Sentence Correction

vishwjeet wrote:Hi Ron,
I came across the following in a article in NYTimes:

Americans deserve to hear the truth: There is no shortcut, no matter what the Republicans claim. Nor is their urgency to impose deep spending cuts now, while the economy is weak, as Republicans are insisting.

1. Neither/Nor structure is not followed.
2. Can we user Neither/Nor structure with a full-stop.

this consideration is irrelevant to the gmat, since it involves an idiomatic construction that spans more than one sentence.
all SC problems consist of exactly one sentence, so anything that occurs in constructions of 2+ sentences is immaterial as far as the test is concerned.

The spending cuts implied by such a cap are so draconian that even the budget recently passed by House Republicans - and condemned by the public for its gutting of Medicare - would not be tough enough.

This sentence be written without '-' using 'which'.

removing the dashes would destroy the rhetorical effect of the sentence; the dashes are there to convey the considerable irony of what is stated (namely, that the public condemned the bill for being too harsh, but the bill is in fact not harsh enough).

for more on dashes, see here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/only-seven-p ... tml#158248

Which one is the preferred way.

The spending cuts implied by such a cap are so draconian that even the budget recently passed, condemned by the public for its gutting of Medicare, by House Republicans would not be tough enough.

The spending cuts implied by such a cap are so draconian that even the budget recently passed, which was condemned by the public for its gutting of Medicare, by House Republicans would not be tough enough.

first -- in general, you shouldn't try to do this.
DON'T TRY TO FIX THE SENTENCES!

even though this section of the test is called, ironically, "sentence correction", you do not ever need to be able to fix the sentences; you only need to be able to select the correct answer choice from the choices given.

trying to fix the sentences is an irrelevant skill set; if you do too much of this, it will distract you from the skill set that you actually need.
in addition, when students on this forum have attempted to fix sentences, the new versions have contained serious errors in almost 100% of the cases that i have seen.

--

regarding these two versions -- both of them are very seriously flawed; you can't divide up the single thought "passed by house republicans" with a modifier that represents an unrelated thought.

voodoo_child wrote:Sure Ron!
Here's the question to which Stacey replied :-

Many of the earliest known images of the Hindu deities
in India date from the time of Kushan empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or Gandharan grey schist
1. empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or
2. empire, fashioned from either the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from
3. empire, either fashioned from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or
4. empire and either fashioned from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from
5. empire and were fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from

One of the users wanted to know the rule behind "-ed" modifier i.e. "fashioned" -- does it modify empire or the noun of the preceding clause = "Hindu deities". Stacey said that ",-ed" modifiers generally modify the noun before the comma. I am a bit confused about it.

This question/post is on the first page of this thread. The only reason why I am not creating a new thread is that it will help fellow BTGians to understand the flow.....However, if you want I can create a new thread. Please let me know.

Thanks
Voodoo

well ... i'm not sure how many fellow btg'ians are going to make it through 100+ posts, but ...

i think you're both right -- this kind of modifier could refer either to the subject or to the noun before; you'll have to use context to figure it out.

e.g.
Joe turned to face the audience, flushed with fear --> correct sentence; modifier modifies "Joe"
Joe will fight his next bout against Malik, renowned for his fierce left jab --> correct sentence; in this kind of (somewhat ambiguous) construction, the usual convention is that "renowned" modifies "Malik", not "Joe".

i don't think you really have to worry about these kinds of modifiers very much; experience shows that they are hardly tested at all on the real test.

HOWEVER

in the problem at hand, all of this is a non-issue; this modifier is altogether wrong, because there shouldn't be a modifier here.
it's not good enough for a comma + -ed or comma + -ing modifier just to describe the subject -- it must actually modify, or relate to, the content of the preceding clause.
e.g.
Joe spoke to the audience, blushing with nervousness --> this sentence makes sense
Joe spoke to the audience, standing 5'11" tall --> although this sentence is grammatically correct, it's total nonsense, because Joe's height has nothing to do with his speaking ability.
(this is also the reason why choice (a) of OG12 #26 is wrong -- it's not grammatically wrong, but it contains a modifier that's "modifying" something completely unrelated to it.)

the fact that the images "date from xxxx" and "were fashioned from xxxx" are two completely unrelated facts, so they should be placed in separate constructions (with "and"). it's inappropriate to use a modifier.

if you have further questions, please create a new thread; this one is almost ten pages long at this point, and is so multifarious and fragmented as to be practically useless at this point. thanks.

rishabh.frozen wrote:The increased popularity and availability of televisions has led to the decline of regional dialects, language variations which originate from diverse ethnic and cultural heritages and perpetuatedby geographic isolation.

(A) which originate from diverse ethnic and cultural heritages and perpetuated
(B) that originated from diverse ethnic and cultural heritages and perpetuated
(C) originated from diverse ethnic and cultural heritages and perpetuated
(D) originating from diverse ethnic and cultural heritages and perpetuated
(E) originating from diverse ethnic and cultural heritages and perpetuating


Can anybody please tell me why "HAS" is used in the above problem (non-underlined part) ??
Thanks.

constructions of the form "X and Y" are usually plural, but can be singular if X+Y is considered a single item. for instance, check out OG12 #82, in which "owning and living" is considered singular, presumably because in the given context those two things, together, are basically one activity.

in general, you should assume that "x and y" is plural, unless there is specific proof to the contrary. (in og12 #82, "owning and living" is the subject of the singular verb "is", and is also described as "a goal" -- not two goals -- so there is no doubt that it is singular.)

voodoo_child wrote:I am not questioning OA. However, I want to understand the OA. Would it make sense for the discus to improve stability in its flight? thereby improving is "-ing" modifier that MUST modify the action of the preceding clause and the subject must be able to do the "-ing" action. I see that the first condition is satisfied. I am not able to understand how can the discus "result" in longer throws?

Can you please help me?

Thanks
Voodoo

the point of these modifiers is to modify the action of the preceding clause, as you have stated. while it is often true that the clause's subject can serve as a literal subject for the -ing action, that doesn't always have to be the case -- basically, the action must be modified, and the subject has to be in some way directly relevant to the -ing action.
here's another example:
the high-powered cameras on the new satellite took detailed pictures of the martian surface, expanding astronomers' knowledge of the geological processes taking place on the "red planet".
in this sentence, it's definitely inappropriate to say that the cameras themselves expanded the astronomers' knowledge. however, the action of taking detailed pictures expanded their knowledge, and the cameras, in turn, performed that action -- making this sentence acceptable.

the modifier in the problem you've cited here is used similarly. this sort of usage is frequent; see og12 #47 for another relevant example.