Welcome! Check out our free B-School Guides to learn how you compare with other applicants.

## Sound can travel

This topic has 1 expert reply and 7 member replies
abcgmat Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined
27 Aug 2011
Posted:
217 messages
Followed by:
1 members
Thanked:
17 times
Sound can travel Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:38 pm
Elapsed Time: 00:00
• Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
Sound can travel through water for enormous distances, prevented from dissipating its acoustic energy as a result of boundaries in the ocean created by water layers of different
temperatures and densities.

A. prevented from dissipating its acoustic energy as a result of
B. prevented from having its acoustic energy dissipated by
C. its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by
D. its acoustic energy prevented from being dissipated as a result of
E preventing its acoustic energy from dissipating by

OA: C

I have a doubt in usage of ,+ing
,+verbing describes the previous clause and the subject of ,+verbing is the subject of the main clause. E is wrong as sound cannot prevent its acoustic energy itself.

Q1. In E, Is ',preventing...' the result of previous previous clause or is it describing how the sound can travel for enormous distance.

But in example:
stock market crashed,causing people to panic.

2. Here Is stock market the subject of causing panic?
I think the stock market is not causing peole to panic, but it is the result of crashing that is causing people to panic.

My question is
3. If ,+verbing is the result of the previous clause then it is not necessary for subject of the main clause be to the doer of the action in ,+verbing?
4. and if ,+verbing describes how the main clause happenend , then the subject of the main clause is always the doer of the action in ,+verbing?
(E.g. john killed the snake, using the stick . [Here how john killed is the snake is answered by 'using the stick']

Is my understanding correct?

Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
patanjali.purpose GMAT Destroyer!
Joined
03 Apr 2011
Posted:
784 messages
Followed by:
10 members
Thanked:
112 times
Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:57 pm
abcgmat wrote:
Sound can travel through water for enormous distances, prevented from dissipating its acoustic energy as a result of boundaries in the ocean created by water layers of different
temperatures and densities.

A. prevented from dissipating its acoustic energy as a result of
B. prevented from having its acoustic energy dissipated by
C. its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by
D. its acoustic energy prevented from being dissipated as a result of
E preventing its acoustic energy from dissipating by

OA: C

I have a doubt in usage of ,+ing
,+verbing describes the previous clause and the subject of ,+verbing is the subject of the main clause. E is wrong as sound cannot prevent its acoustic energy itself.

Q1. In E, Is ',preventing...' the result of previous previous clause or is it describing how the sound can travel for enormous distance.

But in example:
stock market crashed,causing people to panic.

2. Here Is stock market the subject of causing panic?
I think the stock market is not causing peole to panic, but it is the result of crashing that is causing people to panic.

My question is
3. If ,+verbing is the result of the previous clause then it is not necessary for subject of the main clause be to the doer of the action in ,+verbing?
4. and if ,+verbing describes how the main clause happenend , then the subject of the main clause is always the doer of the action in ,+verbing?
(E.g. john killed the snake, using the stick . [Here how john killed is the snake is answered by 'using the stick']

Is my understanding correct?
Quote:
E preventing its acoustic energy from dissipating by
- this is not wrong bcoz sound cannot do this, but bcoz this action is done by (in the sentence) "water layers ..." The doer of PREVENTING is coming later in the sentence. Therefore,
Quote:
3. If ,+verbing is the result of the previous clause then it is not necessary for subject of the main clause be to the doer of the action in ,+verbing?
- this is not correct. All depends on DOER of the action

Quote:
stock market crashed,causing people to panic.
- agree with you. Doer both action are same. The same applies for
Quote:
4. and if ,+verbing describes how the main clause happenend , then the subject of the main clause is always the doer of the action in ,+verbing?
(E.g. john killed the snake, using the stick . [Here how john killed is the snake is answered by 'using the stick']

vikram4689 GMAT Titan
Joined
01 Nov 2009
Posted:
1324 messages
Followed by:
13 members
Thanked:
99 times
Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:04 pm
abcgmat wrote:
Q1. In E, Is ',preventing...' the result of previous previous clause or is it describing how the sound can travel for enormous distance.
energy is prevented ... CAUSE
sound can travel ... EFFECT/RESULT

Quote:
stock market crashed,causing people to panic
2. Here Is stock market the subject of causing panic?
I think the stock market is not causing peole to panic, but it is the result of crashing that is causing people to panic.
Crashing - CAUSE
Panic - EFFECT

It cannot be generalized whether 1st/2nd is cause/effect as it depends on meaning.

Quote:
My question is
3. If ,+verbing is the result of the previous clause then it is not necessary for subject of the main clause be to the doer of the action in ,+verbing?
4. and if ,+verbing describes how the main clause happenend , then the subject of the main clause is always the doer of the action in ,+verbing?
(E.g. john killed the snake, using the stick . [Here how john killed is the snake is answered by 'using the stick']
Sorry, I exactly did not understand the questions

_________________
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

abcgmat Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined
27 Aug 2011
Posted:
217 messages
Followed by:
1 members
Thanked:
17 times
Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:28 pm
Quote:
3. If ,+verbing is the result of the previous clause then it is not necessary for subject of the main clause be to the doer of the action in ,+verbing?
- this is not correct. All depends on DOER of the action
---I didn not get this part, can you give me examples where subject of main clause is the doer and where subject of the main clause is not the doer of the action in ' ,+ING'

stock market crashed,causing people to panic
--Do you mean to say stock market is the doer of the action 'causing...'.
If so it doesnot look logically correct

patanjali.purpose GMAT Destroyer!
Joined
03 Apr 2011
Posted:
784 messages
Followed by:
10 members
Thanked:
112 times
Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:09 pm
abcgmat wrote:
Quote:
3. If ,+verbing is the result of the previous clause then it is not necessary for subject of the main clause be to the doer of the action in ,+verbing?
- this is not correct. All depends on DOER of the action
---I didn not get this part, can you give me examples where subject of main clause is the doer and where subject of the main clause is not the doer of the action in ' ,+ING'

stock market crashed,causing people to panic
--Do you mean to say stock market is the doer of the action 'causing...'.
If so it doesnot look logically correct
The growth of the railroads led to the abolition of local times, determined by when the sun reached the observer's meridian and differing from city to city, and to the establishment of regional times - this is a correct sentence.

You can see the use of both VERBED and VERBING above. Look at the following link for more clarity:

abcgmat Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined
27 Aug 2011
Posted:
217 messages
Followed by:
1 members
Thanked:
17 times
Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:59 pm
Yes but in this case differing is referring to local times.
Determined by is referring to closest Noun that is local times
and since differing is parallel to determined by , differing refers to local times.

I think this example is different from mine, where in my example it refers to the whole clause and not the closest noun.

vikram4689 GMAT Titan
Joined
01 Nov 2009
Posted:
1324 messages
Followed by:
13 members
Thanked:
99 times
Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:50 pm
Quote:
stock market crashed,causing people to panic
This sentence is not correct as stock market DID NOT cause people to panic. Subject should be aligned with the modifier. Instead following version would be correct -
A report that stock market has crashed is published in today's newspaper, causing public to panic
Here, causing public to panic is an adverb and modify previous clause. Subject-Report is also aligned with modifier.Intention is that report caused panic

See 2nd and 3rd post of Ron on http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post46255.html

_________________
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

Thanked by: abcgmat
abcgmat Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined
27 Aug 2011
Posted:
217 messages
Followed by:
1 members
Thanked:
17 times
Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:43 am
Hi Vikram,

Thank you, the link is very useful.

### GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower GMAT Instructor
Joined
03 Mar 2008
Posted:
2980 messages
Followed by:
1051 members
Thanked:
1736 times
GMAT Score:
800
Sun May 06, 2012 10:25 am
abcgmat wrote:
I have a doubt in usage of ,+ing
,+verbing describes the previous clause and the subject of ,+verbing is the subject of the main clause. E is wrong as sound cannot prevent its acoustic energy itself.

Q1. In E, Is ',preventing...' the result of previous previous clause or is it describing how the sound can travel for enormous distance.
this is a non-issue, since the meaning of that choice is already incorrect (for the exact reason that you pointed out right here). there's no reason to further analyze the meaning of a modifier whose meaning is already absurd.

Quote:
But in example:
stock market crashed,causing people to panic.

2. Here Is stock market the subject of causing panic?
I think the stock market is not causing peole to panic, but it is the result of crashing that is causing people to panic.
essentially, the meaning here is, “by crashing, the stock market caused people to panic”. that's basically what these modifiers do in this kind of context.

in general, you shouldn't expect to be able to jumble sentences around and still preserve exactly the same meaning.
this is why all these modifiers, etc. exist in the first place! if you could reduce everything in the world to simple s+v or s+v+o type sentences without any loss of meaning, then most of these modifiers wouldn't exist outside of literary uses.

_________________
Ron is a Director of Curriculum Development at Manhattan GMAT. He has been teaching various standardized tests for almost 20 years.

He wears white after Labor Day, gets 55% of his calories from protein, and takes standardized tests for fun.

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron o en inglés o en español.

If you send Ron a private message, please allow 1-2 weeks for a response.

Thanked by: abcgmat
Free Manhattan GMAT online events - The first class of every online Manhattan GMAT course is free. Classes start every week.

### Best Conversation Starters

1 varun289 31 topics
2 sana.noor 23 topics
3 killerdrummer 21 topics
4 Rudy414 19 topics
5 sanaa.rizwan 14 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

199 posts
2 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

134 posts
3 Jim@StratusPrep

Stratus Prep

106 posts
4 Anju@Gurome

Gurome

47 posts