really helps.

Manish

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron!

Understand now. First step is to read sentence as is and understand the intended meaning.

^^ yes.

note that this is just "normal" reading——the kind of reading you'd do in a book or magazine.
just make sure you're not thinking consciously about grammar/mechanics/sentence construction at this point. save that for the answer choices, where you can actually find specific decision points on which to focus.

[RonPurewal]

Second step os to split / re-split answer choice that fixes the grammatical errors, if any, without changing the intended meaning of the sentence.

i don't love the way you've written the purple thing or the green thing.
i think you may just be trying to express the correct idea, but usig imprecise words. but, let's make sure.

purple thing:
this is a big one. DO NOT draw distinctions between "grammatical errors" and "meaning errors".
don't do it.
first, there's no reason to do so in the first place—an error is an error.
second, and far more importantly, most errors involve grammar AND context. so, it's not possible to separate the two.

e.g.
The fans threw glassware onto the field, and it led to a penalty for the home team.
ok, so "it" is wrong.
student #1 says, "this is a 'grammatical error', since a pronoun isn't allowed to stand for an action/clause/verb."
student #2 says, "no, it's a 'meaning error'. it is limited to representing glassware or field, neither of which makes sense in context."

who's right?
well... both of them are.
here, the distinction between "grammar error" and "meaning error" is meaningless, since it's impossible to pin the problem on either one. rather, the problem is that the mechanics and the context don't agree with one another.

[RonPurewal]

^^ at this point, one might object that there are some errors that are purely grammatical (e.g., run-on sentences), as well as others that are purely semantic (e.g., "all 3 of my kids want to be an athlete when they grow up").

this is true, of course.
however,
1/ there's nothing to gain by making the distinction. (if one of these had 'priority' over the other one, then the distinction could be crucial... but, nope, an error is an error.)
and
2/ as explained above, there are tons of errors that are simply disagreements between grammar and context, rather than identifiable faults of either one individually. (in fact, if one were to count, there'd probably be many more of these errors than of purely grammatical or purely semantic ones.)

[RonPurewal]

green thing:
you may, indeed, have to change the original meaning of the sentence—if the original meaning is nonsense. likewise, you may have to change the original structure of the sentence, too, if that structure doesn't accord with what the sentence is clearly meant to say.

the point is that you should be able to determine intended meaning WITHOUT reference to grammar. this is super-essential here, since 80% of the original sentences are wrong! (choice A, like other choices, is only correct 1/5 of the time.)

this may sound daunting——but only if you're (mistakenly) thinking of it as an "academic" task.

just imagine reading an e-mail from a colleague whose written english skills are, well, questionable.
even if this colleague makes several mistakes per sentence, you'll almost always still understand the message, because common sense is a powerful tool indeede. (by the same token, you should have no trouble in understanding the meaning of the sign that inspired this thread.)

[RonPurewal]

Thanks so much for taking time to reply to our posts with this detail. This really helps.

Manish

you're welcome.