the usage of "Whose"

[xyin]

Prep
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again.
(A) often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again
(B) whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again
(C) but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status
(D) who declines in reputation after death and who never regained popularity again
(E) then has declined in reputation after death and never regained popularity


Hello, Gmat professors....

I have a question about the usage of "Whose."

Usually gmat requires person to put "whose" to the closest noun that it modifies.

for example, "I have to learn the gmat strategies from Manhattan professors whose scores are really high."

but this prep question "whose" is not close to any noun it modifies .


Help, Ron!!!!!

[RonPurewal]

Prep
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again.
(A) often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again
(B) whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again
(C) but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status
(D) who declines in reputation after death and who never regained popularity again
(E) then has declined in reputation after death and never regained popularity


Hello, Gmat professors....

I have a question about the usage of "Whose."

Usually gmat requires person to put "whose" to the closest noun that it modifies.

for example, "I have to learn the gmat strategies from Manhattan professors whose scores are really high."

but this prep question "whose" is not close to any noun it modifies .


Help, Ron!!!!!

please follow the forum rules and write the problem as originally written, including the underline. (i've provided the underline this time; from now on please render the problems accurately, thanks.)

the correct answer (c) contains 2 modifiers in a parallel structure. in such a construction, both parallel modifiers modify the same thing. (this is how parallel structures work in general, anyway: both parts of ANY parallel structure must have the same grammatical function.)

for instance,
i have a friend who can sing and whose dog can dance.
--> in this sentence, "who can sing" and "whose dog can dance" both modify "friend".
the same is true with the two modifiers "who receives popular acclaim..." and "whose reputation declines..." in the correct answer to this problem.

[atovar982]

Hi, I understand the parallelism concept in this exercise, but what I find confusing is the use of "but" after the comma because this usage suggests that we should look for a complete clause rather than a modifier. Would you explain why the use of "but" is right in this choice. Thanks in advance for your reply!!!

[RonPurewal]

Hi, I understand the parallelism concept in this exercise, but what I find confusing is the use of "but" after the comma because this usage suggests that we should look for a complete clause rather than a modifier.

this "rule" is not really a rule. it's an approximate guideline in most cases, but it's definitely not a strict rule.
often, the comma will be omitted when there are two complete clauses -- if those clauses are short enough to render the comma unnecessary.
also -- again quite often -- a comma will be included even if the structures are not complete clauses, especially if the structures are long enough to make the sentence essentially unreadable without the comma.
for instance:
i shut the windows and locked the doors --> this sentence doesn't need any additional punctuation.
i shut the windows so firmly that i would later have trouble opening them, and locked the doors using both the standard locks and the deadbolts --> these are not complete clauses, but the sentence is still written with the comma, because it's absolutely unreadable without the comma (try it yourself).

MOST IMPORTANTLY
PUNCTUATION IS NOT TESTED ON THIS EXAM!
don't bother with "rules" based on punctuation, because (a) gmac doesn't test them, and, more importantly, (b) the vast majority of them will not be hard rules.
the only time you'll want to mind punctuation at all is when it actually differentiates different structures: for instance, "no comma + -ing" is very different from "comma + -ing".
but, those kinds of things aren't really punctuation issues -- they are issues concerning the resulting structures. for instance, the example i just mentioned would be a modifier issue, not really a punctuation issue.

[RonPurewal]

Hi, I understand the parallelism concept in this exercise, but what I find confusing is the use of "but" after the comma because this usage suggests that we should look for a complete clause rather than a modifier.

this "rule" is not really a rule. it's an approximate guideline in most cases, but it's definitely not a strict rule.
often, the comma will be omitted when there are two complete clauses -- if those clauses are short enough to render the comma unnecessary.
also -- again quite often -- a comma will be included even if the structures are not complete clauses, especially if the structures are long enough to make the sentence essentially unreadable without the comma.
for instance:
i shut the windows and locked the doors --> this sentence doesn't need any additional punctuation.
i shut the windows so firmly that i would later have trouble opening them, and locked the doors using both the standard locks and the deadbolts --> these are not complete clauses, but the sentence is still written with the comma, because it's absolutely unreadable without the comma (try it yourself).

MOST IMPORTANTLY
PUNCTUATION IS NOT TESTED ON THIS EXAM!
don't bother with "rules" based on punctuation, because (a) gmac doesn't test them, and, more importantly, (b) the vast majority of them will not be hard rules.
the only time you'll want to mind punctuation at all is when it actually differentiates different structures: for instance, "no comma + -ing" is very different from "comma + -ing".
but, those kinds of things aren't really punctuation issues -- they are issues concerning the resulting structures. for instance, the example i just mentioned would be a modifier issue, not really a punctuation issue.

[amit1234]

Hi Ron,
What is wrong with option A?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
What is wrong with option A?

without the word "reputation" in there, the meaning is nonsense. (it makes no sense to state that a person "often goes into decline after death", although it's perfectly sensible to say that about a person's reputation.)

[souvik1225]

Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again.
(A) often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again
(B) whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again
(C) but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status
(D) who declines in reputation after death and who never regained popularity again
(E) then has declined in reputation after death and never regained popularity

Doesnt the correct option invalidate the FANBOYS rule that says
Independent Clause, FANBOYS independent clause?
Here i see
Independent Clause, BUT dependent clause!
what's up with that?

[RonPurewal]

Doesnt the correct option invalidate the FANBOYS rule that says
Independent Clause, FANBOYS independent clause?
Here i see
Independent Clause, BUT dependent clause!
what's up with that?

read the thread, please. this issue has already been addressed, only a few posts above yours.

[cumulonimbus]

[quote="xyin"]Prep
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again.
(A) often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again
(B) whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again
(C) but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status
(D) who declines in reputation after death and who never regained popularity again
(E) then has declined in reputation after death and never regained popularity

My question is regarding D and E:
"who declines in reputation" and "then has declined in reputation"
- is this a meaning issue or an idiom - it sounds like composer is him/herself declining
this point is not discussed / mentioned in OG aswell.

[RonPurewal]

My question is regarding D and E:
"who declines in reputation" and "then has declined in reputation"
- is this a meaning issue or an idiom - it sounds like composer is him/herself declining
this point is not discussed / mentioned in OG aswell.

"... declines in reputation" is not idiomatic.

fortunately, you can resolve both of those answer choices without having to know that idiom.
all three verbs -- receives, declines, regains -- are part of a single description, an archetype that's independent of any particular timeframe. therefore, all three of them should appear in the present tense.
... and even if you don't realize that, you can just take a cue from the fact that "receives" is in the present tense in the non-underlined part.
the other two verbs are part of exactly the same type of description, so they should appear in the same tense.

[ericyuan0811]

hello instructors

besides the redundancy (regains/again) and the lack of conjunction"but"
is there any error in (B) ?

thanks!

[RonPurewal]

hello instructors

besides the redundancy (regains/again) and the lack of conjunction"but"
is there any error in (B) ?

thanks!

i don't see anything else right away, but those are two pretty big problems already.
(you can also view "its status" as a meaning problem, rather than as a redundant construction: it's supposed to be the person itself, not his reputation, who has a "status".)

[ericyuan0811]

hello instructors

besides the redundancy (regains/again) and the lack of conjunction"but"
is there any error in (B) ?

thanks!

i don't see anything else right away, but those are two pretty big problems already.
(you can also view "its status" as a meaning problem, rather than as a redundant construction: it's supposed to be the person itself, not his reputation, who has a "status".)

thank you, Ron

however , the explanation of (B) in OG confuses me
(if it is not appropriate here, i will delete this post )
it says
"the two clauses do not describe the same thing"
i think they both modify "composer"
composer who receives...
composer whose reputation...

could you explain what does OG mean?

thanks for the help!

[RonPurewal]

hello instructors

besides the redundancy (regains/again) and the lack of conjunction"but"
is there any error in (B) ?

thanks!

i don't see anything else right away, but those are two pretty big problems already.
(you can also view "its status" as a meaning problem, rather than as a redundant construction: it's supposed to be the person itself, not his reputation, who has a "status".)

thank you, Ron

however , the explanation of (B) in OG confuses me
(if it is not appropriate here, i will delete this post )
it says
"the two clauses do not describe the same thing"
i think they both modify "composer"
composer who receives...
composer whose reputation...

could you explain what does OG mean?

thanks for the help!

those are the same modifiers that appear in the correct answer, so there's nothing wrong with the modifiers themselves. (a small but non-negligible % of the OG answer explanations are wrong; this could be one of them.)
that choice is, however, missing the "but" that's required to connect the two modifiers.