Sentence Correction

The simple concept of personal computing, hatched by several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and permeating almost all of modern society, remains perhaps the most important technological idea of the last 50 years.

a. hatched by several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and permeating almost all of modern society

b. which was hatched by several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and that permeated almost all of modern society

c. which was hatched by several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and permeating almost all of modern society

d. hatched by several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, and which permeates almost all of modern society

e. a concept hatched by several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and that permeated almost all of modern society

Please explain the answer A.
Veritas Explanation: Participles such as "hatched" and "permeating" are adjectives that can be mixed and matched as long as the meaning is correct. The forms do not have to match: "ed"s can go with "ing"s! Given that, (A) is the only correct sentence: the concept was hatched and continues permeating almost all of modern society. All the others contain fatal flaws: "which was hatched and that permeated" is clearly not parallel as the which goes with both: which that permeated is wrong. "which was hatched and permeating" is also structurally incorrect so (C) is wrong. "hatched by and which permeates" is also a sentence construction so similarly (D) is wrong. Lastly, (E) is incorrect for the same reason as "a concept hatched and that permeated is clearly not parallel. Answer is (A): the concept, hatched....and permeating, remains...." is perfectly parallel and the only choice that does not contain a construction error.

My doubt. How can bold portion is correct?

Bold Portion in explanation: "only correct sentence: the concept was hatched and continues permeating almost all of modern society"

The sentence is in Simple Present so from where can simple past "was hatched" came.

Correct explanation must be "is hatched". But in that case, meaning will be NONSENSICAL because "hatched" is PASSIVE.
"Several silicon entrepreneurs HATCH concept of computing" is NONSENSICAL: "hatching" is happening now: which is incorrect interpretation.

David@GMATPrepNow wrote:Hi imskpwr,

The answer you quoted seems overly complex, and not entirely correct, to me. For example, neither "hatched" nor "permeating" are adjectives - they are verbs. Let's look at the correct sentence (A), and the two verb tenses bolded below:

The simple concept of personal computing, hatched by several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and permeating almost all of modern society, remains perhaps the most important technological idea of the last 50 years.

The first bolded verb, "hatched" is in the past tense. "Hatched" is not passive. It means "created," and it refers to the noun "concept." The sentence tells us that the concept was hatched, i.e. the concept was created in the past.

The second bolded verb, "permeating" is in the present tense. It means "spreading pervasively throughout," and also refers to the noun "concept." The sentence tells us that the concept is permeating, i.e. the concept is (continuously) spreading throughout society.

It is quite correct to have a sentence that includes both past and present verb tenses, provided that the sentence is constructed correctly, as it is above.

My sole point of discussion is that both "hatched" and "permeating" are verbs without any tense attached to them. Also, Both verbs need a tense(time frame), But the required tense CAN ONLY BE provided by the main verb of the main sentence(remains). Unfortunately, main verb has SIMPLE PRESENT tense. So both verbs will ALWAYS be in SIMPLE TENSE only.
Then, how could one can think of a PAST TENSE to one verb(hatched) and a PRESENT TENSE to the other verb(permeating)?

David@GMATPrepNow wrote:Hi again imskpwr,

English often has sentences that contain verbs with different tenses. It happens when a sentence has more than one clause (a clause is a group of related words that have a subject and a verb). One clause might use one tense, while another clause has a different tense. Here is an example:

I am practicing my golf swing today, because last week I played very poorly.

The verb in the first clause, "I am practicing my golf swing today," is in the present tense.

The verb in the second clause, "last week I played very poorly" is in the past tense.

In the original statement, there are several clauses. The ones we are concerned with are underlined here:

The simple concept of personal computing, hatched by several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and permeating almost all of modern society, remains perhaps the most important technological idea of the last 50 years.

The first clause we're looking at has a verb in the past tense: "hatched by several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs" <--- hatched is a verb in the past tense

The second clause we're looking at has a verb in the present tense: "permeating almost all of modern society" <--- permeating is a verb in the present tense

Your points about the tense of the sentence being determined by the main verb, and this sentence being the present tense, are correct. The main verb in the sentence is "remains."

It is fine to have a sentence in the present tense, which contains clauses that are not ALL written in the present tense, as in this case, and the example I provided at the top of this response.

JUST ONE DOUBT.

Is PAST PARTICIPLE MODIFIERs regardless of their main verb(such as "hatched" here) ARE ALWAYS IN "PAST TENSE"?