Sentence Correction

The defense lawyer and witnesses portrayed the accused as a victim of circumstance, his life uprooted by the media pressure to punish someone in the case.


circumstance, his life


circumstance, and his life


circumstance, and his life being


circumstance; his life


circumstance: his life being

{A} -
{B} - INCORRECT; "and his life" is not clause as there is no VERB
{C} - INCORRECT: "and his life being" is not clause as there is no VERB
{D} - INCORRECT; "his life.." has no VERB... so not a clause
{E} - INCORRECT; "his life being.." has no VERB... so not a clause... Moreover, we use ":" when we are introducing lists.

Also, ",his life.." is acting as a Absolute Phrase describing the circumstance...

[spoiler]{A}[/spoiler]

An absolute phrase consists of COMMA + NOUN + MODIFIER.
When used correctly, an absolute phrase modifies both the preceding SUBJECT and the preceding VERB.
Mary entered the room, her face beaming.
Here, the portion in red is composed of COMMA + NOUN + MODIFIER and is thus serving as an absolute phrase.
Note the following:
her face refers to Mary (the preceding subject)
The entire absolute phrase serves to modify entered (the preceding verb), indicating HOW Mary ENTERED the room.

A: The defense lawyer and witnesses portrayed the accused as a victim of circumstance, his life uprooted by the media pressure to punish someone in the case.
Here, the portion in red is composed of COMMA + NOUN + MODIFIER and thus seems to be serving as an absolute phrase.
But his life does not refer to the preceding subject (the defense lawyer and witnesses), and the entire absolute phrase does not modify the preceding verb (indicating how the defense lawyer and witnesses portrayed).
This use of an absolute phrase is not viable.

Ignore the SC above.
None of the answer choices is correct.

Two official examples of an absolute phrase:

SC100 in the OG12:
The stars are in motion, some of them at tremendous speeds.
Here, the portion in red is composed of COMMA + NOUN + MODIFIER and is thus serving as an absolute phrase.
Note the following:
some of them correctly refers to the stars (the preceding subject).
The entire absolute phrase serves to modify are (the preceding verb), indicating HOW the stars ARE IN MOTION.

From GMAT Prep:
Europa has long been considered far too cold to support life, its 60 square miles of water thought to be frozen from top to bottom.
Here, the portion in red is composed of COMMA + NOUN + MODIFIER and is thus serving as an absolute phrase.
Note the following:
its 60 square miles correctly refers to Europa (the preceding subject).
The entire absolute phrase serves to modify has long been considered (the preceding verb), indicating WHY Europa HAS LONG BEEN CONSIDERED far too cold to support life.

Hi Verbal Experts (Mitch/Rich/Dave/others) - could you please let me know whether my following understanding is correct ?

A Noun + Noun modifier can modify any one of the following THREE, depending on the MEANING and CONTEXT of the particular SC -

1. the nearest preceding Noun(or Noun phrase), or

2. a Noun(or Noun phrase)in the middle of a preceding clause, or

3. the entire preceding clause itself

Correct me please if wrong!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Verbal Experts (Mitch/Rich/Dave/others) - could you please let me know whether my following understanding is correct ?

A Noun + Noun modifier can modify any one of the following THREE, depending on the MEANING and CONTEXT of the particular SC -

1. the nearest preceding Noun(or Noun phrase), or

2. a Noun(or Noun phrase)in the middle of a preceding clause, or

3. the entire preceding clause itself

Correct me please if wrong!

Hi Verbal Experts (Mitch/Rich/Dave/others) - Could any of you please help clarify my concerns,sharing your thoughts on the above aspects ?

Look forward to your feedback. Much thanks in advance!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Verbal Experts (Mitch/Rich/Dave/others) - could you please let me know whether my following understanding is correct ?

A Noun + Noun modifier can modify any one of the following THREE, depending on the MEANING and CONTEXT of the particular SC -

1. the nearest preceding Noun(or Noun phrase), or

2. a Noun(or Noun phrase)in the middle of a preceding clause, or

3. the entire preceding clause itself

Correct me please if wrong!

Structures 1 and 3 are by far the most common.
Structure 2 is quite rare.

An example of Structure 2:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-sc-q19-t282213.html

Hi Mitch - Although I understand your point that why we can't apply absolute phrase MODIFICATION concept to the first SC of this thread, got a quick question on this SC at hand (re The defense lawyer).

As a Noun + Noun modifier can modify a Noun(or Noun phrase)in the middle of a preceding clause (for example in the OG 12,Qs#48: In 1713, Alexander Pope began his translation of the Illiad, a work that took him seven years), I'd like to know why we can't SIMPLY apply this type of MODIFICATION concept to the SC at hand (re The defense lawyer) ?

Here, HIS seems to modify ACCUSED - a NOUN in the middle of the preceding clause. Isn't it the same functioning as in the OG 12,Qs#48 in which WORK appears to modify TRANSLATION ?

It'd be really helpful to know your thoughts.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Mitch - Although I understand your point that why we can't apply absolute phrase MODIFICATION concept to the first SC of this thread, got a quick question on this SC at hand (re The defense lawyer).

As a Noun + Noun modifier can modify a Noun(or Noun phrase)in the middle of a preceding clause (for example in the OG 12,Qs#48: In 1713, Alexander Pope began his translation of the Illiad, a work that took him seven years), I'd like to know why we can't SIMPLY apply this type of MODIFICATION concept to the SC at hand (re The defense lawyer) ?

Here, HIS seems to modify ACCUSED - a NOUN in the middle of the preceding clause. Isn't it the same functioning as in the OG 12,Qs#48 in which WORK appears to modify TRANSLATION ?

It'd be really helpful to know your thoughts.

APPOSITIVES are two nouns or noun phrases that appear side-by-side, with the second serving to define or explain the first.
Nouns in apposition must refer to the SAME THING.
SC48 in the OG12:
Alexander Pope began his translation of the Iliad, a work that took him seven years to complete.
Here, the portion in red is in APPOSITION to his translation of the Iliad.
This structure is correct because the two nouns -- a work and his translation -- refer to the same thing.
Conveyed meaning:
His translation of the Iliad is a work that took him seven years to complete.
This meaning is sensical.

SC above:
The defense lawyer and witnesses portrayed the accused as a victim of circumstance, his life uprooted by the media pressure to punish someone in the case.
Here, the portion in red cannot serve as an appositive for a victim of circumstance because the two nouns -- his life and a victim -- do NOT refer to the same thing.
The following meaning is nonsensical:
A victim of circumstance is his life uprooted by the media pressure.

GMATGuruNY wrote: The defense lawyer and witnesses portrayed the accused as a victim of circumstance, his life uprooted by the media pressure to punish someone in the case.

Can we NOT even call it a SUMMATIVE NOUN modifier (because his life is an ABSTRACT NOUN) ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: The defense lawyer and witnesses portrayed the accused as a victim of circumstance, his life uprooted by the media pressure to punish someone in the case.

Can we NOT even call it a SUMMATIVE NOUN modifier (because his life is an ABSTRACT NOUN) ?

A summative modifier serves to SUM UP the preceding clause.
In the SC above, COMMA + his life does not sum up the action conveyed by the preceding clause (the defense lawyer portrayed).

GMATGuruNY wrote: A summative modifier serves to SUM UP the preceding clause.
In the SC above, COMMA + his life does not sum up the action conveyed by the preceding clause (the defense lawyer portrayed).

Got your point...BUT it seems that it's REALLY critical to COMPLETELY comprehend EXACTLY how a COMMA + NOUN + NOUN Modifier sums up the action conveyed by the preceding clause!!

Is there any way to quickly and efficiently understand/determine this ASPECT under test environment ? Would it be possible for you to shed some light ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: A summative modifier serves to SUM UP the preceding clause.
In the SC above, COMMA + his life does not sum up the action conveyed by the preceding clause (the defense lawyer portrayed).

Got your point...BUT it seems that it's REALLY critical to COMPLETELY comprehend EXACTLY how a COMMA + NOUN + NOUN Modifier sums up the action conveyed by the preceding clause!!

Is there any way to quickly and efficiently understand/determine this ASPECT under test environment ? Would it be possible for you to shed some light ?

Official examples of summative modifiers:

There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.
Here, that THERE ARE NO LEGAL LIMITS constitutes A CIRCUMSTANCE that contributes to the depletion of monkfish.

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.
Here, that RESEARCHERS HAVE UNEARTHED 400,000-YEAR-OLD SPEARS constitutes STUNNING EVIDENCE that human ancestors systematically hunted.

In the SC above, that the defense lawyer and witnesses portrayed does NOT constitute his life uprooted.

GMATGuruNY wrote: In the SC above, that the defense lawyer and witnesses portrayed does NOT constitute his life uprooted.

Hi GMATGuruNY - thanks for your reply.

BUT I think, I still have DOUBTS in understanding this ASPECT that how to DETERMINE/COMPREHEND whether a COMMA + NOUN + NOUN Modifier ACTUALLY sums up the action conveyed by the preceding clause ?

Could you please clarify that what EXACTLY you meant by the portion in RED in your above quote ? Did you anyhow mean the following -

X is true/X has happened, so EVENTUALLY Y follows OR so X results into EXISTENCE of Y ?

Really having some hard time in understanding these nuances!!