BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Sound can travel

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:06 pm
Thanked: 19 times
Followed by:1 members

Sound can travel

by abcgmat » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:38 am
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

[spoiler]OA: C[/spoiler]

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?
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:57 am
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

[spoiler]OA: C[/spoiler]

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?
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,
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
stock market crashed,causing people to panic.
- agree with you. Doer both action are same. The same applies for
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']
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:04 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
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.
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 ;)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:06 pm
Thanked: 19 times
Followed by:1 members

by abcgmat » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:28 pm
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
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:09 pm
abcgmat wrote:
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:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-growth-o ... 02318.html
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:06 pm
Thanked: 19 times
Followed by:1 members

by abcgmat » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:59 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.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:50 pm
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 https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post46255.html
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:06 pm
Thanked: 19 times
Followed by:1 members

by abcgmat » Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:43 am
Hi Vikram,

Thank you, the link is very useful.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sun May 06, 2012 9:25 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.
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 has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1