The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of

[ghong14]

Quote:
As an actress and, more importantly, as a teacher of acting, Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.

ok, let me present it in more direct manner. in above sentence, can you explain why usage of "including" is incorrect and why it cannot mean that X is ONE of the actors as in "tools(,) including X" implies that X is ONE OF the tools

The correct answer is

As an actress and, more importantly, as a teacher of acting, Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, training several generations of actors whose ranks included MB and RDN.

My issue with the correct choice in this sentence is that in though the ING modifier, training, had to refer to an idea in the previous clause. As exampled in the Emily Dickinson Problem:

emily-dickinson-s-letters-to-susan-huntington-dickinson-were-t6529.html

Here I don't see how Stella Adler was one of the most influential artist in the American Theater have anything to do with training several generations of actors whose ranks included MB and RDN.

Is the ING Verbing used in a different form here?

[tim]

"training several generations..." tells you HOW or WHY she "was one of the most influential artists", so it modifies that clause. I prefer not to think of adverbial modifiers as modifying entire clauses though, so I would tend to say that "training..." modifies "was". This simplifies the process in my mind. You may or may not find that helpful, so I'm just throwing it out there. :)

[eggpain24]

HI，Ron. I am just curious here about the potentially grammatical ambiguity here in correct answer

First and foremost，the correct answer is best out of five.

and here is what I think

“hunters of large animals, rather than mere scavengers of meat”

could have the possibility of being construed as “ hunters of large animals, rather than of mere scavengers of meat”

but, sure, it is illogical to a large extent

[sanketm5]

In the above example, is "rather than as "for the second part necessary, or not needed?
Would the below sentence be correct?
I just changed the rather than for the second part to rather than as..

The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than as mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination from the examination of tools found in Germany, including three wooden spears that archaeologists believe to be above 400,000 years old.

[RonPurewal]

and here is what I think

“hunters of large animals, rather than mere scavengers of meat”

could have the possibility of being construed as “ hunters of large animals, rather than of mere scavengers of meat”

but, sure, it is illogical to a large extent

Nonsense interpretations can always be rejected.

If a nonsense interpretation exists, it does not compromise the correct reading of the sentence. Just ignore it.

More importantly, remember that the first step of SC should always be "Read the original sentence and figure out what it means".
If you're even inventing interpretations like this one, I'd suggest that you aren't doing a good enough job of step #1. With a strong grasp of the intended meaning, you shouldn't even think of nonsense interpretations.

[RonPurewal]

In the above example, is "rather than as "for the second part necessary, or not needed?

It's absent from the correct answer. The correct answer is not wrong.

[RonPurewal]

Would the below sentence be correct?
I just changed the rather than for the second part to rather than as..

The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than as mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination from the examination of tools found in Germany, including three wooden spears that archaeologists believe to be above 400,000 years old.

It's still correct with the extra "as". Both versions are fine.

In general, the extra "as" won't be included unless the sentence is exceptionally difficult to read without it (e.g., if the two descriptions are both very long).

[inc.manni]

The New Image HAS (Singular) not Have - so we can eliminate A & B

I think WHICH can refer to far off noun as well - in this case tools so we need include not includes - eliminate C & D

We are left with E.

Is there a rule that which can refer to far off nouns (not the preceding noun after the comma) if there is no verb in between that noun and which.

In this case - tools (found in Germany - acts as adjective), which include - would then be correct .

[RonPurewal]

GMAC has thus far used 'which' only in 2 ways. i enumerated them here:
usage-of-which-t746-15.html#p104933

"tools found in germany" has neither of those two forms, so i wouldn't take that option. ('tools in germany', on the other hand, does fit the mold, although that phrase becomes nonsense without 'found'.)

[RonPurewal]

also—

–––THIS DIFFERENCE IS TOO SUBTLE TO BE NECESSARY ON THE EXAM–––

the word 'including' conveys a VERY specific message:
'okay, i just mentioned a group of things. here are some, but not all, of those things.'

'which include' does NOT convey the same message.
the idea is hard to put into words, but here's my best attempt: when 'which' follows a plural noun, it describes something about those nouns themselves, NOT about the group that they form.

• '...tools, including screwdrivers' means that the GROUP contains screwdrivers.
• '...tools, which include screwdrivers' means that THE TOOLS THEMSELVES (NOT the group) contain screwdrivers.

examples:

I went to Home Depot and bought several tools, including screwdrivers.
--> i bought a bunch of tools. some of those tools were screwdrivers.

I went to Home Depot and bought several multi-tools, which include screwdrivers.
--> each multi-tool actually includes screwdrivers. i.e., screwdrivers are components of these multi-tools. (click here if you're not clear on what a 'multi-tool' is; that meaning is essential to the sentence.)

hopefully, you see what i mean.

again, THIS DIFFERENCE IS TOO SUBTLE TO BE NECESSARY ON THE EXAM. i just thought 'hey, that's interesting' when i looked at your question, so i decided to write about it. (:

[NL]

Oh dear, that (the multi tool) looks terribly scary! My very first time seeing something like this

[tim]

That's America for you. That sort of over-the-top-ish-ness (there's got to be a word for that, right?) kind of reminded me of that The Onion article about the disposable razor company that was like "!@#$ everything, we're doing five blades".

Okay, back to the topic of the thread now. Unless of course someone has that word I'm looking for. There's probably a really cool German word for it.

[NL]

Yea, every thing in America is either complicated or big. All moving beings, including humans, especially their feet, are much bigger than those in my country
(Ok, ok, I stop right now before Ron jumps in and shuts me up)

[tim]

Good call. Let us know if there are any more relevant questions on this topic!

[RonPurewal]

That's America for you. That sort of over-the-top-ish-ness (there's got to be a word for that, right?) kind of reminded me of that The Onion article about the disposable razor company that was like "!@#$ everything, we're doing five blades".

'overkill' seems good enough.

at one point, i lived in my (very small) car for about a year—basically, life was one big road trip. during that year i actually had something similar, which i used quite a bit (it was a surprisingly effective replacement for almost an entire toolbox).

finally, that onion article must be pretty old, because my drugstore-brand generic razors have 5 blades. (:

ok, let's stop this. if anyone has further question about the problem then fire away.