Hi Ron,

In the sort of structure (NOUN1 + prep + NOUN2 + THAT..., or NOUN1 + (modifier ending with NOUN2) + THAT...), the "that"-modifier can actually modify either NOUN1 or NOUN2. So it isn’t necessary that THAT follows the noun it is referring to immediately.

And because Option B doesn't have this sort of structure, it is incorrect. Is my reasoning correct ?

If I follow the same rule for D then is the usage of THAT fine there. And if yes then is it the incompleteness of D what makes it wrong.

A call....., <modifier> , that was adopted.
If we remove the THAT from the above sentence would it be correct ?
A call....., <modifier> , was adopted.

Thanks

hi Ron - In option C

C .When the Declaration of Sentiments drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton was adopted at the Seneca Falls Women's Convention in 1848, a call for female enfranchisement had been included in it.

Apart from "had been included" and passive voice which is sort of awkward, is the modifier "a call for female enfranchisement had been included in it." correctly placed?
I eliminated option C thinking " a call for blah blah" is modifying 1848/Convention, either of which is wrong!

In option B

Including a call for female enfranchisement, a draft of the Declaration of Sentiments was adopted at the Seneca Falls Women's Rights Convention in 1848 that Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote.

Here again apart from other reasons I eliminated this option based on Modifier only because "Including a call for female enfranchisement" should modify "Elizabeth" correct? but in this option looks like it is modifying "a draft of the Declaration of Sentiments" I didn't even read further i strait away cross out this option.....

AM I OK IN DOING SO?

that is not a modifier; that is actually the main clause of the sentence. so this question is essentially void.




it's not modifying anything, because it's not a modifier.

quiz: which part of each of the following sentences is a modifier, and which part is the main clause?
When I go to the ice rink, I usually skate for two hours.
I am going to the ice rink, where I will skate for two hours.

(answer: in the first part, "when i go to the ice rink" is a modifier; in the second part, "where..." is a modifier.)




nope. "including statements" can't possibly describe a person, but it can describe a speech or a written work. so that modifier should modify the draft.

Ron,

in regards to answer choice C and the problem with past perfect, i see a different problem,

When the Declaration of Sentiments drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton was adopted at the Seneca Falls Women's Convention in 1848, a call for female enfranchisement was already included.

the above is similar to using "had been included" and it points out that there is a slight meaning change because now it is emphasizing the point in time when the "call" was included instead of just saying it was included. another way to look at it would be the past perfect must have some consequence or implication on the other past tense verb, and in answer choice C there is no reason for that.

so i am a bit confused because if i wanted to emphasize sequence, then I thought I could technically use past perfect like the below:

when the astronauts landed on the moon, there had been an earthquake

when the astronauts landed on mars, there was an earthquake

also, i think you alluded to this type of example earlier, a more complex sentence where you can use past perfect with a "when" clause.

when Dave went to the store, Joe was eating crackers that Tim had bought for Joe <-- is this correct? i'm using past perfect relative to another past tense verb in the same clause, not the "when" clause. you mentioned it is "possible" in a previous post and I figured this could be an example.

although Dave started to like crackers, Tim had been eating crackers for years. <-- i assume this is perfectly fine since the clause is not a "when" clause

thanks again Ron!

one more quick question,

can we use this essential noun modifier to eliminate C?

(C) When the Declaration of Sentiments drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton was adopted at the Seneca Falls Women's Convention in 1848, a call for female enfranchisement had been included in it.

it might imply that there is more than one declaration of sentiments, and the sentence is talking about the particular one by Eliz

that's an accurate assessment of what that modifier would mean.

however, note that you would actually have to know the relevant historical facts to actually eliminate (c) for this reason. that is definitely something that will never happen on the real test.

Ron,

you're totally right about that. answer choice E also uses a modifier that implies there is more than one "Declaration of Sentiments" yet is still correct.

"... the declaration of sentiments that was adopted at the Seneca"

so this declaration is non-obvious, so i understand that I should not use outside knowledge to come to a conclusion.

but i recall in another thread you mentioned to beware of obvious nouns being modified in such a way like for instance, the declaration of independence, the birth of the planet, stuff like that where we are sure there is only one. So is it safe to say I can use "that/which" or essential/non-essential modifiers to eliminate those types of nouns?