BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Prepositional phrases - modifier doubt

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:07 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

Prepositional phrases - modifier doubt

by sui generis » Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:52 am
I have a conceptual doubt pertaining to prepositional phrases. I came across a point which states that prepositional phrases separating a clause with a comma either modifies the verb of the clause or the whole clause. These prepositional phrases are somewhat like verb modifier which are flexible in their positions.

Example 1 from GMAT Prep: Since the start of space age, orbits near Earth have become more and more littered, often from the intentional discarding of lens caps, packing material, fuel tanks and payload covers.

In this example according to the point: the first and the second modifier in red and blue respectively modifies: the whole clause "orbits ..... littered". Please correct me here ?

Example from OG-VR2 :
(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
(E) In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

OA: E

Here in correct choice (E) does the highlighted modifier in red modifies the whole of the clause following it ?

Also in the original choice (A) does the modifier highlighted in red only modifies Vesuvius, making it incorrect choice ?

Additionally, had there been a comma after Vesuvius in choice (A), would that have been the correct ?
Like this: The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius, in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
As this part (highlighted in red) would correctly modify the whole phrase preceding it.

Experts please confirm or rectify my understanding on prepositional modifiers.

Many thanks
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
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 » Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:05 am
sui generis wrote:I have a conceptual doubt pertaining to prepositional phrases. I came across a point which states that prepositional phrases separating a clause with a comma either modifies the verb of the clause or the whole clause. These prepositional phrases are somewhat like verb modifier which are flexible in their positions.

Example 1 from GMAT Prep: Since the start of space age, orbits near Earth have become more and more littered, often from the intentional discarding of lens caps, packing material, fuel tanks and payload covers.

In this example according to the point: the first and the second modifier in red and blue respectively modifies: the whole clause "orbits ..... littered". Please correct me here ?
Yes, it can be said that both phrases are adverbs modifying the clause that they surround, but they primarily modify the ACTION of this clause. HOW have the orbits BECOME more littered? They have BECOME more littered SINCE the start of the space age and OFTEN from the intentional discarding.
Example from OG-VR2 :
(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
(E) In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

OA: E

Here in correct choice (E) does the highlighted modifier in red modifies the whole of the clause following it ?

Also in the original choice (A) does the modifier highlighted in red only modifies Vesuvius, making it incorrect choice ?

Additionally, had there been a comma after Vesuvius in choice (A), would that have been the correct ?
Like this: The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius, in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
As this part (highlighted in red) would correctly modify the whole phrase preceding it.
In E, in two letters does modify the entire clause that follows, but it primarily modifies the ACTION of this clause. WHERE did the nephew WRITE? He WROTE in two letters.

In A, a reader might construe that in two letters is not an adverb modifying wrote but an adjective modifying one of the preceding nouns (account, eruption, Vesuvius). Inserting a comma before in two letters would not solve the problem.
Last edited by GMATGuruNY on Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:07 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

by sui generis » Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:44 am
Thank you so much for the awesome reply.

However, I am not clear about the last statement in which you mentioned that "Inserting a comma before in two letters would not solve the problem."

If repositioning and adding a comma to the prepositional phrase ("in two letters to the historian Tacitus") at the beginning of the sentence makes it modify the verb "wrote" not any other noun, then why can't adding a comma and keeping at the end make the prepositional phrase an adverbial phrase ?

I really did't get what difference will it make if we move the prepositional phrase in the beginning instead of the end.

Also is there some way/technique by which we can identify whether a prepositional phrase is modifying a noun or a verb ?

Many thanks!
Top
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 » Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:28 pm
sui generis wrote:Thank you so much for the awesome reply.

However, I am not clear about the last statement in which you mentioned that "Inserting a comma before in two letters would not solve the problem."

If repositioning and adding a comma to the prepositional phrase ("in two letters to the historian Tacitus") at the beginning of the sentence makes it modify the verb "wrote" not any other noun, then why can't adding a comma and keeping at the end make the prepositional phrase an adverbial phrase ?

I really did't get what difference will it make if we move the prepositional phrase in the beginning instead of the end.

Also is there some way/technique by which we can identify whether a prepositional phrase is modifying a noun or a verb ?

Many thanks!
(E) In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
When a modifier BEGINS a sentence, there are no preceding nouns or verbs. Thus, a reader knows that it is the following clause -- and primarily the ACTION in the following clause -- that is being modified. In E, in two letters is followed closely by wrote, so a reader knows that the nephew WROTE IN TWO LETTERS.
(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
When a modifier ENDS a sentence, there typically are many preceding nouns and verbs. In E, in two letters is at some distance from wrote, with several interceding nouns (account, eruptions, Vesuvius). Thus, it is far less clear what is being modified. Inserting a comma before in two letters would not clarify the situation.

Two guiding principles:

1. It must be clear what a modifier is modifying.

2. A modifier should be as close as possible to what it's modifying.
Last edited by GMATGuruNY on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:07 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

by sui generis » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:33 am
Thanks again Mitch for the elaborative explanation. I got your point.

However, I tested this concept on a small sentence and found something interesting.

Case 1: The diet of hindus is largely vegetarian with meat as rarity.
Here the prepositional phrase modifies the noun vegetarian.

If we add a comma then:
Case 2: The diet of hindus is largely vegetarian, with meat as rarity.
It modifies the preceding clause (precisely the action: The diet is).

If we move the prepositional phrase (with comma) in the beginning then:
Case 3: With meat as rarity, the diet of hindus is largely vegetarian.
It modifies in the same way as in the case 2.

Here is moving the phrase at the beginning or at the end (as in case 2 and 3) does not alter the meaning. In case 2 the phrase does not modify any noun (vegetarian) instead it modifies the whole clause or the action.

My question is how is this example different from the one discussed above it in terms of application of modifier or where am I failing to extrapolate the concept of prepositional phrase.

Thanks!
Top
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 » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:06 am
sui generis wrote:Thanks again Mitch for the elaborative explanation. I got your point.

However, I tested this concept on a small sentence and found something interesting.

Case 1: The diet of hindus is largely vegetarian with meat as rarity.
Here the prepositional phrase modifies the noun vegetarian.

If we add a comma then:
Case 2: The diet of hindus is largely vegetarian, with meat as rarity.
It modifies the preceding clause (precisely the action: The diet is).

If we move the prepositional phrase (with comma) in the beginning then:
Case 3: With meat as rarity, the diet of hindus is largely vegetarian.
It modifies in the same way as in the case 2.

Here is moving the phrase at the beginning or at the end (as in case 2 and 3) does not alter the meaning. In case 2 the phrase does not modify any noun (vegetarian) instead it modifies the whole clause or the action.

My question is how is this example different from the one discussed above it in terms of application of modifier or where am I failing to extrapolate the concept of prepositional phrase.

Thanks!
COMMA + PREPOSITIONAL MODIFIER at the end of a sentence adds NON-ESSENTIAL information:

The diet of the ordinary Greek in classical times was largely vegetarian -- vegetables, fresh cheese, oatmeal, and meal cakes, with meat as a rarity.

Removing with meat as a rarity would not change the meaning of the sentence above.

In the SC at the top of this thread, in two letters provides ESSENTIAL information, telling us WHERE the nephew of Pliny WROTE.
Thus, COMMA + in two letters at the end of the sentence would be incorrect.
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
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:07 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

by sui generis » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:19 am
COMMA + PREPOSITIONAL MODIFIER at the end of a sentence adds NON-ESSENTIAL information:
Thanks Mitch for this important point. Now the mist is pretty much clear.

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

by mundasingh123 » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:20 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
sui generis wrote:Thanks again Mitch for the elaborative explanation. I got your point.

However, I tested this concept on a small sentence and found something interesting.

Case 1: The diet of hindus is largely vegetarian with meat as rarity.
Here the prepositional phrase modifies the noun vegetarian.

If we add a comma then:
Case 2: The diet of hindus is largely vegetarian, with meat as rarity.
It modifies the preceding clause (precisely the action: The diet is).

If we move the prepositional phrase (with comma) in the beginning then:
Case 3: With meat as rarity, the diet of hindus is largely vegetarian.
It modifies in the same way as in the case 2.

Here is moving the phrase at the beginning or at the end (as in case 2 and 3) does not alter the meaning. In case 2 the phrase does not modify any noun (vegetarian) instead it modifies the whole clause or the action.

My question is how is this example different from the one discussed above it in terms of application of modifier or where am I failing to extrapolate the concept of prepositional phrase.

Thanks!
COMMA + PREPOSITIONAL MODIFIER at the end of a sentence adds NON-ESSENTIAL information:

The diet of the ordinary Greek in classical times was largely vegetarian -- vegetables, fresh cheese, oatmeal, and meal cakes, with meat as a rarity.

Removing with meat as a rarity would not change the meaning of the sentence above.

In the SC at the top of this thread, in two letters provides ESSENTIAL information, telling us WHERE the nephew of Pliny WROTE.
Thus, COMMA + in two letters at the end of the sentence would be incorrect.
Really amazing GmatGuruNy
But in the sentence that you gave as an example
The diet of the ordinary Greek in classical times was largely vegetarian -- vegetables, fresh cheese, oatmeal, and meal cakes, with meat as a rarity.
The phrase "with meat as a rarity" could as well modify the action of the preceding clause . Even then the sentence could have been valid .
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:10 pm
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:2 members

by satishchandra » Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:31 am
Lets take one example

With the assistance of informats, cases can often be made against otherwise elusive criminals

Cases are with assistance of informats-DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
The above sentense is eliminated because of issue above.

The correct choice is-With the assistance of informats, litigators can often make cases against otherwise elusive criminals
litigators are with the assistance of informats-MAKES SENSE

Now, in this particular SC,

Correct choice is-In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius

Can we consider this SC too in the same way just as we considered in first sentence?
If we consider so,
the nephew of Pliny the Elder is in two letters to the historian Tacitus--I dont think it quite makes sense?

Please explain
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:06 am
satishchandra wrote:Lets take one example

With the assistance of informats, cases can often be made against otherwise elusive criminals

Cases are with assistance of informats-DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
The above sentense is eliminated because of issue above.

The correct choice is-With the assistance of informats, litigators can often make cases against otherwise elusive criminals
litigators are with the assistance of informats-MAKES SENSE

Now, in this particular SC,

Correct choice is-In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius

Can we consider this SC too in the same way just as we considered in first sentence?
If we consider so,
the nephew of Pliny the Elder is in two letters to the historian Tacitus--I dont think it quite makes sense?

Please explain
You have asked a very interesting question. It will be great if Mitch can provide more insight.

Meanwhile, IMO "WITH..." prepositional phrases at the beginning of a sentence behave differently than other Prep phrases.

WITH xx, NOUN... ==> WITH xx must logically modifiy NOUN. This is because WITH PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES ARE ADJECTIVE MODIFIERS AND THEREFORE NEED TO PLACE NEAR THE NOUN IT MODIFIES

IN xx, NOUN..VERB... (or any other PrepPh in place of 'IN xx') ==> IN xx can either modify the NOUN or the VERB, depending on context. This is because SUCH PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES can either behave as ADJECTIVE OR ADVERB MODIFIERS
Top
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 » Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:43 am
satishchandra wrote:Lets take one example

With the assistance of informats, cases can often be made against otherwise elusive criminals

Cases are with assistance of informats-DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
The above sentense is eliminated because of issue above.

The correct choice is-With the assistance of informats, litigators can often make cases against otherwise elusive criminals
litigators are with the assistance of informats-MAKES SENSE

Now, in this particular SC,

Correct choice is-In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius

Can we consider this SC too in the same way just as we considered in first sentence?
If we consider so,
the nephew of Pliny the Elder is in two letters to the historian Tacitus--I dont think it quite makes sense?

Please explain
With the assistance of informants is not an adjective describing a certain KIND of litigator; it is an ADVERB describing HOW litigators MAKE cases:

WITH THE ASSISTANCE of informants, litigators MAKE cases.

HOW do litigators MAKE cases? WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF INFORMANTS.

Since LITIGATORS are performing the action -- they MAKE cases -- the subject of the clause that follows the introductory modifier should be LITIGATORS.

In most cases, an introductory prepositional modifier will serve as an ADVERB modifying the entire clause that follows -- and in particular the ACTION of the clause that follows. The prepositional modifier will provide context, indicating how, when, where, or under what circumstances the ACTION of the clause that follows takes place. WHOEVER or WHATEVER is performing the action being modified should appear as the SUBJECT of the clause that follows the introductory modifier.
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
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

by tanviet » Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:58 am
experts, pls, help. there are 3 cases, not 2.

"with phrase" can be used as adjective

with 4 walls, the house is nice.

" with phrase" can be used ad adverb and refers to a noun

with good spirit, I learn english.

" with phrase" can be used as an adverb and refer to no noun

with person playing, I learn gmat.

the above "in the two letters..." dose not need to refer to any noun.

when the preposional phrase is used as adverb,it can refer to a noun or do not need refer to a noun

Is my thinking correct? we do not need to know much of grammar, just for gmat.
Top
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 » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:31 am
duongthang wrote:experts, pls, help. there are 3 cases, not 2.

"with phrase" can be used as adjective

with 4 walls, the house is nice.

" with phrase" can be used ad adverb and refers to a noun

with good spirit, I learn english.

" with phrase" can be used as an adverb and refer to no noun

with person playing, I learn gmat.

the above "in the two letters..." dose not need to refer to any noun.

when the preposional phrase is used as adverb,it can refer to a noun or do not need refer to a noun

Is my thinking correct? we do not need to know much of grammar, just for gmat.

With four sturdy walls, the house is nice.

The prepositional modifier here does not refer JUST to the noun that follows; it is not simply an adjective indicating which house -- or which type of house -- is being discussed. To refer only to the noun, the modifier would not precede the noun but would FOLLOW it: The house WITH FOUR STURDY WALLS is nice.

There is a reason that the prepositional modifier PRECEDES the clause that follows: it modifies not just the subject of the clause but also the ENTIRE CLAUSE. The purpose of the modifier is to tell us IN WHAT WAY the house IS NICE. IN WHAT WAY is the house NICE? WITH FOUR STURDY WALLS.

As I noted in my post above, an introductory prepositional modifier generally modifies the ENTIRE CLAUSE that follows.
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
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:10 pm
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:2 members

by satishchandra » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:33 pm
Hi Mitch,
Let me put all your words in a nut shell

1)Prepositional Phrases preceded by clause (Sometimes) just modify the noun but (many times) modify the entire clause(Primarily action of the clause)
2)It is essential that WHOEVER or WHATEVER is performing the action being modified appear as the SUBJECT of the clause that follows the introductory modifier
3)It is sometimes OK even if subject, together with prepositional phrase, do not make sense, provided the prepositional phrase is indicating how, when, where, or under what circumstances the ACTION of the clause takes place.
(Example for this case- In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius

Kindly correct me, if my understanding is wrong.
Top
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 Jan 16, 2012 9:55 am
satishchandra wrote:Hi Mitch,
Let me put all your words in a nut shell

1)Prepositional Phrases preceded by clause (Sometimes) just modify the noun but (many times) modify the entire clause(Primarily action of the clause)
2)It is essential that WHOEVER or WHATEVER is performing the action being modified appear as the SUBJECT of the clause that follows the introductory modifier
3)It is sometimes OK even if subject, together with prepositional phrase, do not make sense, provided the prepositional phrase is indicating how, when, where, or under what circumstances the ACTION of the clause takes place.
(Example for this case- In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius

Kindly correct me, if my understanding is wrong.
Sounds reasonable, but it should be noted that a passive construction is fine as long as the meaning makes sense. For example: Between 1990 and 1995, one hundred new laws were passed.

Put simply: An introductory prepositional modifier provides CONTEXT for the clause that follows. When you evaluate an answer choice that includes such a modifier, just be sure the context makes sense.
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
Top
Post new topic Locked