SC: A report by the American Academy for the Advancement

[RonPurewal]

'north americans face...' = subject + verb.
to match this, we need another subject+verb before "and". we don't have that.

[DiJ92]

yes, that's a valid structure, but it's bad writing. (compare it to the OA of this problem; read both of them, trying to pretend you are someone who has never seen either.
note that your "edited" version much harder to understand.)

since style issues are not tested on this exam, this is yet another case of "you won't see that, but you don't need to know why not" (which happens virtually every time someone tries to "edit" a GMAC sentence).

thank you very much

[RonPurewal]

sure.

[AsadA969]

A report by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science has concluded that much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Americans are exposed comes from the incineration of wastes.

(A) much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Americans are exposed comes
(B) much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins that North Americans are exposed to come
(C) much of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and that North Americans are exposed to comes
(D) many of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and North Americans are exposed to come
(E) many of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Americans are exposed come

Ron, you said to which North Americans are exposed is a modifier. But my question is WHY we don't use comma before and after of to which North Americans are exposed?

also, in C, HOW "that are currently uncontrolled" and "that North Americans" are parallel to each other?
and in D, WHY not "that are currently uncontrolled" and "North Americans " parallel to each other?

also, it it possible to count 'Dioxin'?
Thanks...

[RonPurewal]

But my question is WHY we don't use comma before and after of to which North Americans are exposed?

the presence/absence of punctuation isn't tested on this exam.

[RonPurewal]

also, in C, HOW "that are currently uncontrolled" and "that North Americans" are parallel to each other?
and in D, WHY not "that are currently uncontrolled" and "North Americans " parallel to each other?

these are badly formed modifiers. basically, they're writing these the way people might SAY them.

e.g.,
"the person I spoke to" (SPOKEN english) —> the person to whom I spoke (WRITTEN english)
"the grocery store I shop at" (SPOKEN english) —> the grocery store at which I shop (WRITTEN english)
"the box tools are stored in" (SPOKEN english) —> the box in which tools are stored (WRITTEN english)

...same thing with to which North Americans are exposed (WRITTEN english) vs. "(that) North Americans are exposed to" (SPOKEN english).

[RonPurewal]

also, it it possible to count 'Dioxin'?
Thanks...

if things are plural, you can count them.

[AsadA969]

also, it it possible to count 'Dioxin'?
Thanks...

if things are plural, you can count them.

I think, As there is a plural sign (s or es) after Dioxin(s) students are pretty sure that 'dioxins' is countable. But, my question is:
Am I allowed to use 'less' before any countable noun like dioxins? I mean should I use 'less dioxins'?
Thanks Ron...

[RonPurewal]

with things you can count, you use "fewer", not "less"... if you actually mean a SMALLER COUNT NUMBER of those things.

if you mean a smaller amount of each individual thing (which would be EXTREMELY unlikely to occur in the context of a GMAT sentence)... THEN you'd use "less".

e.g.,

Pill A contains fewer of the vitamins and minerals crucial for a healthy pregnancy than pill B does.
—> let's say there are 100 of these vitamins and minerals.
if you counted HOW MANY of those 100 are in each pill... you'd get a SMALLER COUNT NUMBER for pill A than for pill B.

(this sentence actually says nothing about the AMOUNTS of those vitamins and minerals in each pill. this statement could still be the truth even if pill A contains much larger doses of the individual vitamins/minerals.)

vs.

Pill A contains less of the vitamins and minerals crucial for a healthy pregnancy than pill B does.
—> if you look at the vitamins/minerals that are in both pills, pill A contains SMALLER DOSES of them.

(this sentence says NOTHING about HOW MANY of the 100 total vitamins/minerals are actually in each pill.)

also, while this sentence isn't strictly incorrect, it will definitely be misinterpreted by lots and lots of people—so, a GOOD writer would write it as something like "Pill A contains SMALLER DOSAGES of the INDIVIDUAL vitamins and minerals crucial for a healthy pregnancy than pill B does."

__

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

ON THIS EXAM, it is VERY, VERY, VERY unlikely that you'll see a correct combination of countable + "less".

for countable things, a correct sentence will almost certainly use "fewer".

as illustrated above, such combinations are possible—but they require a context that's very special indeed, AND the resulting sentence isn't very well-written anyway.

[AsadA969]

I get it. Thank you so much Ron.
One more question:
(D) A report by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science has concluded that many of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and North Americans are exposed to come from the incineration of wastes
if we delete the modifier from the sentence, then it becomes:
A report by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science has concluded that many of the dioxins.----> this is not the legitimate sentence.
So, can we cross out the option D for sentence fragment?
Thanks...

[RonPurewal]

no, it's not a sentence fragment. the modifier is "that are currently uncontrolled and North Americans are exposed to" (which consists of two NON-parallel parts), but then there's a verb ("come...") after that.
you can't eliminate the verb.

[JbhB682]

also, in C, HOW "that are currently uncontrolled" and "that North Americans" are parallel to each other?
and in D, WHY not "that are currently uncontrolled" and "North Americans " parallel to each other?

these are badly formed modifiers. basically, they're writing these the way people might SAY them.

e.g.,
"the person I spoke to" (SPOKEN english) —> the person to whom I spoke (WRITTEN english)
"the grocery store I shop at" (SPOKEN english) —> the grocery store at which I shop (WRITTEN english)
"the box tools are stored in" (SPOKEN english) —> the box in which tools are stored (WRITTEN english)

...same thing with to which North Americans are exposed (WRITTEN english) vs. "(that) North Americans are exposed to" (SPOKEN english).

Hi Sage -

How would you recommend native speakers internalize the blue highlighted ?

As a native speaker, I eliminated E immediately because i was not aware of the written vs spoken difference

a) is this difference (written vs spoken) listed in the SC strategy guide, if so which page ?

b) how should native speakers internalize this ? ...I have Flashcarded it BUT i am PRETTY SURE when there is a time crunch and under pressure, I will go back to my ear and not remember this

[JbhB682]

ok, first things first.

also:

you cannot end a modifier with a preposition.

so:
dioxins that north americans are exposed to --> INCORRECT
dioxins to which north americans are exposed --> correct.
etc.

for an official example, see #16 in the first edition purple Verbal OG Supplement (= #20 in the second edition blue one).

Hi Sage - continuing from my previous post, could you please flush this rule out in pink a bit more please ?

a) What exactly is the rule...

Also - how do you correct this as the modifier ends with "OFF" ?

The tennis match, which was rained OFF, was between Federer and Nadal

The tennis match, which was called OFF, was between Federer and Nadal

Also - this sentence finishes with a preposition....Is the below sentence really incorrect ? How would you re-write ?

In Italy a good plate of spaghetti should not be hard to come by.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Good question about 'internalizing' a new structure. First you need to recognize the logic of the structure intellectually, but it seems that you've done that. Then I suggest making up a few examples for yourself. This will help you feel the structure in a more fluent way. Flashcards are great aids for the essential business of repetition.

However, I disagree with Ron on a couple of points here. First, the "rule" that you can't end a modifier (or a sentence) with a preposition. Winston Churchill famously said that 'This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.' By following that "rule" he made a sentence that sounds very awkward. Quite clever really.

The tennis match, which was rained OFF, was between Federer and Nadal
The tennis match, which was called OFF, was between Federer and Nadal
In Italy a good plate of spaghetti should not be hard to come by.

These are good examples: there's really no way to put the preposition anywhere other than at the end of the sentence, showing it's not a "rule" at all.

Now, it's true that GMAT tends to stick to the principle of putting prepositions before which where possible, and that many students simply eliminate such constructions because they sound "weird". SC 755 from OG2018 is a good example. However, it's important to note that I've never seen a GMAT problem that hinges solely on that idea. This means that so long as you recognize that 'prepositions before "which" can be okay' then that's enough. We can't put a preposition before a 'that' modifier.

Finally, the distinction between 'written' and 'spoken' English that Ron mentions. That's one way to explain the idea that GMAT uses English constructions that most of use don't use. However, it's really not a case of 'right' versus 'wrong' - there are hundreds of types of English around the world and GMAT simply follows (very consistently, I should add) a kind of slightly old-fashioned and rather formal style of English that most of us don't use.