Sentence Correction

I bolded two prepositional modifiers (one from another question). Both seem to have the same purpose in the sentence and both appear to have minor ambiguity. The second one about the baby is actually correct. This makes me think that (A) COULD also be correct since "in two letters" does not logically modify Vesuvius. Although i agree that the other answer choice is better.

(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.

*another question
(D) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500; an adult with such vision would be deemed legally blind.

pinchharmonic wrote:I bolded two prepositional modifiers (one from another question). Both seem to have the same purpose in the sentence and both appear to have minor ambiguity. The second one about the baby is actually correct. This makes me think that (A) COULD also be correct since "in two letters" does not logically modify Vesuvius. Although i agree that the other answer choice is better.

(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.

*another question
(D) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated about 20/500; an adult with such vision would be deemed legally blind.

IMO, the prepositional phrase in sentence 1 could logically modify two things: wrote (verb) and account (noun). Thus, there is a scope of multiple antecedents for the prepositional modifier.

However, in sentence 2, the prepositional phrase could modify either womb(illogical) and the baby (logical).

Please correct me if I am wrong.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

sui generis wrote:Thanks again Mitch for the elaborative explanation. I got your point.

However, I tested this concept on a small sentence and found something interesting.

Case 1: The diet of hindus is largely vegetarian with meat as rarity.
Here the prepositional phrase modifies the noun vegetarian.

If we add a comma then:
Case 2: The diet of hindus is largely vegetarian, with meat as rarity.
It modifies the preceding clause (precisely the action: The diet is).

If we move the prepositional phrase (with comma) in the beginning then:
Case 3: With meat as rarity, the diet of hindus is largely vegetarian.
It modifies in the same way as in the case 2.

Here is moving the phrase at the beginning or at the end (as in case 2 and 3) does not alter the meaning. In case 2 the phrase does not modify any noun (vegetarian) instead it modifies the whole clause or the action.

My question is how is this example different from the one discussed above it in terms of application of modifier or where am I failing to extrapolate the concept of prepositional phrase.

Thanks!

COMMA + PREPOSITIONAL MODIFIER at the end of a sentence adds NON-ESSENTIAL information:

The diet of the ordinary Greek in classical times was largely vegetarian -- vegetables, fresh cheese, oatmeal, and meal cakes, with meat as a rarity.

Removing with meat as a rarity would not change the meaning of the sentence above.

In the SC at the top of this thread, in two letters provides ESSENTIAL information, telling us WHERE the nephew of Pliny WROTE.
Thus, COMMA + in two letters at the end of the sentence would be incorrect.

Hi Mitch, I've been following your posts and have found them to be extremely helpful. Thank you. One clarifying question I had re: prepositional phrases is when used with COMMAS. Specifically, when you use "COMMA + PREPOSITIONAL Modifiers" at the end of a sentence, can it modify the preceding noun (instead of the entire clause)? I feel fairly confident that the answer is yes, but I am a little uncertain as to why you would use the "COMMA" in the first place. The example that triggered this question is from the GMAT Prep software and is below:

The largest trade-book publisher in the US has announced the creation of a new digital imprint division, under which it will publish about 20 purely digital works to be sold online as either electronic books or downloadable copies that can be printed upon purchase.

I know the question is related to Parallelism, but as I was reading the sentence, I noticed that the portion that was not underlined and accepted to be correct used the "COMMA + PREPOSITION". In the example above, is the "COMMA + PREPOSITIONAL Modifier" non-essential? Also, it seems that the use of "COMMA + PREPOSITIONAL Modifiers" is similar to "NOUN + NOUN Modifiers", in that they are fairly flexible in what they can modify (preceding noun or entire clause) and heavily driven by meaning. Am I missing something here? I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. Many thanks!