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?
