Sentence Correction

Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend less time with each.

(A) imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend
(B) imposing stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients, and spending
(C) that impose stricter limits on medical services, require doctors to see more patients, and spend
(D) that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending
(E) that impose stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients and spending

OA: D

P.S: It's Official question. I'm stuck between A & D.

@Experts - please share your detail analysis!

RBBmba@2014 wrote: I'm stuck between A & D.

@Experts - please share your detail analysis!

A: plans requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend less time with each
Here, the subject of spend is unclear.
If we interpret that spend is parallel with see, a distorted meaning is conveyed:
plans requiring doctors TO SEE MORE PATIENTS AND TO SPEND LESS TIME WITH EACH PATIENT.
Here, the implication is that to see more patients and to spend less time with each patient are TWO SUCCESSIVE ACTIONS.
Not so.
The intended meaning is that -- when doctors SEE more patients -- they will AT THE SAME TIME be SPENDING less time with each patient.
This meaning is correctly conveyed by the OA:
D: plans that require doctors to see more patients, spending less time with each.
Here, spending serves as a MODIFIER, expressing HOW doctors will SEE more patients.
Conveyed meaning:
When doctors SEE more patients, they will at the same time be SPENDING less time with each patient.
Eliminate A and choose D.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote: I'm stuck between A & D.

@Experts - please share your detail analysis!

A: plans requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend less time with each
Here, the subject of spend is unclear.
If we interpret that spend is parallel with see, a distorted meaning is conveyed:
plans requiring doctors TO SEE MORE PATIENTS AND TO SPEND LESS TIME WITH EACH PATIENT.
Here, the implication is that to see more patients and to spend less time with each patient are TWO SUCCESSIVE ACTIONS.
Not so.
The intended meaning is that -- when doctors SEE more patients -- they will AT THE SAME TIME be SPENDING less time with each patient.
This meaning is correctly conveyed by the OA:
D: plans that require doctors to see more patients, spending less time with each.
Here, spending serves as a MODIFIER, expressing HOW doctors will SEE more patients.
Conveyed meaning:
When doctors SEE more patients, they will at the same time be SPENDING less time with each patient.
Eliminate A and choose D.

Thanks Mitch for your reply.

My thinking was about in the same line, BUT I'm confused on the following aspect in RED -

As for 'Verb-ing' modifier followed by a comma(","), the modifier modifies the preceding clause and the action denoted by this modifier must be in sync with the subject of the preceding clause that it modifies. If the subject of the preceding clause doesn't make sense with this 'Verb-ing' modifier then the modification is NOT proper.

Could you please explain how is this (the above concept in RED) maintained in the OA ? I think,'doctors' here are the doer of the action 'Spending'. So, how the subject here, is 'doctors' as they spend less time with patients ? Not able to get it.

Hope, I'm able to convey my confusion clearly.

Please help and let me know if any further clarification is required from my side!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:I think,'doctors' here are the doer of the action 'Spending'. So, how the subject here, is 'doctors' as they spend less time with patients ? Not able to get it.

Generally, COMMA + VERBing serves to modify both the nearest preceding ACTION and the AGENT of this action.
In most cases, the agent of the nearest preceding action will be the MAIN SUBJECT of the preceding clause, but there are exceptions.
SC66 in the OG13: The Army Corps of Engineers proposed building a breakwater of rocks that would...act as a buffer, absorbing the energy of crashing waves.
Here, COMMA + absorbing refers not to the Army Corps of Engineers (the main subject of the preceding clause) but to A BREAKWATERS OF ROCKS, the agent of the nearest preceding action (would act).
Conveyed meaning:
When a breakwater of rocks WOULD ACT as a buffer, it would at the same time be ABSORBING the energy of crashing waves.

The same reasoning holds true for the SC posted above:
Union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending less time with each.
Here, COMMA + spending refers not to the main subject of the preceding clause (union members) but to DOCTORS, the agent of the nearest preceding action (to see).
Conveyed meaning:
When doctors SEE more patients, they will at the same time be SPENDING less time with each patient.

Hello Mitch, in this question and the breakwater of rocks question also, can we then not generalize that such ING modifiers modify the nearest agent, because this nearest agent is "doctors" in this sentence and "breakwater of rocks" in the other sentence.

Would this be ok or are there exceptions to this that you have come across?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:I think,'doctors' here are the doer of the action 'Spending'. So, how the subject here, is 'doctors' as they spend less time with patients ? Not able to get it.

Generally, COMMA + VERBing serves to modify both the nearest preceding ACTION and the AGENT of this action.
In most cases, the agent of the nearest preceding action will be the MAIN SUBJECT of the preceding clause, but there are exceptions.
SC66 in the OG13: The Army Corps of Engineers proposed building a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline, absorbing the energy of crashing waves.
Here, COMMA + absorbing refers not to the Army Corps of Engineers (the main subject of the preceding clause) but to A BREAKWATERS OF ROCKS, the agent of the nearest preceding action (would rise).
Conveyed meaning:
When a breakwater of rocks WOULD RISE, it would at the same time be ABSORBING the energy of crashing waves.

The same reasoning holds true for the SC posted above:
Union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending less time with each.
Here, COMMA + spending refers not to the main subject of the preceding clause (union members) but to DOCTORS, the agent of the nearest preceding action (to see).
Conveyed meaning:
When doctors SEE more patients, they will at the same time be SPENDING less time with each patient.

Thanks Mitch for clarifying.

So, how to detect these EXCEPTIONS as described by you ? One is, I guess, based on the context/meaning of the complete sentence. Right ?

BUT, curious to know whether there is any other smarter way to detect these EXCEPTIONS ?

Look forward to your thoughts!

Official SCs seem to abide by the same rule:
COMMA + VERBing serves to refer to the agent of the nearest preceding action.
In most cases, the agent of the nearest preceding action will be the main subject of the preceding clause.
But -- as illustrated by the SCs above -- the agent of the nearest preceding action may also be the implied subject of an infinitive or of a that-modifer.

GMATGuruNY wrote: But -- as illustrated by the SCs above -- the agent of the nearest preceding action may also be the implied subject of an infinitive or of a that-modifer.

HI Mitch - I was concerned about better ways to identify these EXCEPTIONS other than counting on the context/meaning of the complete sentence at hand.

So, what I understand from your above reply is that the smarter way to identify such EXCEPTIONS is to look for the subject of an infinitive or of a that-modifier based on the meaning of the complete sentence. Right ?

Here, 'DOCTORS' is the subject of an infinitive 'to see' - the nearest action to the COMMA + VERBing modifier.

Let me know please whether my understanding is correct!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: But -- as illustrated by the SCs above -- the agent of the nearest preceding action may also be the implied subject of an infinitive or of a that-modifer.

HI Mitch - I was concerned about better ways to identify these EXCEPTIONS other than counting on the context/meaning of the complete sentence at hand.

So, what I understand from your above reply is that the smarter way to identify such EXCEPTIONS is to look for the subject of an infinitive or of a that-modifier based on the meaning of the complete sentence. Right ?

Here, 'DOCTORS' is the subject of an infinitive 'to see' - the nearest action to the COMMA + VERBing modifier.

Let me know please whether my understanding is correct!

Your understanding seems correct.

When you see COMMA + VERBing, the following test should work:
Identify the nearest preceding action.
The COMMA + VERBing modifier should refer to the agent of this action.

In most cases, the agent of the nearest preceding action will be the main subject of the preceding clause.
But it may instead be the subject of an infinitive or of a that-clause.

When in doubt, focus on the intended meaning.
Union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending less time with each.
Here, we know from context that DOCTORS are SPENDING less time with each patient.

bonetlobo wrote:Hello Mitch, in this question and the breakwater of rocks question also, can we then not generalize that such ING modifiers modify the nearest agent, because this nearest agent is "doctors" in this sentence and "breakwater of rocks" in the other sentence.

Would this be ok or are there exceptions to this that you have come across?

Hi Mitch, can you please respond to this doubt of mine, if possible.

Hi Mitch,
A quick question on the ERRORS in E.

(E) that impose stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients and spending

Here, I think, because of PARALLEL STRUCTURES containing requiring and spending , the NEAREST PRECEDING ACTION of spending appears to be impose , instead of to see. So, it's an ISSUE as far as intended MEANING (of the SC) is concerned.

Correct me please if wrong!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Mitch,
A quick question on the ERRORS in E.

(E) that impose stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients and spending

Here, I think, because of PARALLEL STRUCTURES containing requiring and spending , the NEAREST PRECEDING ACTION of spending appears to be impose , instead of to see. So, it's an ISSUE as far as intended MEANING (of the SC) is concerned.

Correct me please if wrong!

Correct.
E: plans that impose stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients and spending less time with each.
Here, both requiring and spending seem to refer to plans that impose -- the nearest preceding subject and verb structure -- implying that the PLANS are SPENDING less time with each patient when they IMPOSE stricter limits.
This meaning is nonsensical.
Eliminate E.