modifier issue expert

This topic has expert replies

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 » Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:58 am
In GMAC materials, you'll routinely encounter sentences like the blue one.

Although the orange sentence is technically ok, I very highly doubt that you would ever see anything like it in an official sentence, since it's stylistically poor writing.
So, if you need a guessing method, you're probably safe eliminating anything that works like the orange sentence. First, though, make sure to eliminate everything that's actually wrong.
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

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:08 am
Location: China, Shanghai

by magic monkey » Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:55 pm
lunarpower wrote:In GMAC materials, you'll routinely encounter sentences like the blue one.

Although the orange sentence is technically ok, I very highly doubt that you would ever see anything like it in an official sentence, since it's stylistically poor writing.
So, if you need a guessing method, you're probably safe eliminating anything that works like the orange sentence. First, though, make sure to eliminate everything that's actually wrong.
Hi Ron, i suppose what you were trying to say is the opposite? The blue one should be a poor writing and the orange one good.

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 » Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:09 am
nope, i wrote it correctly (although i do quite often reverse such things).

the orange sentence is too hard to understand. when the reader sees the modifier, (s)he isn't going to readily connect it all the way back to the orange stuff on the left.
any reader's natural instinct is to try to apply modifiers to nearby stuff. so, when there are two actions that a modifier could potentially modify, a well-written sentence will, if at all possible, place the modifier next to the thing it's describing.
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

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 » Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:45 am
also, note that i've been careful to say that these modifiers describe "actions". i.e., i'm careful NOT to say "verbs"... because, in sentences like the blue one, they won't always be verbs.

e.g.,
I peeked into the workshop and saw the master watchmaker leaning over the table, squinting at the tiny parts of an old Rolex.
here, comma + "squinting..." describes the action of "leaning over the table".
"leaning" isn't technically a verb, but it still represents an action (and is ultimately derived from a verb). so, the same modifiers can apply to it.

--
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

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 » Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:45 am
thinking more generally-
the above is a good example of why functional thinking is superior to "classification" into rigid categories. namely, thinking about "actions" is better than worrying about whether said actions are technically verbs.
in fact, in the "blue sentence" above,, the distinction between verbs and other "action" words has only negative value: it merely complicates the discussion, without providing any additional usefulness at all in exchange.

the same thing can happen even in very simple examples, too.
e.g., in grade school, you probably learned that "adverbs can't describe nouns".
... oh really?
every day, i walk slowly along the lakeshore with my dogs.
walking slowly along the lakeshore is relaxing.

^^ in the second sentence, "walking" is a noun-but it's being modified by an adverb (slowly). if you were making the mistake of thinking entirely in terms of categories, then now you'd need a whole new set of exceptions to your rules. on the other hand, if you realize that "walking" and "walk" are both actions, then it's clear why both of these things work.

the only exceptions are things that really are purely, %100 mechanical--for instance, the difference between a complete sentence and a fragment or run-on.
those things have nothing to do with meaning, so "categories" are sufficient for dealing with them.
for everything else, though, it's always best to think mostly in terms of what things DO, rather than trying to toss things into neat little boxes all the time.


--

disclaimer: this post (as well as the previous couple) was written on a voice dictation program, so it is almost certainly more wordy than my usual output.
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

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:08 am
Location: China, Shanghai

by magic monkey » Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:45 pm
lunarpower wrote:thinking more generally-
the above is a good example of why functional thinking is superior to "classification" into rigid categories. namely, thinking about "actions" is better than worrying about whether said actions are technically verbs.
in fact, in the "blue sentence" above,, the distinction between verbs and other "action" words has only negative value: it merely complicates the discussion, without providing any additional usefulness at all in exchange.

the same thing can happen even in very simple examples, too.
e.g., in grade school, you probably learned that "adverbs can't describe nouns".
... oh really?
every day, i walk slowly along the lakeshore with my dogs.
walking slowly along the lakeshore is relaxing.

^^ in the second sentence, "walking" is a noun-but it's being modified by an adverb (slowly). if you were making the mistake of thinking entirely in terms of categories, then now you'd need a whole new set of exceptions to your rules. on the other hand, if you realize that "walking" and "walk" are both actions, then it's clear why both of these things work.

the only exceptions are things that really are purely, %100 mechanical--for instance, the difference between a complete sentence and a fragment or run-on.
those things have nothing to do with meaning, so "categories" are sufficient for dealing with them.
for everything else, though, it's always best to think mostly in terms of what things DO, rather than trying to toss things into neat little boxes all the time.


--

disclaimer: this post (as well as the previous couple) was written on a voice dictation program, so it is almost certainly more wordy than my usual output.
cannot agree more with your further clarification. really appreciate your help. thanks, Ron!

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 Oct 26, 2014 10:10 pm
you're welcome.
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

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
Location: Noida, India
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:740

by richachampion » Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:58 am
lunarpower wrote:if comma + -ing follows a clause, it should describe the action (and, at least indirectly, the subject) of that clause. this is in fact the entire reason for the existence of this construction, which doesn't exist at all in spoken english: it was basically invented/codified in order to impart a certain degree of clarity to this exact issue.
there are a small handful of exceptions -- most notably "including...", which almost always describes the components of the preceding noun, even when the comma is there -- but, otherwise, there it is.

the problem with your example sentence (amy talked to harry, standing on one leg) is that it's basically nonsense, and so it can't serve as a valid model of how this construction works.
if you create a sentence that actually makes sense, things will become much more clear.
e.g., let's say that harry is a handicapped individual who only has one leg, and that amy is a particularly mean person:
amy made fun of harry, standing on one leg.
it's a lot easier to see how this sentence works.

--

if comma + -ing DOESN'T follow a whole clause -- if it just follows a noun -- then it will modify only that noun.
tom, trying to reach all the way across the table, lost his balance.
Ron Sir,

I have one more question. There is an question from OG13 Q55 -

Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply part of the rent to a purchase later.

(A) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply
(B) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing and to apply
(C)programs; that enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, to apply
(D) programs, which enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, applying
(E) programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying

_____________________

This is the structure in D and E -

Clause, Non Restrictive Clause( started by which, also known as dependent clause), verbing(applying)

Now in this case Verb+ing is modifying the which clause or the clause before the which clause?

technically verb+ing modifier modifies the preceding clause, which in this case is one starting with which.

OG13 has some other explanation -

D Enables does not agree with the plural subject; applying following a nonrestrictive clause suggests incorrectly that the builders, not the family, are applying the rent.
E The comma after programs is incorrect because the clause is meant to be restrictive; as in (D), applying will alter the meaning of the sentence.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:58 am
richachampion wrote:This is the structure in D and E -

Clause, Non Restrictive Clause( started by which, also known as dependent clause), verbing(applying)

Now in this case Verb+ing is modifying the which clause or the clause before the which clause?

technically verb+ing modifier modifies the preceding clause, which in this case is one starting with which.
Generally, COMMA + VERBing serves to refer to the nearest preceding action and the performer of that action.
D and E: a family to move into new housing, applying part of the rent to a purchase later.
Here, COMMA + applying seems to modify the portion in red, implying that a family is APPLYING part of the rent to a purchase LATER at the same time as the family is able TO MOVE into new housing.
Not the intended sequence.
The two actions -- to move into new housing and applying part of the rent to a purchase later -- do not happen at the same time.
Eliminate D and E.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3