Sentence Correction

uwhusky wrote:
I think you're confusing yourself even more by trying to find faults within OG questions.

Best advice in this thread so far!!

Munda, rather than argue as to why the answer doesn't make sense to you , try to understand why it is correct!!! This is a question that has shown up on a past GMAT and, rest assured, you will see several more similar ones on the actual test. If you try applying the logic on the test that you are trying to apply here, well, let's just say its going to take you far, far longer than the recommended 90 seconds to choose an answer to a Sentence Correction problem.

The Fact that I am not writing a test is why I am applying so much Logic Here . Different people have the liberty to study the way they wish to and different people have different strategies .
People normally dont quote the source of their questions here . When i persisted on knowing the source , People didnt take it lightly . I am not trying to find fault with GMAC or the OG .The OG is the best guide to the GMAT . I am trying to clarify my concepts and learn from the options.
By the Way, Did You read Jims Post . The post is my redemption

Of course I read it, but what redemption are you talking about?

Jim is saying that this usage might or might not conflict with other English rules, and the usage could be justified, but he does not recall another instance of such usage in other parts of OG to confirm if this is indeed an acceptable usage in GMAT.

So what exactly are you seeing?

mundasingh123 wrote:The Fact that I am not writing a test is why I am applying so much Logic Here . Different people have the liberty to study the way they wish to and different people have different strategies .
People normally dont quote the source of their questions here . When i persisted on knowing the source , People didnt take it lightly . I am not trying to find fault with GMAC or the OG .The OG is the best guide to the GMAT . I am trying to clarify my concepts and learn from the options.
By the Way, Did You read Jims Post . The post is my redemption

Not exactly sure what redemption you are talking about? Your understanding was that the terms 'absorbing' and 'protecting' modified the entire preceding clause whereas, Jim correctly stated that those 2 terms modify the statement 'act as a buffer'.

Generally, your understanding of how an -ing modifier should function is correct : -ing modifiers, when placed after a comma, usually modify the entire preceding clause and not just the nearest noun and it's verb! However, there are exceptions to the rule and , when one encounters such exceptions, one needs to use some common sense and intuition to determine whether it makes sense for the -ing clause to modify both the noun as well as the verb.

In this case, you can use the following test - ask the question - How will the rocks act as a buffer? The statement after the comma answers - (by) ABSORBING the energy of the waves and (by) PROTECTING the beaches. Hence, this modifier makes sense and is necessary for this sentence.

Ravish wrote:

uwhusky wrote:
I think you're confusing yourself even more by trying to find faults within OG questions.

Best advice in this thread so far!!

Munda, rather than argue as to why the answer doesn't make sense to you , try to understand why it is correct!!! This is a question that has shown up on a past GMAT and, rest assured, you will see several more similar ones on the actual test. If you try applying the logic on the test that you are trying to apply here, well, let's just say its going to take you far, far longer than the recommended 90 seconds to choose an answer to a Sentence Correction problem.

Let others follow their own strategies . You follow Your own strategy . At the end we are all driven by self satisfaction

uwhusky wrote:Of course I read it, but what redemption are you talking about?

Jim is saying that this usage might or might not conflict with other English rules, and the usage could be justified, but he does not recall another instance of such usage in other parts of OG to confirm if this is indeed an acceptable usage in GMAT.

So what exactly are you seeing?

The problem is that I think this is not a use of the participle detailed anywhere in the OG.

This means that the way -ing modifier has been used here is unlike what has normally taught in Sc strategy guide books , og or been advocated by teachers such as Ron.
I got the confirmation that the -ing way could exceptionally be used in this way though I havnt got the rule to back this use with .I may get a rule in the days to come .
Thanks to all Jim, ,You and Ravish for the Help

I understand your approach is to understand why certain answers are correct, but I would be very careful venturing down this path.

I think you're better off following a rule than to look for possible exceptions.

What you will likely end up doing is doubting yourself in various spots without merit, and that's quite dangerous for this test.

Hmm ... I agree on this . Rules have to be applied while checking for Answers .

But When you see an SC with an OA that matches the structure that we discussed , one would not be perplexed when he sees that the -ing modifier has not been used according to the set rule but used in the way Jim told us about . So it will put a plug on feelings of self doubt during the Exam . I hope You understand what I mean

I do and there were a few answers that made me feel the same way. But it's probably more beneficial for you to dismiss these "exceptions" than to actually factor them into your thought process.

Btw, I just realized that my example was horrible, and clearly it does not apply to the issue being discussed.

"Acting like a fool, John was caught between two closely parked cars."

Above sentence definitely follows the standard rule.

"John was caught between two closely parked cars, acting like a fool."

comma + verbING applies to the preceding clause with its subject as the subject.

IMO - C

Just adding my point of view:

participles or verb-ING modifies the subject of the preceeding clause. Here in this sentence if you just consider this statement : "the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks" you can easily find that "a breakwater" is the subject.

Now "that" signifies that this piece of statement-"that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer"-is the modifier and it just describes about a breakwater of rocks, and it doesn't convey a continuous idea as the main subject. As main subject cannot be a part of modifier, the participle "absorbing" is not modifying the whole phrase ,but rather "breakwater".

I hope parallelism part is very clear though. If someone doubts my comment,please feel free to comment so that I can refine my understanding if I am wrong.