The Messenger 1000 Sc

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

The Messenger 1000 Sc

by mundasingh123 » Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:30 am
Quoting Ron

yeah -- if you have a present participle modifier in front of a comma, it must be talking about the following subject.

in fact, the same is true for all four of the following types of initial modifiers:

(1) Starting with -ING, or starting with preposition + -ING (especially in + -ING)
(2) Starting with past participle
(3) NOUN + MODIFIERS (i.e., not a clause)
(4) Starting with an ADJECTIVE
From
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... tml#p49102
Is point Number (3) the reason E is wrong in the Following SC.

Published in Harlem, the owner and editor of The Messenger were two young journalists, Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader.

(A) Published in Harlem, the owner and editor of The Messenger were two young journalists, Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader.

(8) Published in Harlem, two young journalists, Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader, were the owner and editor of The Messenger.

(C) Published in Harlem, The Messenger was owned and edited by two young journalists, A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader, and Chandler Owen.

(0) The Messenger was owned and edited by two young journalists, Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader, and published in Harlem.

(E) The owner and editor being two young journalists, Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader, The Messenger was published in Harlem.

OA C

Source :1000 SC
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Source: — Sentence Correction |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:11 pm
@mundasingh123

Thanks for the link and i don't think that Op E is wrong because of the violation of rule no 3.

Ron's post
(3) NOUN + MODIFIERS (i.e., not a clause)
WRONG:
A survivor of the Holocaust, Primo Levi's stories demonstrate a resolute determination in the face of tragedy and adversity.
RIGHT:
A survivor of the Holocaust, Primo Levi wrote stories that demonstrate a resolute determination in the face of tragedy and adversity.
Op E
The owner and editor being two young journalists, Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph

Green (Noun Modifier), correctly modifying the "Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph"

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:39 pm
Well the OA is something else
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:17 pm
mundasingh123 wrote:Well the OA is something else
The OA is C right???? Op C seems to me good and logical

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:07 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Thanked: 162 times
Followed by:45 members
GMAT Score:760

by Jim@Grockit » Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:53 am
Do note that the GMAT's problem with "being" is not grammar but style -- All things being equal, I'd rather have pie is grammatically correct. It's called an absolute phrase, and it modifies the whole sentence. It's an elliptical construction, and the GMAT prefers all relationships to be spelled out in a sentence.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:14 pm
Jim@Grockit wrote:Do note that the GMAT's problem with "being" is not grammar but style -- All things being equal, I'd rather have pie is grammatically correct. It's called an absolute phrase, and it modifies the whole sentence. It's an elliptical construction, and the GMAT prefers all relationships to be spelled out in a sentence.
Hi Jim what did you mean by
relationships
?
Is
All things equal, I'd rather have pie
correct ?
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:07 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Thanked: 162 times
Followed by:45 members
GMAT Score:760

by Jim@Grockit » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:03 am
mundasingh123 wrote:
Jim@Grockit wrote:Do note that the GMAT's problem with "being" is not grammar but style -- All things being equal, I'd rather have pie is grammatically correct. It's called an absolute phrase, and it modifies the whole sentence. It's an elliptical construction, and the GMAT prefers all relationships to be spelled out in a sentence.
Hi Jim what did you mean by
relationships
?
By "relationships", I meant grammatical ones. The further a prepositional phrase, modifying phrase, or adverb is from the thing it's modifying, the more important it is to change the sentence so that the two are closer.
Is
All things equal, I'd rather have pie
correct ?
Yes and no. The form certainly is correct; you could say Their energy depleted, the runners collapsed after crossing the finish line without the word being. The phrase all things being equal is somewhat fossilized in English, though, so that particular one would look unusual without being (though it would not be wrong).

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 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:48 am
this is #110 from OG12, and it has also appeared in previous editions of the OG.
(this is pretty much how it works with 1000SC -- if you see a problem that isn't terrible, you can bet that it has been stolen from one of the official sources.)

one thing that is problematic in *all* of the incorrect answer choices is the fact that the modifier starting with "who" doesn't really work.
in all four of the incorrect answer choices, "chandler owen and a. philip randolph" appears as a unit (a compound noun). therefore, a "who" modifier following this compound noun should modify the entire compound noun -- e.g., if you see X and Y, who..., then the modifier should be referring to both X and Y.
this doesn't happen in the four incorrect choices; in those incorrect choices, the modifier is attempting to refer only to the latter part of the compound noun.

note how the correct answer choice avoids the situation -- the compound is broken up so that the modifier follows only "a. phillip randolph".

--

in choice (e), the initial modifier is actually incorrect, not just awkward. (it's not a very good idea for second-language speakers to try to absorb the idea of what is "awkward" and what is not; for the most part, it's impossible to develop that intuition without decades of high-level experience with the language in question.)
in particular, if you are going to use this sort of construction (which is called an "absolute phrase", if you want to google it) as an initial modifier, it should start with a possessive. for instance:
his hands shaking with anticipation, joseph went up to the door and knocked. --> correct
the hands shaking with anticipation, joseph went up to the door and knocked. --> incorrect; we don't know whose hands.**

the initial modifier in choice (e) has the same problem: it starts with "the owner and editor". this is unacceptable for the same reason.

--

**if anyone reading this post happens to speak spanish, notice the massive difference here; there are lots and lots and lots of spanish constructions that use "the" in front of hands, feet, and other body parts, rather than a possessive.
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

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:02 am
Hi Ron , Every post of yours helps us learn new things . Thanks a lot for explaining the use of Absolute Phrases so lucid .
Regarding the point that you made regarding
X and Y, who
do we take as a rule in all circumstances that when we see X and Y , who the who modifier must modify the X and Y as a compound unit .Is it because X and Y becomes plural.
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

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 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:45 am
mundasingh123 wrote:Hi Ron , Every post of yours helps us learn new things . Thanks a lot for explaining the use of Absolute Phrases so lucid .
Regarding the point that you made regarding
X and Y, who
do we take as a rule in all circumstances that when we see X and Y , who the who modifier must modify the X and Y as a compound unit.


i think so, yes. in the absence of evidence to the contrary -- and i certainly haven't seen such evidence -- you should always treat compound nouns as a SINGLE WORD.

you should extend this treatment to pronouns as well. for instance, as far as i know, the sentence
jane and bob talked about his homework
would be considered incorrect -- evne though bob is the only male mentioned in the sentence (jane is female) -- because the only viable noun in the sentence is the compound "jane and bob". in other words, the only available pronoun would be they/their/them, referring to the whole compound.
if you want to use the pronoun "his", then you should break up the compound: jane spoke to bob about his homework.
Is it because X and Y becomes plural.
no, it has nothing to do with singular/plural issues, although *most* compounds are plural.

there are, however, compounds that are singular; this occurs when the entire compound is considered a single entity. for instance, "rhythm and blues" is one genre of music that's currently popular in the US; this compound noun is singular.
rhythm and blues is popular in the USA --> correct
rhythm and blues are popular in the USA --> incorrect
however, "jazz" and "blues" are two separate genres of music, so:
jazz and blues are two styles of music that originated in the USA --> correct
jazz and blues is two styles of music that originated in the USA --> incorrect

if you want to see an official problem in which a compound is singular, check out OG12 #82, in which "owning and living" is singular and serves as the antecedent for the pronoun "it" in the correct answer choice.
note that the sentence contains PROOF that this compound is singular: it is the subject of the singular verb "is", and it is also described as "a goal" (it would have to be "goals" if it were plural).

you should assume that compound nouns are plural by default, but keep an eye out for explicit proof that they are singular.
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

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:51 am
Thanks Ron for making the subtleties clear
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

• Page 1 of 1