SC veritas,dangling verb+ING modifier, middle of a sentence

Question

In her 1851 magazine series, later becoming the famous novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe sought to portray the impact of slavery and further the abolitionist cause.

A.later becoming the famous novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe sought to portray the impact of slavery and further the abolitionist cause

B.which would later become the famous novel Uncle Tom’s cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s mission was to portray the impact of slavery further, and the abolitionist cause

C.which would later become the famous novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe sought to portray the impact of slavery and further the abolitionist cause

D.later becoming the famous novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s mission was to portray the impact of slavery, furthering the abolitionist cause

E.which had later become the famous novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe sought to portray the impact of slavery and further the abolitionist cause

I was able to figure out the right answer while solving this question. What concerns me is the verb+ING modifiers used in choices A and D. Whenever verb+ING modifiers used as non vital modifiers appear in the middle of a sentence, does the sentence become wrong because of the confusion it creates between modifying a preceding clause and modifying the following.

Excuse me, if this approach seems a bit mechanical.

MartyMurray · Answer

gocoder wrote:I was able to figure out the right answer while solving this question. What concerns me is the verb+ING modifiers used in choices A and D. Whenever verb+ING modifiers used as non vital modifiers appear in the middle of a sentence, does the sentence become wrong because of the confusion it creates between modifying a preceding clause and modifying the following.

Excuse me, if this approach seems a bit mechanical.

That's an interesting question.

At the same time, in each of the examples you cited, there is only one clause, and the participle modifier therefore the participle modifiers in those sentences have only one thing that they can modify according to structural conventions.

At the same time, meaning dictates that Harriet Beecher Stowe, for instance, did not become a novel. So the participle modifier cannot correctly modify the clause.

So there is no confusion actually.

Let's consider this situation now.

While I had no reason to run out the door, having learned long ago that ghosts are fun and friendly, my sister decided to run out the door to meet even more of them.

OK, now that sentence is confusing.

What about this one?

While Jim felt that he knew a lot about about animal behavior, having studied it extensively, the actions of his dog surprised him time after time.

The meaning is clear.

So I guess, as with any other modifier, in some situations placing a present participial modifier between two things can create confusion and in some cases it does not.

So the short answer to your question is, no, you can't just go with the idea that putting a present participial modifier between two clauses always results in the creation of a confusing sentence. You have to decide whether a clear meaning is conveyed on a case by case basis.

Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.

gocoder · Answer

Marty Murray wrote:gocoder wrote: At the same time, in each of the examples you cited, there is only one clause, and the participle modifier therefore the participle modifiers in those sentences have only one thing that they can modify according to structural conventions. Thanks for elaborating on the usage of participle modifiers A small confirmation-That means the participle modifiers can't modify the prepositional phrases that precede the former, because the modifiers can affect only the clause ?

MartyMurray · Answer

gocoder wrote:Marty Murray wrote: At the same time, in each of the examples you cited, there is only one clause, and the participle modifier therefore the participle modifiers in those sentences have only one thing that they can modify according to structural conventions. Thanks for elaborating on the usage of participle modifiers A small confirmation-That means the participle modifiers can't modify the prepositional phrases that precede the former, because the modifiers can affect only the clause ? Yup. Only a restrictive modifier could modify a noun in a prepositional phrase. preposition - article (a, an or the) - noun - NO COMMA - participle Consider the following. Beside the horse, eating oats ... Does not make sense. It if the modifier modifies what precedes it, the conveyed meaning is that "Beside the horse" is having oats. Without the comma, the modifier becomes restrictive, and the construction conveys a meaning that makes sense. Beside the horse eating oats ...

gocoder · Answer

For the farmer who takes care to keep them cool, providing them with high-energy feed, and milking them regularly, Holstein cows are producing an average of 2,275 gallons of milk each per year.

The above sentence from gmatprep is awkward for various reasons(meaning, structue and continuous tense ).
Is it also wrong because providing and milking seem to refer to Holstein cows rather than referring to the farmer ?

Choose how you want to prepare

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

SC veritas,dangling verb+ING modifier, middle of a sentence

Chicago Booth

GMAT Course Reviews

Admissions Consulting Reviews

FREE GMAT PREP RESOURCES

GMAT PREP DEAL TRACKER