In my opinion, it modifies the subject which is usually a noun. This noun will be the owner of the action.

Ex. (Self-made),

Removing his shoes, Alex was eating chocolate.

What I mean is Removing modifies Alex and Alex becomes the owner of the action since she is removing her shoes.

Please correct incase I am wrong.

bubbliiiiiiii wrote:In my opinion, it modifies the subject which is usually a noun. This noun will be the owner of the action.

Ex. (Self-made),

Removing his shoes, Alex was eating chocolate.

What I mean is Removing modifies Alex and Alex becomes the owner of the action since she is removing her shoes.

Please correct incase I am wrong.

this does nt exactly answer my question . Moreover the example that you chose is weird . removing shoes has little to do with eating chocolate
The question i asked is in context of C
When he had run for mayor of Cleveland in 1968, Carl Stokes won the
election, proving that an African American candidate can be elected in
a city in which African Americans constitute a minority of the population.
(A) When he had run for mayor of Cleveland in 1968,
(B) He ran for mayor of Cleveland in 1968, and
(C) Running, in 1968, for mayor of Cleveland,
(D) When he ran for mayor of Cleveland in 1968,
(E) In 1968 he had run for mayor of Cleveland, and

Hi,
An opening present participle modifier + comma modifies either the entire clause or the subject of the clause.

Comma + Present participle modifier(after a clause) can describe the preceding clause or present the result of the preceding clause.

Frankenstein wrote:Hi,
An opening present participle modifier + comma modifies either the entire clause or the subject of the clause.

Comma + Present participle modifier(after a clause) can describe the preceding clause or present the result of the preceding. clause.

this does'nt exactly answer my question .
Can an Expert please confirm whether any cause - effect relationship is played out when an opening present participle modifier modifies the following clause
The question i asked is in context of C
When he had run for mayor of Cleveland in 1968, Carl Stokes won the
election, proving that an African American candidate can be elected in
a city in which African Americans constitute a minority of the population.
(A) When he had run for mayor of Cleveland in 1968,
(B) He ran for mayor of Cleveland in 1968, and
(C) Running, in 1968, for mayor of Cleveland,
(D) When he ran for mayor of Cleveland in 1968,
(E) In 1968 he had run for mayor of Cleveland, and

Hi,
Your opening post itself is unclear. What result do we expect from a verb+ing modifier. That is the reason, I explained in my post that the result of the preceding clause can be presented in the verb+ing modifier after comma.
Coming to the example you posted:
Carl Stokes won the election, proving that an African American candidate can be elected in
comma +proving... presents the result of the clause before it.

Coming to C:
Running for mayor of Cleveland, Carl Strokes ....
The verb+ing modifier : 'Running for mayor of Cleveland' describes the subject(Carl Strokes) of the clause after comma(nothing about result)

Frankenstein wrote:Hi,
Your opening post itself is unclear. What result do we expect from a verb+ing modifier. That is the reason, I explained in my post that the result of the preceding clause can be presented in the verb+ing modifier after comma.
Coming to the example you posted:
Carl Stokes won the election, proving that an African American candidate can be elected in
comma +proving... presents the result of the clause before it.

Coming to C:
Running for mayor of Cleveland, Carl Strokes ....
The verb+ong modifier : 'Running for mayor of Cleveland' describes the subject(Carl Strokes) of the clause after comma(nothing about result)

So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .
Why is C wrong in the previous sentence ?

mundasingh123 wrote: So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .
Why is C wrong in the previous sentence ?

Hi,
No, It is not clear what you mean by result of '-ing modifier'
Coming to C, I believe 'in 1968' is a misplaced modifier and it is unnecessarily made non-essential modifier. If this 'in 1968' is placed after 'running for mayor of Cleveland' it would make sense.

I think only an Expert can clarify whether a cause and effect scenario exists with respect to an opening -ing modifier .

Frankenstein wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote: So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .
Why is C wrong in the previous sentence ?

Hi,
No, It is not clear what you mean by result of '-ing modifier'
Coming to C, I believe 'in 1968' is a misplaced modifier and it is unnecessarily made non-essential modifier. If this 'in 1968' is placed after 'running for mayor of Cleveland' it would make sense.

Kaplan talks about an obscure cause and effect relation here

mundasingh123 wrote:

Frankenstein wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote: So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .
Why is C wrong in the previous sentence ?

Hi,
No, It is not clear what you mean by result of '-ing modifier'
Coming to C, I believe 'in 1968' is a misplaced modifier and it is unnecessarily made non-essential modifier. If this 'in 1968' is placed after 'running for mayor of Cleveland' it would make sense.

Kaplan talks about an obscure cause and effect relation here

Hi,
Even I saw that just now. The method employed by them to eliminate that choice was really unconvincing for me. They could have eliminated by tense issue or misplaced modifier but instead they mentioned something like ' winning triggered running blah blah...

mundasingh123 wrote:So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .
Why is C wrong in the previous sentence ?

The answer choice C is wrong because the opening modifiers are not in sequence to modify Carl Stokes. To specify multiple opening modifiers to the same subject, either combine the modifiers using and/or/preposition or place the subject in between the modifiers depending on the context

-ing modifier in the beginning of a sentence modifies the followed subject after comma and usually indicates action taken by the subject, although that depends on the verb in the -ing modifier.

But, -ing modifier at the end of a sentence that you referred for result is an adverbial modifier that modifies either verb and its subject or even the entire clause before comma.

rveeraga wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .
Why is C wrong in the previous sentence ?

The answer choice C is wrong because the opening modifiers are not in sequence to modify Carl Stokes. The modified subject should be next to the modifier. To specify multiple opening modifiers to the same subject, either combine the modifiers using and/or depending on the context or place the subject in between the modifiers.

-ing modifier in the beginning of the sentence modifies the followed subject after comma and usually indicates action taken by the subject, although that depends on the verb in the -ing modifier.

But, -ing modifier that you referred for resulting action is an adverbial modifier that modifies verb in the clause before comma or the entire clause.

All comma + participial modifiers are adverb modifiers according to mgmat sc guide
I dont understand why you said this . are you trying to say that running cannot modify won .
"To specify multiple opening modifiers to the same subject, either combine the modifiers using and/or depending on the context or place the subject in between the modifiers. "
Can you specify which modifiers are you tslking about ? I didnt really understand the and/or part

The explainations given are not convincing... Can someone clarify this please?...