I am confused by two different solutions I have seen.
From MGMAT,
Scientists have found high levels of iridium in certain geological formations, suggesting the impact of a meteor millions of years ago.
is a correct sentence, because the verb modifier suggesting ... modifies the entire first clause.
However, in the OG, the sentence: Some anthropologists believe that the genetic homogeneity evident in the world's people is the result of a "population bottleneck"--at some time in the past, our ancestors suffered an event, greatly reducing their numbers and thus our genetic variation.
is wrong, as the agent of reducing is unclear. Couldn't you argue that, similar to in the first sentence, that it was simply modifying the entire clause our ancestors suffered an event?
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
-ing verb modifiers, confusion
This topic has expert replies
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Mike@Magoosh
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
- Location: Berkeley, CA
- Thanked: 387 times
- Followed by:140 members
Dear oavasd,
Hi, there. I'm happy to contribute my 2¢ to this discussion.
First of all, in OG13, SC 97, I know the solution says, "the agent of reducing is unclear." It seems to me, it's relatively clear that "an event", which immediately touches the modifying clause, is in fact the target modified by the clause --- the unknown catastrophic event reduced the population. Of course, there are multiple other problems with choice A, which is why it's wrong. I just have doubts about that final sentence of the OG explanation of answer choice A.
I would say --- the verb "to suggest" is a verb in a special category. I don't know exactly what to call it, so I'm going to call the category "argument verbs" ----- verbs that would be used specifically in the construction of a logical argument --- "to suggest", "to imply", "to demonstrate", "to support", "to explain" --- these are verbs that pertain to the relationship of facts. You will find these liberally used in the CR section. When these verbs are in participle form, these participles are likely candidates for modifying not simply a noun but rather a whole clause. In general, with an ordinary "action verb" (to run, to catch, to sell, to own, etc.) it simply wouldn't make sense for them to modify a full noun + verb clause. You need a special kind of verbs to modify a full noun-verb clause, and these "argument verbs" work.
Fred does X, explaining why he . . .
Fred does X, supporting the fact that he . . .
Fred does X, demonstrating that he . .
Does this help? Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Mike
Hi, there. I'm happy to contribute my 2¢ to this discussion.
First of all, in OG13, SC 97, I know the solution says, "the agent of reducing is unclear." It seems to me, it's relatively clear that "an event", which immediately touches the modifying clause, is in fact the target modified by the clause --- the unknown catastrophic event reduced the population. Of course, there are multiple other problems with choice A, which is why it's wrong. I just have doubts about that final sentence of the OG explanation of answer choice A.
I would say --- the verb "to suggest" is a verb in a special category. I don't know exactly what to call it, so I'm going to call the category "argument verbs" ----- verbs that would be used specifically in the construction of a logical argument --- "to suggest", "to imply", "to demonstrate", "to support", "to explain" --- these are verbs that pertain to the relationship of facts. You will find these liberally used in the CR section. When these verbs are in participle form, these participles are likely candidates for modifying not simply a noun but rather a whole clause. In general, with an ordinary "action verb" (to run, to catch, to sell, to own, etc.) it simply wouldn't make sense for them to modify a full noun + verb clause. You need a special kind of verbs to modify a full noun-verb clause, and these "argument verbs" work.
Fred does X, explaining why he . . .
Fred does X, supporting the fact that he . . .
Fred does X, demonstrating that he . .
Does this help? Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Mike
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Thanks Mike!
I am still wondering, do participle phrases modify the subject in the original clause or not? Over at this thread https://gmatclub.com/forum/some-anthropo ... 34793.html Chris Lele says this is indeed the case. I'm thinking with the type of verbs you are referring to they don't need to modify the subject, but with more action oriented participles, they do. (E.g. I went for a run, whistling the whole way. Here whistling would modify the subject, I)
If this were the case, it would explain the final line in that explanation.
I am still wondering, do participle phrases modify the subject in the original clause or not? Over at this thread https://gmatclub.com/forum/some-anthropo ... 34793.html Chris Lele says this is indeed the case. I'm thinking with the type of verbs you are referring to they don't need to modify the subject, but with more action oriented participles, they do. (E.g. I went for a run, whistling the whole way. Here whistling would modify the subject, I)
If this were the case, it would explain the final line in that explanation.
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
If this sentence were to appear on the GMAT, I would be very skeptical. The implication here is that SCIENTISTS are SUGGESTING the impact of a meteor millions of years ago -- not the intended meaning.oavasd wrote:I am confused by two different solutions I have seen.
From MGMAT,
Scientists have found high levels of iridium in certain geological formations, suggesting the impact of a meteor millions of years ago.
is a correct sentence, because the verb modifier suggesting ... modifies the entire first clause.
[/b]?
When an OA employs a COMMA + VERBing construction, invariably the agent of the VERBing is the subject of the preceding clause.
From the OG12:
SC30:
ANIMAL-HIDE SHIELDS with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, PROTECTING warriors against enemy arrows and spears.
Here, the ANIMAL-HIDE SHIELDS are PROTECTING warriors.
SC47:
FIVE FLEDGLING SEA EAGLES left their nests in western Scotland this summer, BRINGING to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975.
Here, the FIVE FLEDGLING SEA EAGLES are BRINGING to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised.
SC65:
A BREAKWATER OF ROCKS that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer, ABSORBING the energy of crashing waves and PROTECTING the beaches.
Here, a BREAKWATER OF ROCKS is ABSORBING and PROTECTING.
SC94:
The recent surge in the number of airplane flights has clogged the nation's air-traffic control system, LEADING to a 55-percent increase in delays at airports and PROMPTING fears among some officials that safety is being compromised.
Here, the RECENT SURGE is LEADING to an increase in delays and PROMPTING fears.
In each case, the agent of the VERBing is the subject of the preceding clause. Unless a precedent can be found in an official SC, I wouldn't make an exception for a verb such as suggesting.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Mike@Magoosh
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
- Location: Berkeley, CA
- Thanked: 387 times
- Followed by:140 members
Dear oavasd,oavasd wrote:Thanks Mike!
I am still wondering, do participle phrases modify the subject in the original clause or not? Over at this thread https://gmatclub.com/forum/some-anthropo ... 34793.html Chris Lele says this is indeed the case. I'm thinking with the type of verbs you are referring to they don't need to modify the subject, but with more action oriented participles, they do. (E.g. I went for a run, whistling the whole way. Here whistling would modify the subject, I)
If this were the case, it would explain the final line in that explanation.
For the sake of GMAT SC, I will agree with Chris and Mitch that the subject of a participial phrase is the subject of the preceding clause. This is not necessarily true in the broader English language as a whole, and in some constructions, a participle of certain verbs could modify an entire [noun + verb] clause --- but, I took Mitch's advice, scoured the OG, and found absolutely no examples of this. Therefore, in the somewhat more limited world of GMAT SC, you can always rely on the rule that the subject of a participial phrase is the subject of the preceding clause. Consistency with that rule would explain the last sentence of that explanation in the OG. (Consistency is not always the hallmark of the highest level of intelligence, but in this instance, we'll just be glad that GMAC is making their stance on this point easy to identify.)
My Magoosh colleague and good friend Chris Lele is a grammar & verbal guru, and if he and I have different takes on a fine point of grammar, I will typically defer to him. I don't know Mitch personally, but he appears to have a praeternatural understanding of the GMAT in his DNA --- he is indeed a guru.
Does this clear everything up? Do you have any further questions?
Mike
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
-
ngk4mba3236
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:05 am
- Thanked: 1 times
this construction seems NOT to be always true on GMAT, i guess!GMATGuruNY wrote:When an OA employs a COMMA + VERBing construction, invariably the agent of the VERBing is the subject of the preceding clause.
sometimes this agent could well be the subject of nearest preceding actions such as to verb. right ?
@gmatguru/mikemagoosh - can you please share your thoughts on the above ?
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
The two colored portions are not in conflict.ngk4mba3236 wrote:this construction seems NOT to be always true on GMAT, i guess!GMATGuruNY wrote:When an OA employs a COMMA + VERBing construction, invariably the agent of the VERBing is the subject of the preceding clause.
sometimes this agent could well be the subject of nearest preceding actions such as to verb. right ?
@gmatguru/mikemagoosh - can you please share your thoughts on the above ?
SUBJECT + INFINITIVE is typically considered a type of clause, since this construction includes a subject and a verb form.
Rather than debate this issue, it is probably simplest to apply the following rule:
Generally, a COMMA + VERBing modifier will serve to modify the nearest preceding action and the agent of this action.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
-
ngk4mba3236
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:05 am
- Thanked: 1 times
rule: when an OA employs a COMMA + VERBing construction, a COMMA + VERBing modifier will serve to modify the nearest preceding action and the agent of this action.GMATGuruNY wrote: SUBJECT + INFINITIVE is typically considered a type of clause, since this construction includes a subject and a verb form.
Rather than debate this issue, it is probably simplest to apply the following rule:
Generally, a COMMA + VERBing modifier will serve to modify the nearest preceding action and the agent of this action.
so, on the basis of the above rule we can conclude that -
1. in most cases, this nearest preceding action will be the main action of the preceding clause and the agent of this action will be the subject of the preceding clause.
2. in some cases, this nearest preceding action will be an infinitive verb-form and the agent of this action will be the corresponding subject of this infinitive verb-form .
is this understanding correct ?
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
Looks good.ngk4mba3236 wrote:rule: when an OA employs a COMMA + VERBing construction, a COMMA + VERBing modifier will serve to modify the nearest preceding action and the agent of this action.GMATGuruNY wrote: SUBJECT + INFINITIVE is typically considered a type of clause, since this construction includes a subject and a verb form.
Rather than debate this issue, it is probably simplest to apply the following rule:
Generally, a COMMA + VERBing modifier will serve to modify the nearest preceding action and the agent of this action.
so, on the basis of the above rule we can conclude that -
1. in most cases, this nearest preceding action will be the main action of the preceding clause and the agent of this action will be the subject of the preceding clause.
2. in some cases, this nearest preceding action will be an infinitive verb-form and the agent of this action will be the corresponding subject of this infinitive verb-form .
is this understanding correct ?
Note also that a COMMA + VERBing may also serve to modify a preceding that-clause.
SC65 in the OG12:
The Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer, absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.
Here, COMMA + absorbing serves to refer not to the preceding main subject (the Army Corp of Engineers) but to the implied subject of the preceding that-clause (a breakwater of rocks).
I would stick to the rule that I suggested above:
Generally, a COMMA + VERBing modifier will serve to modify the nearest preceding action and the agent of this action.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
