One automobile manufacturer

[tim]

what's to explain? you've totally figured out where the comprehension error is - you're just not interpreting the word "would" correctly..

[newbee24]

Hi,
I eliminated C and D because I thought "an increase..." is an apposite, and an apposite needs to touch the noun that it modifies. Here "an increase.." is touching "five years". Please could you explain what I am missing?

[RonPurewal]

Hi,
I eliminated C and D because I thought "an increase..." is an apposite, and an apposite needs to touch the noun that it modifies. Here "an increase.." is touching "five years". Please could you explain what I am missing?

no -- this sort of modifier (which you've spelled wrong, by the way -- it's "appositive", not "apposite") is not so severely restricted in its use.
this type of modifier can modify the preceding noun, but it can also modify the entire preceding clause.

examples (both correct):
the plover gets its food by cleaning the mouth of the alligator, a reptile that could devour it at any time.
--> in this example, the appositive "a reptile" just modifies the alligator.
the plover gets its food by cleaning the mouth of the alligator, a relationship that benefits both animals.
--> in this example, the appositive "a relationship" is modifying the entire preceding clause, which describes the relationship between the plover and the alligator.

--

for examples in the official guide (12th edition), check out #83 and #103; these are one of each kind.

--

in this sentence given here, the appositive modifier is describing the entire preceding description of the planned increase, in essentially the same way as the second example above.

[messi10]

Hi Ron,

examples (both correct):
the plover gets its food by cleaning the mouth of the alligator, a reptile that could devour it at any time.
--> in this example, the appositive "a reptile" just modifies the alligator.
the plover gets its food by cleaning the mouth of the alligator, a relationship that benefits both animals.
--> in this example, the appositive "a relationship" is modifying the entire preceding clause, which describes the relationship between the plover and the alligator.

Following from one of your other posts, I am assuming that "a reptile" is a concrete noun which can modify the preceding noun and "a relationship" is an abstract noun which can modify the idea of the preceding clause?

Can you please confirm?

Thanks

Sunil

[RonPurewal]

Following from one of your other posts, I am assuming that "a reptile" is a concrete noun which can modify the preceding noun and "a relationship" is an abstract noun which can modify the idea of the preceding clause?

Can you please confirm?

Thanks

Sunil

yes.

[gmatango]

Hi Ron,

Your mentioned in your first comment ::

The trouble with A and B, therefore, is that neither possibility makes any sense. "amounting to..." doesn't modify "has announced" and it also doesn't modify the entire clause.

Firstly, I am still not able to get how "amounting to ...." (in choice A) doesn't modify the entire clause.

Secondly, you also mentioned "amounting to...." doesn't modify "has announced". Reading your comments on the forum, my understanding is the "-ing modifier" (preceded with comma) either modifies the entire clause or the subject of the clause. Here the subject is "one manufacturer", so why did you mention 'has reached' instead.

[RonPurewal]

Firstly, I am still not able to get how "amounting to ...." (in choice A) doesn't modify the entire clause.

the entire clause discusses an action on the part of the manufacturers. the manufacturers certainly do not amount to a numerical quantity in terms of miles per gallon, so this modifier doesn't modify the clause.

Secondly, you also mentioned "amounting to...." doesn't modify "has announced". Reading your comments on the forum, my understanding is the "-ing modifier" (preceded with comma) either modifies the entire clause or the subject of the clause. Here the subject is "one manufacturer", so why did you mention 'has reached' instead.

it's not either/or -- it's both.

when you have one of these modifiers, the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause AND should be pertinent in some way to the subject of that clause. this one doesn't do either.

[yuanhongzhi0830]

Hi, experts. I have the same concern with the use of "would" in the correct answer.
an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost two decades.
Why is would used here? shouldn't it be used for just two cases
(1) subjuctive (not possible)
(2) the past tense of will (not possible)

[jlucero]

Hi, experts. I have the same concern with the use of "would" in the correct answer.
an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost two decades.
Why is would used here? shouldn't it be used for just two cases
(1) subjuctive (not possible)
(2) the past tense of will (not possible)

It's being used as subjunctive here, something that has yet to happen: the plans to do something WOULD change something else.

[yuanhongzhi0830]

Hi, experts. I have the same concern with the use of "would" in the correct answer.
an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost two decades.
Why is would used here? shouldn't it be used for just two cases
(1) subjuctive (not possible)
(2) the past tense of will (not possible)

It's being used as subjunctive here, something that has yet to happen: the plans to do something WOULD change something else.

Thanks Joe, following this I'd like to know if would is used to indicate sth yet to happen, what's the difference between will and would?

[thanghnvn]

Hi,
I eliminated C and D because I thought "an increase..." is an apposite, and an apposite needs to touch the noun that it modifies. Here "an increase.." is touching "five years". Please could you explain what I am missing?

no -- this sort of modifier (which you've spelled wrong, by the way -- it's "appositive", not "apposite") is not so severely restricted in its use.
this type of modifier can modify the preceding noun, but it can also modify the entire preceding clause.

examples (both correct):
the plover gets its food by cleaning the mouth of the alligator, a reptile that could devour it at any time.
--> in this example, the appositive "a reptile" just modifies the alligator.
the plover gets its food by cleaning the mouth of the alligator, a relationship that benefits both animals.
--> in this example, the appositive "a relationship" is modifying the entire preceding clause, which describes the relationship between the plover and the alligator.

--

for examples in the official guide (12th edition), check out #83 and #103; these are one of each kind.

--

in this sentence given here, the appositive modifier is describing the entire preceding description of the planned increase, in essentially the same way as the second example above.

Thank you , Ron, your explanation is alway great and full.

I have the following thinking. please confirm my thinking is correct or not.

I see that "an increase that would..." can not modify "have anounced" . it must modify "to increase". So, my conclusion is that a noun can modify one of a preceding verbs. if we say that a noun can modify a preceding clause, it is too general.

is my thinking correct?

this point of grammar is not explained in grammar books though it should be explained. that is why we feel this thing is hard and we are in this forum . that gmat tests us meaning makes us discuss this point of grammar.

thank you Ron,

[RonPurewal]

"Modifying a verb/action" and "modifying a clause" are essentially the same idea.

[bruno.shinjo]

Thanks Ron for this awesome explanation!

But in the Official Guide 12th, the official explanation for question 80 argues that "that" should be repeated for the sake of parallelism. Would this be a case that GMAC has not been not so consistent?

Thanks in advance,

Well.

One manufacturer has announced plans to increase the average fuel efficiency of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over the next five years, amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, and representing the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost two decades.

(a) amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, and representing
(b) amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, and it would represent
(c) an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and it would represent
(d) an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent
(e) which is an increase amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, representing

Is it a typo mistake that answer choice "D" the right answer lacks a THAT after second AND:
an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and that would represent.
if it is not then why it is like this? pls explain

pls shed some more light on A. Especially give some example pls.

no, no mistake.

there are two kinds of parallel signals: ONE-PART (such as "and", "or", "but"), and TWO-PART (such as "not only ... but also", "both ... and").

when you have PARALLELISM WITH A ONE-PART SIGNAL, the only words that are "locked in" are the ones directly FOLLOWING the signal.
as long as you can find the corresponding structure in the other part, then the parallelism is fine.

examples:
i worked in nevada and florida.
i worked in nevada and in florida.

BOTH OF THESE ARE FINE.

reasons:
in the first, the part that's "locked in" by the signal and is just florida. therefore, the parallel construction would be just nevada.
since that construction is there, the sentence is parallel:
i worked in
nevada
and
florida.

in the second, the part that's "locked in" by the signal and is in florida. therefore, the parallel construction would be just in nevada.
since that construction is there, the sentence is parallel:
i worked
in nevada
and
in florida.

--

for completely analogous reasons, this sentence would be fine either with or without your second "that":

an increase that
would amount to roughly five miles per gallon
and
would represent...

an increase
that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon
and
that would represent...

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron for this awesome explanation!

But in the Official Guide 12th, the official explanation for question 80 argues that "that" should be repeated for the sake of parallelism. Would this be a case that GMAC has not been not so consistent?

First, you shouldn't place extensive trust in the OG explanations, many of which are incorrect. For instance, in #77 of OG12, the explanation mentions "parallelism" for two constructions that are not actually parallel at all. (That they have the same form is a coincidence.)
The problems themselves are top-notch; the explanations, not so much.
Fortunately, most of them seem to be fine.

The OG example you're talking about is similar to this:
... toys that are made of plastic and that dogs enjoy chewing
The two "that"s here don't have the same grammatical function. The first one is the subject of "are made of plastic"; the second, the object of "chewing". So, even though both words happen to be "that", they need to be treated as distinct words; both of them must appear.

[sdfsdfsdfs481]

Firstly, I am still not able to get how "amounting to ...." (in choice A) doesn't modify the entire clause.

the entire clause discusses an action on the part of the manufacturers. the manufacturers certainly do not amount to a numerical quantity in terms of miles per gallon, so this modifier doesn't modify the clause.

Secondly, you also mentioned "amounting to...." doesn't modify "has announced". Reading your comments on the forum, my understanding is the "-ing modifier" (preceded with comma) either modifies the entire clause or the subject of the clause. Here the subject is "one manufacturer", so why did you mention 'has reached' instead.

it's not either/or -- it's both.

when you have one of these modifiers, the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause AND should be pertinent in some way to the subject of that clause. this one doesn't do either.

Hi Ron,

I am not sure that what does ", amounting to" modify. Is it "has announced" or "to increase"? Which preceding action does ", amounting to" modify? I thought ", amounting to" could modify the nearest action "to increase" and it sounds reasonable. Is it correct?