Sentence Correction

Stacey Koprince wrote:Yes, there's still a problem with your new example. The "comma ing" setup needs to do two (related) things: modify the previous clause and provide further information about that clause in some way - a modifier is specifically there to comment on the main clause.

In this case, the "modifier" is showing a contrast - it's providing information about things they did besides being planters. So that isn't providing additional detail / info about how they were planters.

Re: your second question, the "ing" form of a word can act as a gerund / noun / noun phrase (Running is fun), a verb (I am running fast), an adverbial modifier (I exercise regularly, running every morning), an adjective (The running man just robbed the bank)... basically, "ing" words are pretty flexible. Most of the time, if you see a comma immediately followed by an -ing word, then you've got an adverbial modifier. A gerund will usually be a subject or object (it may also be the noun in a prepositional phrase). And the verb form requires some form of the verb "to be" immediately before the -ing verb.

Hi Stacey,

Can you also please explain Q126 on O.G.12?

The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual that lying produces emotional reasctions in an individual that, in turn creat unconscious physiological responses.

Why this sentence is right? "..., in turn, creat..." after comma, there is a incomplete sentence after "in turn", how does this work without using "creating" or a complete sentence after comma?

Thanks.

lunarpower wrote:

yvonne0923 wrote:Hi Stacey,

Can you also please explain Q126 on O.G.12?

hi -- stacey doesn't work on this forum anymore.
if you wish to have another instructor address the question, please make a new thread -- note that this problem is irrelevant to the current thread, which already contains something like 100 posts -- and then perhaps send the link in a PM to the instructor in question.

thanks

Thanks, Ron. I just need more detailed explanation about this question, it doesn't have to be Stacey. Do you know how to attack this question>

Geologists have invented a new method of classifying rocks that are produced by volcanoes
--> correct; the underlined modifier modifies "rocks", as it is clear that rocks (and not a method) are produced by volcanoes.

Geologists have invented a new method of classifying rocks that is capable of classifying twice as many rocks as the previous system could
--> also correct; this time the underlying modifier modifies "method (of classifying rocks)".
see OG12 diagnostic test #50 for an example of this usage in a correct answer.

you can even have a verb in between:
A new method of classifying rocks has been devised that is capable of classifying twice as many rocks as the previous system could.
--> also correct.

Thanks Ron for such a detailed explanation but in the examples you have mentioned, subject verb agreement resolved the problem i.e. method is singular and rocks is plural and hence the context becomes clear by the usage of is or are.

Geologists have invented new machines for classifying rocks that are blue.

What does 'that' describes in the above statement? I think it describes rocks and not machines because it is placed next to rocks. In order to describe 'machines' we should write the statement as following:

Geologists have invented new machines that are blue for classifying rocks.

Please comment.

Good long discussion!

Here are some excerpts which might be useful for a revision.


A comma+ing is an adverbial modifier and not a noun modifier.

The easiest way to test a "comma -ing" is to think of it as modifying the clause preceding the comma, focusing on the noun and the verb (and object, if applicable - but you can really just concentrate on the noun and verb). If it makes sense to modify the noun and the verb, then it's okay. If it doesn't, then it's not.

The "comma ing" setup needs to do two (related) things: modify the previous clause and provide further information about that clause in some way

The "ing" form of a word can act as a gerund / noun / noun phrase (Running is fun), a verb (I am running fast), an adverbial modifier (I exercise regularly, running every morning), an adjective (The running man just robbed the bank)... basically, "ing" words are pretty flexible.

An "-ed" modifier is a noun modifier, not an adverbial modifier, and should modify the closest primary noun preceding it (in the "comma -ed" setup).

Typically, a "comma preposition" set-up (with is a preposition) is an adverbial modifier, meaning it modifies the previous clause

In general, if you don't have a comma, an -ing modifier is acting as a noun modifier. That doesn't mean that, if there's no comma, the -ing word is a noun modifier. For instance, the -ing word could be the noun itself.

A lot of times, the "noun + -ing" setup is considered more awkward / potentially confusing though, so if you have to guess, go with the "that" option.

in a setup where you have a noun that is modifying a gerund, you could put that noun in the form of a possessiven noun (that is, turn it into an adjective) in order to modify the other noun (the gerund).

a "comma -ing" setup is an adverbial modifier, and adverbial modifiers modify the preceding clause, not just the preceding noun.

its an epic.....

Another one
- ing as a participle generally requires a subject indicating active voice whereas the presence of the participle -ed requires an object indicating a Passive voice

-ing can also play a role of subordinating a main clause

@experts : please correct me if I am wrong

lunarpower wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:But Ron , The MGMAT SC guide specificallys not to assume away small wrinkles in meaning . This in contrast to what you said about seeing things in the light of context and common sense . I am confused .

page reference please?

Hi Ron I missed your question . I ll get back to you with the page number as soon as possible.Its most likely to be in the the Pronoun Strategy Chapter in which the guide starts with telling us the importance of pronoun reference

Ron, I encountered the following question in one of my prep classes:

1. Sentence should mean : The jewellery box was missing.
Sentence : The jewellery box that was on the table was missing.

2. Sentence should mean : The table was missing.
Sentence : The jewellery box was on the table that was missing.

Are the two sentences correct?

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.

Basically I didn't understand the structure. I am not able to dissect the sentence.


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'. 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.

Stacey Koprince wrote:The only difference I can find in the 2 sentences is a comma (specifically, the first one has a comma and the second doesn't).

In the first one, the "comma -ed" means that the modifier should refer to the closest preceding main noun. In this case, that would be either "Kushan empire" or "the time of the Kushan empire" (you could make an argument for either to be the main noun). Neither "time" nor "empire" makes sense, though - the images were fashioned from...

In the second sentence, you have the same thing but without the comma. In this case, the "-ed" stuff is still referring to the preceding main noun.

So both are written incorrectly.

Ron,
As per Purdue OWL, comma -ed modifiers modify the noun of the main clause and NOT the noun before the comma
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/627/02/

I am not sure what rule GMAT follows.

Can you please comment?

Thanks