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

Redeem

absolute phrase

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

absolute phrase

by vikram4689 » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:44 am
ORIGINAL SENTENCE: There are many industries in California vital to its economy, and technology is one of the most important.
Which should be correct in absolute phrase form and why ?
There are many industries in California vital to its economy, with technology being one of the most important.
There are many industries in California vital to its economy, technology being one of the most important.
[spoiler]I think 2nd one is correct absolute phrase https://www.testmagic.com/grammar/explan ... ses-02.asp[/spoiler]
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:10 am
Thanked: 13 times

by shekhar.kataria » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:53 pm
IMO Second is correct.

Two reasons:-

1. Technology is one of the most imp.. what.. industry not economy, wrong modifier.
2. In Its current position you need a conjunction ( connector ) to connect two sentences.

What is the Original Explanation. Correct me IF i m wrong.
vikram4689 wrote:ORIGINAL SENTENCE: There are many industries in California vital to its economy, and technology is one of the most important.
Which should be correct in absolute phrase form and why ?
There are many industries in California vital to its economy, with technology being one of the most important.
There are many industries in California vital to its economy, technology being one of the most important.
[spoiler]I think 2nd one is correct absolute phrase https://www.testmagic.com/grammar/explan ... ses-02.asp[/spoiler]
Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress.--Thomas A. Edison

If you find this post helpful, let me know by clicking thanks above :-)
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:32 pm
Testmagic mentions 1st, lets see what experts have to say
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:15 am
Thanked: 149 times
Followed by:32 members
GMAT Score:760

by avik.ch » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:35 am
I think both are correct. There are no differences.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:02 am
2nd one uses an absolute phrase modifier and hence modifies preceding clause. 1st one uses a prepositional phrase which acts adjectival/adverbial modifier. If it is acting as adverbial modifier then it is correct, is there any rule to identify when prep. phr. act as adjectival/adverbial modifier.

If it is acting as adjectival phrase then it would modify economy and not industry and hence incorrect

Also i find following at https://www.beatthegmat.com/prepositiona ... 91955.html I have requested patanjali.purpose for its source. What do you think of these..
1. WITH xx, NOUN... ==> WITH xx must logically modifiy NOUN. This is because WITH PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES ARE ADJECTIVE MODIFIERS AND THEREFORE NEED TO PLACE NEAR THE NOUN IT MODIFIES
2. IN xx, NOUN..VERB... (or any other PrepPh in place of 'IN xx') ==> IN xx can either modify the NOUN or the VERB, depending on context. This is because SUCH PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES can either behave as ADJECTIVE OR ADVERB MODIFIERS
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:15 am
Thanked: 149 times
Followed by:32 members
GMAT Score:760

by avik.ch » Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:21 am
vikram4689 wrote:2nd one uses an absolute phrase modifier and hence modifies preceding clause. 1st one uses a prepositional phrase which acts adjectival/adverbial modifier. If it is acting as adverbial modifier then it is correct, is there any rule to identify when prep. phr. act as adjectival/adverbial modifier.

If it is acting as adjectival phrase then it would modify economy and not industry and hence incorrect

Also i find following at https://www.beatthegmat.com/prepositiona ... 91955.html I have requested patanjali.purpose for its source. What do you think of these..
1. WITH xx, NOUN... ==> WITH xx must logically modifiy NOUN. This is because WITH PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES ARE ADJECTIVE MODIFIERS AND THEREFORE NEED TO PLACE NEAR THE NOUN IT MODIFIES
2. IN xx, NOUN..VERB... (or any other PrepPh in place of 'IN xx') ==> IN xx can either modify the NOUN or the VERB, depending on context. This is because SUCH PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES can either behave as ADJECTIVE OR ADVERB MODIFIERS
Non essential prepositional modifier do act as an adverb
Since an adverb modifies an action of the subject - it should have a logical subject.

With his head held high, he left the room. - adverb of manner

But when its not an non essential initial modifier prepositional phrase can act as an adjective or as an adverb.

I met joe in 2011 - "in 2011" adverb of time. but

But,

I read the book on the table - what is on the table : an adjective or an adverb. For this confusion we use non essential modifier or place the adverb after the verb.

On the table, I read the book.
I,on the table, read the book.

I read on the table the book. - https://www.beatthegmat.com/aids-t107788-15.html#456632

but, since the prepositional phrase should make sense with the subject,

On the table, the book was read by me - wrong.

I read the book, on the table - this is somewhat correct in the real world but since the modifier is far from the subject this is not correct in GMAT

Mitch Sir also mentioned the same thing in the post you mentioned.
GMATGuruNY wrote:
With the assistance of informants is not an adjective describing a certain KIND of litigator; it is an ADVERB describing HOW litigators MAKE cases:

WITH THE ASSISTANCE of informants, litigators MAKE cases.

HOW do litigators MAKE cases? WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF INFORMANTS.

Since LITIGATORS are performing the action -- they MAKE cases -- the subject of the clause that follows the introductory modifier should be LITIGATORS.

In most cases, an introductory prepositional modifier will serve as an ADVERB modifying the entire clause that follows -- and in particular the ACTION of the clause that follows. The prepositional modifier will provide context, indicating how, when, where, or under what circumstances the ACTION of the clause that follows takes place. WHOEVER or WHATEVER is performing the action being modified should appear as the SUBJECT of the clause that follows the introductory modifier.
-----

Applying this to this problem :

1.There are many industries in California vital to its economy, with technology being one of the most important.
This is the case of extraposition, so the subject is "many industries in California" and the prep phrase is correct.

I hope this helps !!
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 Mar 17, 2012 12:59 pm
On the table, the book was read by me - wrong.
I think you intended that this sentence, although grammatically correct, conveys different meaning from the one we are discussing and i.e. it is incorrect.



Do we consider "infinitive phrase(to+verb)", which can acts as adv & adj, in the same way.


This is the case of extraposition, so the subject is "many industries in California" and the prep phrase is correct.

Is this only Grammatically correct OR would be correct in GMAT as well because you mentioned following.
I read the book, on the table - this is somewhat correct in the real world but since the modifier is far from the subject this is not correct in GMAT


Is it a rule that "Non essential prepositional modifier do act as an adverb" because Mitch mentioned for sentence "The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus."
When a modifier ENDS a sentence, there typically are many preceding nouns and verbs. "in two letters" is at some distance from wrote, with several interceding nouns (account, eruptions, Vesuvius). Thus, it is far less clear what is being modified. Inserting a comma before "in two letters" would not clarify the situation.




What do you think of prep phr. below. It is modifying "emerges". So can we say that if ambiguity of prep phr. being adv./adj. is removed if one of verb/noun does not make sense.
A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500; an adult with such vision would be deemed legally blind
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:15 am
Thanked: 149 times
Followed by:32 members
GMAT Score:760

by avik.ch » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:11 pm
vikram4689 wrote:Do we consider "infinitive phrase(to+verb)", which can acts as adv & adj, in the same way.
To + verb always acts as an adverb - generally it acts as an "adverb of purpose".

vikram4689 wrote:
This is the case of extraposition, so the subject is "many industries in California" and the prep phrase is correct.

Is this only Grammatically correct OR would be correct in GMAT as well because you mentioned following.
I read the book, on the table - this is somewhat correct in the real world but since the modifier is far from the subject this is not correct in GMAT
Since, you have takes this sentence from a GMAT specific site - we can reasonable infer that this is correct in GMAT

vikram4689 wrote:Is it a rule that "Non essential prepositional modifier do act as an adverb" because Mitch mentioned for sentence "The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus."
When a modifier ENDS a sentence, there typically are many preceding nouns and verbs. "in two letters" is at some distance from wrote, with several interceding nouns (account, eruptions, Vesuvius). Thus, it is far less clear what is being modified. Inserting a comma before "in two letters" would not clarify the situation.
This is an VR-2 question.

the original one - The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus - here what does the preopositional modifier modifies -

- is it an adverb of place
- or an adjective modifying the great eruption.

consider the example above : I read the book on the table

this problem is eliminated in E - making it into a non essential modifier : a prepositional phrase acts as an adverb - so

In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius. - here without any ambiguity the prep phrase is an adverb of place with logical subject " the nephew of Pliny the Elder "

yes placing this at the end of the sentence is still ambigious.

But please note that this cosntruction is not there in any of the five answer choices like :

In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius,In two letters to the historian Tacitus.

GMAT is not asking you to differentiate between this two,
vikram4689 wrote:What do you think of prep phr. below. It is modifying "emerges". So can we say that if ambiguity of prep phr. being adv./adj. is removed if one of verb/noun does not make sense. A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500; an adult with such vision would be deemed legally blind
This is from OG-12.

A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500; an adult with such vision would be deemed legally blind.

yes it is an adverb here - adverb of manner for "emerges"

Consider this :

I want to win with pride. - here "with pride" is an adverb of manner.

Refer Og-12 #38, another good problem on prepositional phrase.


Hope this helps !!
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1