GMATGuruNY wrote:richachampion wrote:My Question to GmatGuruNY -
Sir,
I solved this question in 40 seconds.
There are many other reasons to eliminate answer choices, but I was brushing up my concepts. Would It be correct to eliminate Option D and E on the fact that which is a Non restrictive in Nature while that is restrictive and here we need restrictive that.
I would not use this line of reasoning to eliminate D and E.
The following sentence is correct:
Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing and to apply part of the rent to a purchase later.
Here, the implication is that ALL rent-to-buy programs enable a family with insufficient savings to move into new housing.
This meaning does not seem nonsensical.
In Option D - Official Guide Gives This Explanation -
applying following a non restrictive clause suggest incorrectly that the Builders. and not the families, are applying the rent.
This is option D -
(D) programs, which enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, applying
The OE for D is referring to the error that results if the non-essential
which-modifier is removed:
Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs, applying part of the rent to a purchase later.
Here,
applying seems to refer to
house builders, implying that HOUSE BUILDERS are APPLYING part of the rent to a purchase later.
Not the intended meaning.
The intended meaning is that a FAMILY can apply part of the rent to a purchase later.
(D) programs, which enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, applying
(E) programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying
Option D has this structure -
Independent Clause (SV Pair), Non Essential Modifiers, applying
I do not Understand your explanation in context of what Official Explanation Says -
In Option D - Official Guide Gives This Explanation -
applying following a non restrictive clause suggest incorrectly that the Builders. and not the families, are applying the rent.
______________________________________________________
I have one more understanding of the uses of Verb + Ing Modifier -
You can only use 'comma + __ing' if the __ing part is inseparable from whatever is described in the main clause.
e.g.,
Joseph was struck by a cab, dying instantly.
This sentence CORRECTLY uses 'comma __ing'.
Notice that, in this context, it's impossible to separate 'joseph was struck' and 'joseph died'—in other words, it's impossible to conceive of either of them independently of the other—because they are two aspects of exactly the same event.
*Joseph was struck by a cab, dying in the hospital an hour later.
This sentence is INCORRECT, because these are two separate events
This sort of modifier should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
1) It should apply most nearly to the subject of the preceding clause (as you've said); and, even more importantly,
2) It should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:
* Immediate consequence
* Simultaneous, but lower-priority, action
Source of the above Excerpt is Ron Purewals Solution.
So as soon as main clause is separated from Verb + Ing in our question by a Non essential Modifier the verbing doesnt make is this what OE says?
