Question
Over the past ten years cultivated sunflowers have become a major commercial crop, second only to soybeans as a source of vegetable oil.
Option A
Option B
Option C
Option D
Option E
(This question is from Official Guide. Therefore, because of copyrights, the complete question cannot be copied here. The question can be accessed at GMAT Club)
Solution
Sentence Analysis
- Over the past ten years (Prepositional phrase modifying the main verb)
- cultivated sunflowers have become a major commercial crop, (Main Subject: Sunflowers; Main Verb: have become)
- second only to soybeans as a source of vegetable oil. (Modifier modifying ‘cultivated sunflowers’)
The sentence says that over the last 10 years, cultivated sunflowers have become a major commercial crop, and are now second only to soybeans as a source of vegetable oil.
The sentence is correct as is.
Please pay attention to the construction. The adjective ‘second only to…oil’ for ‘sunflowers’ is placed at the end of the sentence. This construction is valid.
Option Analysis
(A) Correct.
(B) Incorrect. For the following reasons:
- ‘in importance’ is redundant because whenever there is a ranking, a higher ranked is more important than a lower ranked in some way.
- In the given position, ‘only’ can modify soyabeans, in which case it would mean that cultivated sunflowers are second to soyabeans only (not to anybody else) or can modify ‘as a source of vegetable oil’, in which case it would mean that cultivated sunflowers are second to soyabeans only as a source of vegetable oil (not as source of anything else). This placement of ‘only’ leads to ambiguity.
(C) Incorrect. ‘being’ implying a temporary sense distorts the meaning of the sentence. ‘in importance’ is redundant as explained above.
(D) Incorrect. For the following reasons:
- ‘which’ should not be used at the end of the clause to refer to the subject of the clause. Thus, ‘which’ cannot refer to ‘sunflowers’. ‘which’ here refers to ‘a major commercial crop’. However, it’s sunflowers which are second to soybeans, not that a major commercial crop is second to soybeans.
- The placement of ‘only’ distorts the meaning. ‘only second’ seems to highlight that sunflowers are only second, not first or third to soybeans. Clearly, this leads to a much inferior meaning than the construction in which ‘only’ modifies ‘soybeans’, not ‘second’.
(E) Incorrect. For the following reasons:
- In this option, ‘only’ can modify ‘as a source of vegetable oil’, leading to 2nd error of option B or can modify ‘second’, leading to 2nd error of option D.
- The placement of ‘as a source of vegetable oil’ before ‘second to soybeans’ produces an awkward construction.
If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask in the comments section.
What is the rule about ‘only’? I thought only modifies the word that comes after it. Consider these two:
1) I only sleep on Saturday.
2) I sleep only on Saturday.
I thought (1) meant I don’t do anything else but only sleep on Saturday and (2) meant I don’t sleep on other days of the weeks. However, you indicate above that only can modify the word(s) that come before and after the word ‘only’. Is this right?
Let’s look at these sentences:
1. I use markers.
2. I use markers only.
3. I use air only for breathing.
Is the second sentence correct? If yes, does it follow the rule you mentioned? Also, according to you, in the third statement, does “only” unambiguously modify “for breathing”?
Sir, is the phrase “over the past 10 years”, a time indicator. As per my understanding it is, yet present perfect tense is used.
Good question, Rupal. “Over the past 10 years” indicates that an action has happened from the past 10 years till the present moment, so the use of present perfect is not only fine but also needed. For example: the below sentences are incorrect.
Over the last 10 years, people grew.
Over the last 10 years, people grow.
Correct: Over the last 10 years, people have grown.
Similarly, whenever we use a time period beginning from sometime in the past to the present moment, we use present perfect.
Thanks a lot, Sir!
Hi Chiranjeev Sir, I have been following your blogs and posts for sometime, and it has been pretty helpful for me.
I have a query regarding this question that What is the role of the phrase after comma. Is is noun+noun modifier, an appositive, or some other kind of modifier I am not aware of?
I know that an appositive must be closest to the noun it modifies and it cannot jump over the verb. And, noun+noun modifier can refer to any part of the sentence. If this is some other kind of modifier please let me know, and if it is appositive or an absolute phrase please also mention how. I don’t understand the structure.
Thank you.
Regards.
The phrase “second only to…” is neither an absolute phrase nor an appositive. It’s a phrase acting as an adjective. Normally, adjectives come closest to the noun they modify. However, in some cases, they appear at the end of the clause, modifying the subject. This is the case here.
Hi CJ,
I have two doubts on which I request your comments:
[1] In option C, does “being” act as verb-ing modifier? If yes, would it be incorrect to say that the verb-ing” is presenting a result/additional info. of the action of “cultivated sunflowers becoming a major commercial crop”.
[2] My understanding is that ‘prepositional phrases’ (PPs) or relative pronouns (“which” in option D) can’t jump over “have become” to modify the subject of the clause (cultivated sunflowers).
Here, in original sentence, can the underlined part after comma (,) acting as an adjective (as you mentioned above), can jump over verb “have become” to modify the subject ?
In other words, can ‘adjectives’ jump over verb modifiers (“have become”) to modify the subjects, unlike PPs or relative pronouns?
Hey Vikram,
Kya haal hai? 😛
1. It’s not probably wrong in that way. But I don’t think we say cultivated sunflowers are being second to something. We say that they are second to something. So, it’s not about a violation of any grammar rule. It’s just that ‘being’ is not used in this way.
2. You are asking these questions, clueless about when I would answer them 🙂 Here, ‘clueless’ is an adjective for ‘you’. And this sentence is fine. Another sentence could be “He stood there, amazed by her performance.” So, the answer to your question is that adjectives for subjects can appear at the end of a clause with a comma.
Leave a comment