For the farmer who

[jlucero]

In Beatrix Potter question # 105 from OG 12, the use of a pronoun in a modifier was disallowed for the noun in the main clause. Ron's explanation for that question is given in the link below:

http://www.beatthegmat.com/doubt-regard ... 60-15.html

In this official question , them is referencing cows. Can someone help me to reconcile the two explanations?


Thanks in advance.

Alliassad-

The link that you quote here does not reference the Beatrix Potter question, so I'm not sure what Ron's explanation was for this question. That said, the problem with the pronoun in the Beatrix Potter question was that it had several modifiers that were not referring to the proper thing in the sentence, which led to improper uses of pronouns. The correct answer in that question actually uses a pronoun very similar to the pronoun being used in this thread:

In her book illustrations, B. Potter capitalized...
For the farmer that keeps them cool, cows will produce...

This is a very standard (and very correct) way of using pronouns.

[jlucero]

Ron

I was reading two separate threads on this same question..

Below is the discussion where Stacey says that we can remove the first Modifier and then we try to make Provided and Milked Parallel...

sc-forum-q-t615.html

Thanks
Vijay

If you remove the first modifier clause and read the rest of the sentence by itself the correct answer will become obvious.

Provided with high-energy feed, and milked regularly, Holstein cows will produce...

this actually works in this case, but it's pure coincidence/luck -- the words you are removing, in this instance, are not actually a modifier. in fact, they do not even constitute a complete clause or phrase!

I'm siding with Ron on this one. You can have two warm-up modifiers in a sentence:

In 1918, before the invention of internet, talking with someone across the country took time and money.

But this is more of a semantic issue about the sentence's true meaning than anything else. Are we saying that the farmer must provide 3 things (probably, I would say)? Are we saying that the farmer must provide the first thing and the cows have to find the second 2? But the good news is that the GMAT usually doesn't require you to decide on 2 completely plausible meanings. There are enough mistakes on these 4 incorrect answer choices (see above) to go around. Both Ron and Stacey agree that the major issues of parallelism eliminate most answer choices (whether it's parallel between 2 or 3 items) and pronouns get rid of the others.

[RohitM]

Gprep #2

the official answer, (e), is tricky indeed.

you have to parse it as follows:
you KEEP THE COWS cool
you KEEP THE COWS provided with...
and you KEEP THE COWS milked regularly

Ron, Sorry to re-open this thread but i just had a quick clarification. When i approached this question i solved it like this:

E) for the farmer....., provided with..., and milked ---, holstein cows....

Here i said to myself, holstein cows as a subject should match provided with and milked ....which matches in E

A and B ) (holstein cows) provided them..., (hosltein cows) milking them....eh..doesnt make sense

C) (holstein cows )provided with... , - OK
(holstein cows )milking them ---NAH

The reason i raised this reasoning issue is because the way you explained the parsing to be done in E..well it kindda contradicted the way i put subject in modifiers to make sense

Pls confirm/correct my approach for questions of this type

Thanks Ron !

Rohit

[RonPurewal]

The reason i raised this reasoning issue is because the way you explained the parsing to be done in E..well it kindda contradicted the way i put subject in modifiers to make sense

you always have to establish the intended meaning of the sentence BEFORE you start analyzing any grammar. (in fact, "grammar" doesn't even exist without an intended meaning.)

if you read the sentence for meaning, you'll know that the 3 parallel items are the 3 that are boldfaced in my explanation.
"for the farmer" is not parallel to those items, because it doesn't describe something that needs to be done to the cows.

Pls confirm/correct my approach for questions of this type

i'm not clear on exactly what "approach" you are talking about here, sorry.

[HanzZ]

this sentence is meant to make a general statement about holstein cows - to state an eternal truth. for that, the present tense is used.

---
Hello Ron,

In the correct answer future tense is used. Is it because 'will' is used for emphatic purpose?

I have another quick question. How does the first modifier fit into the whole sentence (what it modifies, etc). It seems a little weird that the subject is delayed and there are three modifiers coming before it.

Thanks for your reply!

[RonPurewal]

In the correct answer future tense is used. Is it because 'will' is used for emphatic purpose?

The future tense is used to describe the future.
If you do X now, then, after some time has passed, Y will happen.

The present tense would also be reasonable here. The implication would be different: You'd be implying that the effects happen right away.

I have another quick question. How does the first modifier fit into the whole sentence (what it modifies, etc). It seems a little weird that the subject is delayed and there are three modifiers coming before it.

It's not three modifiers. It's one modifier.
Like this:
For drivers headed toward Cupertino, Saratoga, or Los Altos, today's traffic is going to be a nightmare.

The modifier is "For drivers headed toward [three places]". In your sentence, it's "For the farmer who keeps them [three ways of keeping them]".

[HanzZ]

I have another quick question. How does the first modifier fit into the whole sentence (what it modifies, etc). It seems a little weird that the subject is delayed and there are three modifiers coming before it.

It's not three modifiers. It's one modifier.
Like this:
For drivers headed toward Cupertino, Saratoga, or Los Altos, today's traffic is going to be a nightmare.

The modifier is "For drivers headed toward [three places]". In your sentence, it's "For the farmer who keeps them [three ways of keeping them]".[/quote]

---
Oh I SEE. Thanks! You kinda mentioned this point on the first oops.

[jlucero]

Glad you got it figured out.

[Suapplle]

Hi,Ron,
For the farmer who takes care to keep them cool, providing them with high energy feed and milking them regularly,Holstein cows are producing an average of 2275 gallons of milk each year.
In choice A,can "providing them with high energy feed and milking them regularly" modify "the farmer".
For the farmers providing them with high energy feed and milking them regularly?
Please clarify,thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

Hi,Ron,
For the farmer who takes care to keep them cool, providing them with high energy feed and milking them regularly,Holstein cows are producing an average of 2275 gallons of milk each year.
In choice A,can "providing them with high energy feed and milking them regularly" modify "the farmer".
For the farmers providing them with high energy feed and milking them regularly?
Please clarify,thanks in advance!

That's "comma + ___ing", so it would have to relate to the subject and the action of the preceding sentence.
Feeding and milking the cows are completely separate from keeping the cows cool, so that modifier doesn't work.

[Suapplle]

Hi,Ron,can I understand choice A as:
For the farmers who takes care to keep them cool,,(farmers) providing them with high-energy feed,and (farmers)milking them regularly.
These three parts both modify the "farmers",well,I think maybe there is no need to keep them parallel in the format,since I remember that in some cases,if two parts have the same function(such as both serve as adjective modifier),they can connected by "and".
Please shed light on,thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Hi,Ron,can I understand choice A as:
For the farmers who takes care to keep them cool,,(farmers) providing them with high-energy feed----> , <-----and (farmers)milking them regularly.

The pink comma is not there, so this interpretation is impossible.
In US English, a list of three or more things MUST have a comma after the next-to-last item. I.e.,
"X, Y, and Z" is a list of three things.
"X, Y and Z" is NOT a list of three things. In most cases, it's just "X", with "Y and Z" serving as a modifier.

E.g.,
At tonight's party you'll meet Sarah, my wife and the mother of my children.
--> You're meeting 1 person. She is both of those things.
At tonight's party you'll meet Sarah, my wife, and the mother of my children.
--> You're meeting 3 people, and there will be a lot of drama at this party.

The GMAT doesn't test punctuation -- which means that punctuation won't be wrong. So you can make this distinction with 100% reliability.

[RonPurewal]

These three parts both modify the "farmers",well,I think maybe there is no need to keep them parallel in the format,since I remember that in some cases,if two parts have the same function(such as both serve as adjective modifier),they can connected by "and".
Please shed light on,thanks!

Better parallelism >> worse parallelism.
Always.
Period.
Don't make things complicated if they're actually simple.

(If you see a correct answer that contains imperfect parallelism, you'll always notice that there's no better option.)

[Suapplle]

Hi,Ron,can I understand choice A as:
For the farmers who takes care to keep them cool,,(farmers) providing them with high-energy feed----> , <-----and (farmers)milking them regularly.

The pink comma is not there, so this interpretation is impossible.
In US English, a list of three or more things MUST have a comma after the next-to-last item. I.e.,
"X, Y, and Z" is a list of three things.
"X, Y and Z" is NOT a list of three things. In most cases, it's just "X", with "Y and Z" serving as a modifier.

E.g.,
At tonight's party you'll meet Sarah, my wife and the mother of my children.
--> You're meeting 1 person. She is both of those things.
At tonight's party you'll meet Sarah, my wife, and the mother of my children.
--> You're meeting 3 people, and there will be a lot of drama at this party.

The GMAT doesn't test punctuation -- which means that punctuation won't be wrong. So you can make this distinction with 100% reliability.

Hi,Ron,thanks for your reply.
in choice A,there is a "comma" before the third term,so can I interpret as the last post?please help,thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Unless the original has been typed incorrectly, there is no comma between "providing them with high energy feed" and "... and milking them regularly".