i am obv not an expert but concision is the last element that we should consider when it comes to SC. Grammar and meaning trump concision.

IRT ron's rule - perhaps re-read the thread? Ron was misquoted.
His rule still appies here. Y works as the atecedent of which and that is the exact reason why we can not use <which> here.

this was helpful to understand (at least for me): I read another thread regarding usage of 'which' - sc-by-merging-its-two-publishing-divisions-the-t8026.html

Hi George,

Thanks for your reply.

Just went through Ron's "X of Y,which" post here - http://www.beatthegmat.com/mgmat-sc-t24589.html#213052 ( Wonder how I missed it :( ).

The post clears up the mist now.

So, as I understand the first thing that we should do when we see such a construction is to make sure whether Y acts as the antecedent of "which" or not?

Yes. Does Y make sense as an antecedent of "which"? If not, check the rest of the phrase.

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor

I agree with you. I'm not a native English speaker, however, I have been studying English for 20 years. I would go with C and I don't think E is the best choice.

Here are my reasons:

1. "Which" can be used to modify a preceding clause. For instance:



Here, which points to "we closed the curtains". It is the action (we closed the curtains) that makes us feel secure. Not the curtains that makes us feel secure.

One would say in C, which may point to either the defeat or the Spanish Armada. But as Prilya points out, it doesn't make sense if which points to Spanish Armada, because in the following sentence, it says "Armada's plan". Armada cannot stymie its own plan. So, clearly, which points to the defeat. And I would say which points to the whole preceding sentence (the defeat of xxxx).

2. Basically it is a good practice to keep the modifying clause as short as possible, especially when the subject is short. Take this SC question for example.

For E, the clause says "Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands", which contains 20 words. While the subject "the defeat of the Spanish Armada" contains only 6 words. This is a very awkwardly structured sentence.

For C, the sentence is clearer.

Therefore, I think the correct answer should be C.

Check out Ron's post here: yet-another-which-can-which-refer-to-a-clause-helpsome-t7680.html

Here's what he says:

"which" cannot refer to a clause. ever.

it can clearly refer to a noun.
on some occasions, it can also refer to a noun PHRASE of the sort "noun1 + preposition + noun2". for details on when this is or isn't ok, see here:
post31162.html#p31162

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor

I have a question about choice (C). Choice (C) is as follows:
"The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing"

MGMAT explanation says :
"The use of a “which” modifier (which must touch the thing that it modifies) implies that the Spanish Armada, not its defeat, stymied plans."

Why cann't "which" refer to ""The defeat" in "the defeat of the Spanish Armada" ? Can we not treat "the defeat of the Spanish Armada" as one inseparable unit?

In Ron's Thursday Study Hall of Aug.25, 2011, I learnt that "which" CAN refer to the things that are treated as a grammatical unit. Following example was covered in the study hall -

To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both against American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens act of 1698, which prohibited the export of woolen cloth beyond a colon's borders.
A. To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both against American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens act of 1698
B. In order to protect English manufacturers of woolen goods against both American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens act of 1698

OA is B, in which "which" modifies "Woolens act of 1698".

That's a really interesting question. I think that there is a difference between the two examples given. "of the Spanish Armada" is telling us which defeat we are referring to; we could be talking about the defeat of the Minnesota Vikings, the defeat of a bill on capital hill, or even my debate team's defeat.

On the other hand, "The Woolens Act" has one particular date that goes with it, and it is commonly known as "The Woolens Act of 1698". I think that this one can more clearly be considered a grammatical unit. Again, though, good question!

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor

In E:
Is it good to split "due to"? Same thing was done in E.

Is there not any grammar restricting on splitting "due to"?

well, did you notice that the correct answer splits "due to"? i'm going to quote Ron's standard reply here, because he says it so much better than i ever could:



OFFICIALLY CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; please note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort. i.e., exactly 0% of the time that you spend posting "isn't this official answer wrong?" is productive, and exactly 100% of that time is wasted.

"is this correct?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking -- you will suddenly find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you dispose of the idea that they might be wrong.

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Hi,

I see C wrong for maybe another reason, I'd like to see if I am mistaken.

The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing

"not only due to gale winds .... but also due to the sacrificing"
is the area i'm looking at and specifically in terms of parallelism. I'm not sure how this is parallel first of all. It is parallel in terms of "due to", but what is due to? is it a prepositional phrase?

in either case, similar to how verb forms can be understood and need not be rewritten, couldn't the sentences look like either of the below


was not only due to gale winds, but also (was not only due to) the sacrificing

where the bolded part is understood on the second half. in that case it's not parallel.

and you could also do

not only was due to gale winds .... but also (was due to) the sacrificing

when written like that E looks much better

”due to (one noun)” versus ”due to (another noun)”. Sounds fine to me; they’re both nouns (if you’re okay with ”the sacrificing” actually having any meaning). That’s all you have to concern yourself with. If you become too picky about parallelism you’ll end up saying every instance of parallelism is wrong because none of them have 100% exactly the same words. Just make sure the parts of speech match up. As for your rewritten versions, you cannot have anything understood after the ”but also”. If a structure shows up after the ”not only” it must show up after the ”but also”..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Ron states in his first post here: http://www.beatthegmat.com/mgmat-sc-t24589.html#213052

here's the basic summary:
if you have "X + preposition + Y, which..."
then:
* if Y works (in terms of both grammar and common sense) as the antecedent of "which", then "which" should stand for Y.
* if Y doesn't work as the antecedent, but "X + prep + Y" DOES work, then "which" can stand for "X (+ prep + Y)".
Ron's post ends.

My query:
In the SC under discussion in this thread, would it be correct to consider option B wrong only on the basis of lack of parallelism in the "not only ... but also" part OR
is the problem with "which" still applicable.

My reasoning "which" cannot modify "Spanish Armada" so it must be referring to "defeat", as the construction is defeat(X) of the (Prepositional Phrase) Spanish Armada(Y)

"which" definitely modifies "Spanish Armada" in B, which makes it incorrect. you are right in pointing out that the parallelism issue also rules out B as a viable choice..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Hi Tim, "which" modifying "Spanish Armada" doesn't make any sense to me because Armada was planning to meet the Duke army but, as they were defeated they didn't meet them or (whatever).

Doesn't even the rule given by Ron say what I am saying?
Common sense says "the defeat of Spanish Armada stymeid the plan" and not "Spanish Armada" itself!

Please correct me If I am wrong in my understanding.

Of course it doesn't make any sense! That's why the answer choices with "which" are wrong!

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor