Sentence Correction

Q: Those who have visited the Grand Canyon have typically seen layers of sediment in the gaping canyon, with different colors that mark the passage of time like the rings in a tree trunk.

(A) seen layers of sediment in the gaping canyon, with different colors that mark

(B) see layers of sediment in the gaping canyon, whose different colors mark

(C) been seeing layers of sediment in the gaping canyon, whose different colors are markers of

(D) been able to see layers of sediment in the gaping canyon, with different colors marking

(E) seen layers of sediment in the gaping canyon, marking by different colors

OAD

I don't understand why option A is wrong. What's better in option D than in option A. Please advice what's wrong with option A that we select option D. Thanks in advance !

The SC above is modeled after SC113 in the OG10.
I suggest that you focus on the official SC, which is better formed:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/adverbial-mo ... 16194.html

Hi Mitch,

Yeah, there is some resemblance of this problem with the problem you mentioned, though they are not both same structurally. What I gather is that there is some possibility of ambiguity in option A.The option A inadvertently suggests that visitors have seen layers, with different colors as if they were wearing different colored goggles while seeing. To remove this ambiguity we can inflect or change the verb form and also the modifier structure. Now, option D changes 'have seen layers' to 'have been able to see layers' and also changes the modifier by converting a relative clause to a participial clause. I guess these changes remove the ambiguity. Now, regarding the post you referred to there is one error in it. 'With' is not a preposition in the sentence but a subordinator or a conjunction. 'With' is a subordinator that forms a verbless clause or a non-finite clause. As an adverbial the subordinate clause can be an adjunct, conjunct or disjunct depending on its syntactic relationship with the matrix clause. So regarding the present problem, I have a question: Is Option A incorrect because the modifier contains an active verb 'mark' , since 'with' as a conjunction must form a verbless or non-finite clause ?

Please advice whether my reasoning is correct.

Hi Mitch,

I just figured out the underlying structure in option D. It's a catenative construction with a raised complement. Hence, the complement syntactically belongs to the matrix clause but semantically relates to a subordinate clause. Thus, the structure of the sentence with option D may be read as follows:

Those who have visited the Grand Canyon have typically been able [to see layers of sediment in the gaping canyon, with different colors marking the passage of time like the rings in a tree trunk.]. This can be made clear with an alternate construction:

Those who have visited the Grand Canyon have typically been able [that they see layers of sediment in the gaping canyon, with different colors marking the passage of time like the rings in a tree trunk ]

Thus, semantically the subordinate clause begins from the square bracket and the modifier within the subordinate clause relates more to the 'layers' than it did before. This structure implies that the visitors see layers with different colors; 'with different colors' relating to 'layers'. In option A the modifier relates to the matrix clause, but in option D the modifier relates to the subordinate clause more effectively. There is a lot of embedding within this alternate structure, but it helps to remove the ambiguity.

What's your take on this ?

Aman verma wrote:'With' is not a preposition in the sentence but a subordinator or a conjunction. 'With' is a subordinator that forms a verbless clause or a non-finite clause.

with is not a conjunction but a preposition and thus cannot serve to introduce a verbless clause.
A verbless clause must be introduced by a subordinate conjunction such as if, although, while or when.
I discuss verbless clauses here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/sc-conjuncti ... 75691.html

On the GMAT, COMMA + with at the end of a sentence generally serves as an ADVERB modifying the preceding VERB or ACTION, explaining HOW the preceding verb or action occurs.
Official examples:

Visitors to the park have often seen monkeys SLEEPING on the branches, with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.
Here, the portion in red serves to modify sleeping.
How are monkeys SLEEPING?
WITH ARMS AND LEGS hanging like socks on a clothesline.

The honeybee's stinger STAYS where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes the bee to sustain a fatal injury.
Here, the portion in red serves to modify stays.
How does the stinger STAY?
WITH THE RESULT that the act of stinging causes the bee to sustain a fatal injury.

Orb-weaving spiders build webs that ARE essentially wheel-like, with an outer rim and a number of spokes emanating from the hub.
Here, the portion in red serves to modify are.
How ARE the webs wheel-like?
WITH AN OUTER RIM and a number of spokes emanating from the hub.

So regarding the present problem, I have a question: Is Option A incorrect because the modifier contains an active verb 'mark' , since 'with' as a conjunction must form a verbless or non-finite clause ?

The SC above can be found in Kaplan GMAT 800.
The OA is not D but A:

The OE's reason for eliminating D is inadequate.
On the GMAT, an answer choice will never be incorrect simply because it is wordy.
An incorrect answer choice on the GMAT will always contain at least one clear error of grammar or meaning.
I would ignore this SC.

Hi Mitch,

I'm afraid your definition of a verbless clause is not entirely accurate. I have consulted various traditional grammars and most of them refer to a verbless clause as a clause which does not have a verb element. But a verbless clause can have a subject. A verb element can be an active verb or a non-finite verb. Thus, the following sentence has a verbless clause in italics:

Whether right or wrong, he always comes off best in argument. Notice this sentence does not have a verb element, active or non-finite. But, look at another example:

With the cchildren at school, we can't take our vacations when we want to

In the second example the verbless clause has a subject and the clause is introduced with a subordinator 'with'.

Now, it is possible for a verbless clause to have a non-finite modifier e.g a participial within the clause modifying some other element, but it does not act as a verb element within the clause.

Also, regarding 'with' ,it can act as a conjunction in certain contexts, like the given sentence. The same word can function as different parts of speech in different sentence depending on the context. The word 'with' is a preposition but in the given sentence it is acting as a subordinator introducing an Adverbial clause, which is basically a subordinate clause. Similarly, many word which act as a subordinating conjunction in one sentence can act as a preposition in another sentence. I can give you examples.

Aman verma wrote:Hi Mitch,

I'm afraid your definition of a verbless clause is not entirely accurate. I have consulted various traditional grammars and most of them refer to a verbless clause as a clause which does not have a verb element.

This definition of a verbless clause seems incomplete and overly broad.
A clause contains a subject and a verb.
In a verbless clause, the verb is omitted, but its presence is IMPLIED.

Aman verma wrote:Whether right or wrong, he always comes off best.

Here, the portion in italics is a verbless clause.
Implied meaning:
Whether [he is] right or wrong, he always comes off best.
The subject and verb in brackets are omitted, but their presence is implied.

Aman verma wrote:With the children at school, we can't take our vacations

Here, no verb is implied in the italicized portion.
Since no verb is implied, it seems inappropriate to deem the italicized portion a "clause," verbless or otherwise.

It is true that some grammar books cite infinitive modifiers and VERBing modifiers as examples of non-finite clauses.
For our purposes, deeming these sorts of modifiers clauses is more likely to confuse than to enlighten.
Putting aside the nomenclature issue, what matters here is understanding how a COMMA + with modifier functions on the GMAT.
Bottom line:
On the GMAT, a COMMA + with modifier at the end of the sentence generally serves as an adverb modifying the preceding verb or action, as illustrated by the examples in my post above.

Well, you mentioned in one of your posts that a verbless clause omits the subject, but you can clearly see in second example that a verbless clause can contain a subject. And, as I have already mentioned that a verbless clause acts as an adverbial, it does modifies the verb in the matrix clause. So you are just repeating me!

Aman verma wrote:but you can clearly see in second example that a verbless clause can contain a subject

In your second example, with the children at school does not constitute a clause -- verbless or otherwise -- since no verb is implied.
Further, the children is not a subject but is the object of the preposition with.
As I mentioned in my post above, with cannot serve as a conjunction and thus cannot be followed by a subject.
An examination of various dictionaries reveals that NOT ONE defines with as a conjunction:
https://www.onelook.com/?w=with&ls=a.

If you choose to view the with-modifiers above as clauses, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

The verb element in the second sentence is 'being present':
With the children (being present) at school, we can't take our vacations. The verb can be recovered from the context. Now, I can give you few more examples of verbless clauses which do have an overt subject:

There he stood,a tray in each hand.
73 people have been drowned in the area, many of them children.
She looked at him expectantly, her eyes full of excitement and curiosity.

He looked remarkably well, his skin clear and smooth.
Davidess sat in the front seat, her hands in her lap.

You can clearly see that in all these sentences, the verbless clause has an overt subject.

Regarding, the word 'with' in your dictionary reference, dictionaries list only lexical items. Which means that won't find many items not listed in the dictionaries that otherwise exist. For example, the word 'being' used above in the missing verb. You wont find 'being' listed as an auxiliary verb in any of the dictionaries you mentioned. 'Being' is listed as a noun etc. but nowhere is 'being' listed as an auxiliary verb. But that doesn't mean that 'being' as an auxiliary verb does not exist. Check:
https://www.onelook.com/?w=being&ls=a

You cannot solely rely on dictionaries to determine the function of a word within a sentence. The exact syntactic and semantic role of a word within the sentence depends on the structure and the context of the sentence. Also, you can consult some good grammar books for syntax and construction.

Since the term clause implies a subject and a verb, I consider a verbless clause a construction in which an actual verb -- not just a participle -- is omitted but implied.
John should not drink while driving.
Implied meaning:
John should not drink while [he is] driving.
Here, the verb is can be inserted into the red portion, and the resulting sentence is grammatically sound.
Hence, the red portion constitutes a bonafide clause.

Aman verma wrote:The verb element in the second sentence is 'being present':
With the children (being present) at school, we can't take our vacations. The verb can be recovered from the context.

Here, being serves not as a true verb but as a modifier.
What KIND of children?
Children BEING PRESENT.
To serve as a true verb, being requires a helping verb such as are or were:
The children ARE BEING polite.
The children WERE BEING polite.

In your sentence, an actual verb cannot be inserted into the with-modifier.
Incorrect: With the children are at school, we can't take our vacation.
This sentence is not grammatically sound: with cannot serve to introduce a subject and an actual verb.
Hence, it seems inappropriate to consider the with-modifier a clause.

If you choose to view the with-modifier as a clause, that is your right, but such a broad definition of a verbless clause is likely to confuse most visitors to this board.

Now, I can give you few more examples of verbless clauses which do have an overt subject:

There he stood,a tray in each hand.
73 people have been drowned in the area, many of them children.
She looked at him expectantly, her eyes full of excitement and curiosity.

He looked remarkably well, his skin clear and smooth.
Davidess sat in the front seat, her hands in her lap.

You can clearly see that in all these sentences, the verbless clause has an overt subject.

The italicized modifiers are known to many grammarians and to most BTG-ers as ABSOLUTE PHRASES.
A verb cannot be inserted into any of these modifiers.
Incorrect: She looked at him expectantly, her eyes [were] full of excitement and curiosity.
Here, inserting a verb yields a run-on sentence.
Since the italicized portion cannot support a verb, to deem it a clause seems confusing.
The term absolute phrase seems more appropriate.

You cannot solely rely on dictionaries to determine the function of a word within a sentence.

True, dictionaries are incomplete resources.
But since with cannot be followed by a subject and an actual verb, it is not considered a conjunction.

Your definition of a verbless clause is clearly far broader than mine.
That's fine.
Other grammarians might agree with you.
But an overly broad definition -- one that muddies the distinction between a phrase and a clause -- is likely to confuse test-takers.
For this reason, I recommend the narrower definition that I have offered above.

Let me provide the missing verbs in the verbless clauses:

There he stood,a tray (was) in each hand.
73 people have been drowned in the area, many of them (were) children.
She looked at him expectantly, her eyes (were)full of excitement and curiosity.

He looked remarkably well, his skin (was)clear and smooth.
Davidess sat in the front seat, her hands (were) in her lap

Why do we construct these sentences as verbless clauses ? To make the sentence more concise. So that the sentence can stand on its own even without the missing verb. The verbless clause itself must be able to stand on its own(considered separately) as a clause if the missing verb is provided. The two clauses might be placed in juxtaposition, if the missing verb is provided, that does not take away its status as a clause, considered separately. That's one of the reason the verb is generally omitted. And that's one of the reason that it is constructed as a verbless clause. Also, an Absolute phrase can be a non-finite or a verbless clause. That's the definition of an Absolute phrase given in most of the respected grammar books. I don't know if BTG considers Absolute phrase in a different manner than the most standard grammars do!

This last debate is not so much about grammar as about nomenclature.
She looked at him expectantly, her eyes full of excitement.
While some grammar books might deem the modifier in red a verbless clause, virtually every GMAT resource will refer to it as an absolute phrase.
For this reason, I recommend the latter term -- the term familiar to most test-takers.

GMAT resources discussing the usage of absolute phrases:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 00-15.html
https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2014/09 ... -the-gmat/
https://grockit.com/blog/gmat-sentence-c ... te-phrase/
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/absolute-p ... -the-gmat/

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 00-15.html
https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2014/09 ... -the-gmat/
https://grockit.com/blog/gmat-sentence-c ... te-phrase/
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/absolute-p ... -the-gmat/

But none of these posts ever mention that an Absolute phrase cannot be a verbless clause or that a verbless clause cannot be an Absolute phrase. In fact, the structure they suggest for an Absolute phrase is exactly that of a non-finite or a verbless clause. Most of the standard grammars refers to an Absolute phrase as a non-finite or verbless clause.

Aman verma wrote: But none of these posts ever mention that an Absolute phrase cannot be a verbless clause or that a verbless clause cannot be an Absolute phrase. In fact, the structure they suggest for an Absolute phrase is exactly that of a non-finite or a verbless clause. Most of the standard grammars refers to an Absolute phrase as a non-finite or verbless clause.

My point is this:
If every GMAT resource and every other poster on BTG considers this structure a PHRASE -- an absolute phrase -- and you refer to it as a type of CLAUSE, the result will be confusion.
In the interest of clarity, best to keep the terminology consistent.

It is for this reason that I generally reserve the term verbless clause for verbless structures introduced by subordinate conjunctions such as if, when, although, etc.
Whereas other verbless structures will be construed by most test-takers as PHRASES, a structure introduced by if or when can be construed only as a CLAUSE.