If Dr. Wade was right, any apparent connection of the eating of highly processed foods and excelling at sports is purely coincidental.
A) If Dr. Wade was right, any apparent connection of the eating of
B) Should Dr. Wade be right, any apparent connection of eating
C) IF Dr. Wade is right, any connection that is apparent between eating of
D) If Dr. Wade is right, any apparent connection between eating
E) Should Dr.Wade have been right, any connection apparent between eating.
OG OA D
Og first says eating of, as in C, is right then indirectly says eating as in D , is Right
OG Verbal Explanation
FIRST says eating of must be made parallel to excelling at--- .
Then it makes an about turn saying
eating of is a gerund ,eating is a participle and thus parallel to participle excelling .
OG first says excelling at is a gerund .Please not that Excelling at is not in underlined portion .so eating of is correct
then it says excelling is a participle.so eating is correct .
og doing 360 degrees turn
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussing this Sc in light of Rons explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron your explanation of difference between gerunds and participles is at
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/og- ... t1373.html
From this explanation , i could make out thatAshwary,
You have to use your intuition, and your ability to distinguish what's realistic from what isn't, to make the distinction reliably.
Here are two sentences, which probably aren't that great (I made them up on the fly for this post):
(1) Changes in 'entertainment', such as the shift from dueling politicians in the nineteenth century to dueling pianos in the twentieth, betray the fact that our respect for life has increased with the passing years.
(2) Because of the ravages of Parkinson's disease, Muhammad Ali has switched from fighting formidable opponents to fighting progressive damage to his nervous system.
In sentence #1, 'dueling' must be a participle both times, because it makes sense that way. If it's interpreted as a gerund, then we have the utter absurdity of someone fighting a politician in the 19th century, then traveling through time and fighting a piano in the 20th century - all for entertainment! (Not to mention the lack of 'with' after dueling, which would be necessary if dueling were a gerund.)
In sentence #2, 'fighting' is a gerund. try reading the sentence with it as a participle - it just doesn't make any sense.
To a certain extent it's impossible to write a sentence that has NO ambiguity whatsoever. We like to throw down hard and fast rules, making this claim, but what we're really doing is creating sentences with NEGLIGIBLE ambiguity, such as the ones in this post - and the one you've posted. (Just try reading that sentence with 'eating' as a descriptive participle. If it makes sense, try reading it again, because it shouldn't.)
hope this helps.
duelling politicians : duelling is a participle serving as adjective . The focus is on politicians
fighting formidable opponents : is a gerund . The focus is on fighting
if i apply this lesson to the problem in question
eating highly processed foods : the focus is on foods
Foods are eating . LOL . Absurd !eating of foods : gerund Therefore eating of foods is more apt
