To Ron!---After decreasing steadily

[RonPurewal]

hi instructors,
I am just wondering why we don't need to have the "from" at the end of the sentence in the correct answer?
Thank you

1/
You don't need it.

2/
If you had 2 "from"s, you'd be implying that the later statistic evolved separately from those two things. That's nonsense, since it's one time sequence.
E.g.,
We have seminars on sports and psychology
--> This could refer to seminars that discuss both things together. (It could also refer to separate seminars; the context would decide the issue.)
We have seminars on sports and on psychology
--> These MUST be separate seminars.

[nghiaac2002]

hi instructors,
I am just wondering why we don't need to have the "from" at the end of the sentence in the correct answer?
Thank you

1/
You don't need it.

2/
If you had 2 "from"s, you'd be implying that the later statistic evolved separately from those two things. That's nonsense, since it's one time sequence.
E.g.,
We have seminars on sports and psychology
--> This could refer to seminars that discuss both things together. (It could also refer to separate seminars; the context would decide the issue.)
We have seminars on sports and on psychology
--> These MUST be separate seminars.

I see that now. Thank you Ron !

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[eggpain24]

hi instructors,
I am just wondering why we don't need to have the "from" at the end of the sentence in the correct answer?
Thank you

1/
You don't need it.

2/
If you had 2 "from"s, you'd be implying that the later statistic evolved separately from those two things. That's nonsense, since it's one time sequence.
E.g.,
We have seminars on sports and psychology
--> This could refer to seminars that discuss both things together. (It could also refer to separate seminars; the context would decide the issue.)
We have seminars on sports and on psychology
--> These MUST be separate seminars.

I got a doubt here ron

if we use " from" after "and", we imply that the increase is actually coming from "two separate findings"

but if we omit the "from" after "and", would it create some sorts of ambiguity by having two kinds of interpreatation?

also
is "redundancy" an issue in this choice?

like
1. "increase ... up to" in A
2. "increase ... rose" in C
3. "increasing.... rose" in D

[RonPurewal]

but if we omit the "from" after "and", would it create some sorts of ambiguity by having two kinds of interpreatation?

• There's definitely no ambiguity. Each statistic is associated with a specific year; there's no way anyone could even think about misinterpreting this.

• More importantly—If something happens in the correct answer ... it's not wrong.

[RonPurewal]

also
is "redundancy" an issue in this choice?

like
1. "increase ... up to" in A
2. "increase ... rose" in C
3. "increasing.... rose" in D

Yes.

[eggpain24]

but if we omit the "from" after "and", would it create some sorts of ambiguity by having two kinds of interpreatation?

• There's definitely no ambiguity. Each statistic is associated with a specific year; there's no way anyone could even think about misinterpreting this.

• More importantly—If something happens in the correct answer ... it's not wrong.

thanks for you clarification,Ron!

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[JaneC643]

Hi,
Can we also eliminate B based on "finishing..." could only modify the United States, and thus it is illogical ? Since we apply the principle that "no comma+participle" should modify the preceding noun.
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Hi,
Can we also eliminate B based on "finishing..." could only modify the United States, and thus it is illogical ? Since we apply the principle that "no comma+participle" should modify the preceding noun.
Thanks

if a modifier applies to nouns, then it can also apply to "noun + preposition + noun".
this is true for all such modifiers, even comma + "which" (= the one with the least freedom).

[amardeeps400]

Can someone please explain to me whether "who" modifies the United States or not? Shouldn't who modify the students??? Who is a relative pronoun which modifies preceding noun.. This was the reason why I axed D and E

nope, you can't do that with essential modifiers (i.e., modifiers that aren't set off by commas).

you CAN do that if you're looking at nonessential modifiers, such as
COMMA + "which"
COMMA + "who"

...but that doesn't work for essential modifiers, such as NO COMMA + "who" and NO COMMA + "that".

if you want an official example, see #50 in the OG DIAGNOSTIC section (NOT the normal sentence correction section - the diagnostic, which is in the very front of the book - either 11th or 12th edition, they're actually the same diagnostic).
i can't quote the whole problem here, but the relevant excerpt of the correct answer is something like
a way of doing xxxxxxxxxxxxx on the internet that...
in which "that..." modifies "way".

--

since this is an essential modifier, there is no problem with "who..." modifying "the percentage of students in the United States".

Hi Ron ,
Regarding your reply

"nope, you can't do that with essential modifiers (i.e., modifiers that aren't set off by commas)."--> is it 100% rule or 90% (Means mostly but not always) rule that essential modifiers means we cannot use commas and non essntial modifiers means we have to use commas???

[RonPurewal]

those are just words for those two kinds of modifiers. they aren't "rules".

i.e., "non-essential" is the term for a modifier that's blocked off by commas, and "essential" is the term for a modifier that isn't blocked off by commas.

there's no reason to know these terms at all, UNLESS you are using them to google more examples.

[ElaS308]

[redacted]

[RonPurewal]

^^ you posted a question about an entirely different problem (unrelated to this thread), so i deleted it.
different problems = different discussion threads!

please search the forum for the problem you were asking about.
if you find an existing thread, please post on it (DO NOT create a new thread if one already exists).
if you don't find an existing thread, then post the problem in a new thread, in the correct folder. if the source isn't GMATPrep or MPrep, please remember to cite the original source.
thank you.

[SD501]

Can someone please explain to me whether "who" modifies the United States or not? Shouldn't who modify the students??? Who is a relative pronoun which modifies preceding noun.. This was the reason why I axed D and E

nope, you can't do that with essential modifiers (i.e., modifiers that aren't set off by commas).

you CAN do that if you're looking at nonessential modifiers, such as
COMMA + "which"
COMMA + "who"

...but that doesn't work for essential modifiers, such as NO COMMA + "who" and NO COMMA + "that".

if you want an official example, see #50 in the OG DIAGNOSTIC section (NOT the normal sentence correction section - the diagnostic, which is in the very front of the book - either 11th or 12th edition, they're actually the same diagnostic).
i can't quote the whole problem here, but the relevant excerpt of the correct answer is something like
a way of doing xxxxxxxxxxxxx on the internet that...
in which "that..." modifies "way".

--

since this is an essential modifier, there is no problem with "who..." modifying "the percentage of students in the United States".

Hi instructor,

I understand what you said here, in summary, COMMA + "which" should modify the preceding noun, and NO COMMA+ “which” could modify any noun(not the preceding noun) in the clause if the meaning is clear enough, but in the following example:

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t6529.html

"which" actually modifies "Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson " rather than "Susan Huntington Dickinson ", seems breaking the rules? I was confused about the usages and differences between COMMA + "which" and NO COMMA +“which”? Could you please clarify?

Thanks