Sentence Correction

Brent@GMATPrepNow wrote:10,000 posts!
Nice work, Mitch.


Brent

Thanks, Brent. Isn't this the sort of milestone typically marked with the bestowing of a nice t-shirt? Or a new car?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: Generally, COMMA + VERBing serves to modify the preceding clause -- more specifically, the SUBJECT and VERB of the preceding clause.
C and E: the animal overcompensating, growing an extra one or two.
.
.
.
As a result, the animal overcompensating is not a clause but a PHRASE.
The COMMA + VERBing modifier in red cannot serve to modify a phrase.

Hi GMATGuruNY,
Got your above explanation. But couple of quick questions -

1. Is this construction ALWAYS considered WRONG in GMAT -- [(preceding clause), VERBing modifier] , VERBing modifier ?

I could be wrong, but I guess, I found such usage in an OA in which the FIRST VERBing modifier simply modifies the preceding clause enclosed in () and the SECOND VERBing modifier modifies the portion within [].

Any thoughts ?

A COMMA + VERBing modifier may not serve to modify another COMMA + VERBing modifier.

Gotcha!
FEW CLARIFICATIONS required as mentioned below -

GMATGuruNY wrote:But it is possible for two COMMA + VERBing modifiers to be linked only by a comma.

I just would like to know that on GMAT,in such cases whether the SECOND COMMA + VERBing modifier will, under any circumstance, modify the subject and verb of the preceding MAIN CLAUSE as a whole, ENCLOSED within [] ?
(while NOT separately modifying another COMMA + VERBing modifier (FIRST or preceding) present between SECOND COMMA + VERBing modifier and the PRECEDING MAIN CLAUSE -- as I depicted the construction in my above quote here)

Would be curious to know your thoughts!

GMATGuruNY wrote: (1) The intent here is not to discuss WHAT replaces the arm but to convey HOW the arm is replaced.
To convey this meaning, COMMA + with is appropriate.
HOW is the arm replaced?
WITH THE ANIMAL SOMETIMES OVERCOMPENSATING.

(2) To express THE PROCESS by which an action is performed, we use by + VERBing:
John made a fortune BY INVESTING wisely.

Could you please provide a quick clarification that whether the RED parts in BOTH (1) and (2) are ESSENTIALLY same or not ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:I just would like to know that on GMAT,in such cases whether the SECOND COMMA + VERBing modifier will, under any circumstance, modify the subject and verb of the preceding MAIN CLAUSE as a whole, ENCLOSED within [] ?
(while NOT separately modifying another COMMA + VERBing modifier (FIRST or preceding) present between SECOND COMMA + VERBing modifier and the PRECEDING MAIN CLAUSE -- as I depicted the construction in my above quote here)

In the OA to the following SC, two successive COMMA + VERBing modifiers serve to modify the same preceding subject and verb:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-hognose- ... 83891.html

GMATGuruNY wrote: (1) The intent here is not to discuss WHAT replaces the arm but to convey HOW the arm is replaced.
To convey this meaning, COMMA + with is appropriate.
HOW is the arm replaced?
WITH THE ANIMAL SOMETIMES OVERCOMPENSATING.

(2) To express THE PROCESS by which an action is performed, we use by + VERBing:
John made a fortune BY INVESTING wisely.

Could you please provide a quick clarification that whether the RED parts in BOTH (1) and (2) are ESSENTIALLY same or not ?

A with-modifier serves to indicate what NOUN was used.
A by + VERBing modifier serves to express what ACTION was taken.

John finished the soup with a spoon.
Here, the with-modifier in red expresses what NOUN was used when John finished.
It does not express what ACTION was taken when John finished.

John finished the soup by stirring.
Here, the VERBing modifier in red does not express what NOUN was used when John finished.
Rather, it expresses what ACTION was taken when John finished.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:I just would like to know that on GMAT,in such cases whether the SECOND COMMA + VERBing modifier will, under any circumstance, modify the subject and verb of the preceding MAIN CLAUSE as a whole, ENCLOSED within [] ?
(while NOT separately modifying another COMMA + VERBing modifier (FIRST or preceding) present between SECOND COMMA + VERBing modifier and the PRECEDING MAIN CLAUSE -- as I depicted the construction in my above quote here)

In the OA to the following SC, two successive COMMA + VERBing modifiers serve to modify the same preceding subject and verb:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-hognose- ... 83891.html

Right. BUT my concern was, I think, sightly DIFFERENT.

In this above link(re hognose SC) it's a series of parallel structures in which each of them refers to the same preceding subject and verb, providing additional information about the MAIN CLAUSE.

Whereas, I just wanted to know on GMAT, in this CONSTRUCTION --[(preceding clause), VERBing modifier] , VERBing modifier -- whether the SECOND COMMA + VERBing modifier will, under any circumstance, modify the PORTION ENCLOSED within [...] ? (Isn't this CONSTRUCTION BIT DIFFERENT than that in the hognose SC ?)

Curious to know your feedback!

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: (1) The intent here is not to discuss WHAT replaces the arm but to convey HOW the arm is replaced.
To convey this meaning, COMMA + with is appropriate.
HOW is the arm replaced?
WITH THE ANIMAL SOMETIMES OVERCOMPENSATING.

(2) To express THE PROCESS by which an action is performed, we use by + VERBing:
John made a fortune BY INVESTING wisely.

Could you please provide a quick clarification that whether the RED parts in BOTH (1) and (2) are ESSENTIALLY same or not ?

A with-modifier serves to indicate what NOUN was used.
A by + VERBing modifier serves to express what ACTION was taken.

John finished the soup with a spoon.
Here, the with-modifier in red expresses what NOUN was used when John finished.
It does not express what ACTION was taken when John finished.

John finished the soup by stirring.
Here, the VERBing modifier in red does not express what NOUN was used when John finished.
Rather, it expresses what ACTION was taken when John finished.

So, A with-modifier serves to indicate what NOUN was used (i.e DOER of the ACTION ) and A by + NOUN ALSO serves to express DOER of the ACTION. Did I get you right ?

If yes then in this SC (re STARFISH) the former one -- with+ NOUN -- is preferred because the answer choices in which by + NOUN is used are INCORRECT because of other DIFFERENT ERRORS. Am I correct ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Whereas, I just wanted to know on GMAT, in this CONSTRUCTION --[(preceding clause), VERBing modifier] , VERBing modifier -- whether the SECOND COMMA + VERBing modifier will, under any circumstance, modify the PORTION ENCLOSED within [...] ? (Isn't this CONSTRUCTION BIT DIFFERENT than that in the hognose SC ?)

Curious to know your feedback!p

This question was answered above:
On the GMAT, a COMMA + VERBing modifier will not -- under any circumstances -- serve to modify another COMMA + VERBing modifier.

RBBmba@2014 wrote: So, A with-modifier serves to indicate what NOUN was used (i.e DOER of the ACTION ) and A by + NOUN ALSO serves to express DOER of the ACTION. Did I get you right ?

If yes then in this SC (re STARFISH) the former one -- with+ NOUN -- is preferred because the answer choices in which by + NOUN is used are INCORRECT because of other DIFFERENT ERRORS. Am I correct ?

To clarify:
A with + NOUN modifier serves to express something that ACCOMPANIES the preceding action.
A by + NOUN modifier serves to express who or what PERFORMS the preceding action.

In A and C, sometimes BY the animal implies that sometimes THE ANIMAL replaces the arm, while at other times SOMETHING ELSE replaces the lost arm.
This meaning is nonsensical.
Clearly, the starfish itself replaces the lost arm.
No other entity performs this action.
Eliminate A and C.

OA: If one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating.
Here, the conveyed meaning is that a particular event -- the animal overcompensating -- sometimes ACCOMPANIES the replacement of the lost arm.
This meaning is sensical.

GMATGuruNY wrote: More likely, the GMAT writers wanted to avoid using one VERBing modifier (growing) to modify another (overcompensating), so they employed and to connect the two modifiers.

Hello Mitch, this is very informative. However, I did not understand the following:

a) In this very thread, you have mentioned that one VERBing modifier "cannot" modify another one VERBing modifier.

b) However, here you have said that GMAT writers wanted to "avoid" using one VERBing modifier (growing) to "modify" another.

Basically if one VERBing modifier "cannot" modify another one VERBing modifier, then where is the point of "avoiding" one VERBing modifier to modify another one VERBing modifier?

bonetlobo wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: More likely, the GMAT writers wanted to avoid using one VERBing modifier (growing) to modify another (overcompensating), so they employed and to connect the two modifiers.

Hello Mitch, this is very informative. However, I did not understand the following:

a) In this very thread, you have mentioned that one VERBing modifier "cannot" modify another one VERBing modifier.

b) However, here you have said that GMAT writers wanted to "avoid" using one VERBing modifier (growing) to "modify" another.

Basically if one VERBing modifier "cannot" modify another one VERBing modifier, then where is the point of "avoiding" one VERBing modifier to modify another one VERBing modifier?

OA, without and:
If one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating, growing an extra one or two.
Here:
SEMANTICALLY, growing seems intended to modify overcompensating, expressing HOW the animal is sometimes overcompensating.
GRAMATICALLY, this structure is not viable, since one COMMA + VERBIng modifier cannot serve to modify another.
To avoid this conflict, the OA Inserts and between the two VERBing modifiers:
If one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating AND growing an extra one or two.

GMATGuruNY wrote: Here, overcompensating is an ADJECTIVE serving to modify animal.
What KIND Of animal?
The animal OVERCOMPENSATING.

Hello Mitch, would the right question not be: The animal doing WHAT?
The animal OVERCOMPENSATING.

GMATGuruNY wrote: A with + NOUN modifier serves to express something that ACCOMPANIES the preceding action.
.
.
.
OA: If one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating.
Here, the conveyed meaning is that a particular event -- the animal overcompensating -- sometimes ACCOMPANIES the replacement of the lost arm.
This meaning is sensical.

Hi GMATGuruNY - Are there ANY OTHER valid USAGES of with + NOUN modifier in GMAT ?

bonetlobo wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: Here, overcompensating is an ADJECTIVE serving to modify animal.
What KIND Of animal?
The animal OVERCOMPENSATING.

Hello Mitch, would the right question not be: The animal doing WHAT?
The animal OVERCOMPENSATING.

The purpose of my question is to discern not the meaning conveyed by overcompensating but to clarify the FUNCTION of this VERBing.
An adjective describing noun X answers the following question:
What KIND of noun x?
Hence the question and answer offered in my post above:
What KIND of animal?
The animal OVERCOMPENSATING.
Here, we can clearly see that overcompensating is functioning as an ADJECTIVE describing the animal.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: A with + NOUN modifier serves to express something that ACCOMPANIES the preceding action.
.
.
.
OA: If one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating.
Here, the conveyed meaning is that a particular event -- the animal overcompensating -- sometimes ACCOMPANIES the replacement of the lost arm.
This meaning is sensical.

Hi GMATGuruNY - Are there ANY OTHER valid USAGES of with + NOUN modifier in GMAT ?

@ GMATGuruNY - Could you please shed some light on the above aspect ?

Look forward to your thoughts. Much thanks in advance!

GMATGuruNY wrote: A COMMA + VERBing modifier may not serve to modify another COMMA + VERBing modifier.
But it is possible for two COMMA + VERBing modifiers to be linked only by a comma.
The implication of this construction is that both COMMA + VERBing modifiers serve the SAME FUNCTION: to modify the preceding subject and verb.
For an example of this construction, check my second post here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/can-two-inde ... 83697.html

GMATGuruNY wrote:
Other official examples of zeugma:

The hognose snake puts on an impressive bluff, hissing and rearing back, broadening the flesh behind its head the way a cobra does.
Here, the two modifiers in red are not linked by a conjunction.
Both are governed by the preceding clause, serving to express HOW the hognose snake puts on an impressive bluff.

Hi Mitch,

I got the idea that if two comma + Ving modifiers occur in a sentence, then both comma + Ving modifiers are modifier the proceeding clause,

my question is :
can I review the part hissing and rearing back, broadening the flesh behind its head the way a cobra does.[/i] as parallelism,

if can review as parallelism, then comma can be replaced with and, right?
if cannot review as parallelism, then what the different from parallelism?

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

then back to starfish case, overcompensating , growing is modifies the proceeding clause that starfish have a strong regenerative ability,

GMATGuruNY wrote: A COMMA + VERBing modifier may not serve to modify another COMMA + VERBing modifier.
But it is possible for two COMMA + VERBing modifiers to be linked only by a comma.
The implication of this construction is that both COMMA + VERBing modifiers serve the SAME FUNCTION: to modify the preceding subject and verb.
For an example of this construction, check my second post here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/can-two-inde ... 83697.html

GMATGuruNY wrote:
Other official examples of zeugma:

The hognose snake puts on an impressive bluff, hissing and rearing back, broadening the flesh behind its head the way a cobra does.
Here, the two modifiers in red are not linked by a conjunction.
Both are governed by the preceding clause, serving to express HOW the hognose snake puts on an impressive bluff.

Hi Mitch,

I got the idea that if two comma + Ving modifiers occur in a sentence, then both comma + Ving modifiers are modifier the proceeding clause,

my question is :
can I review the part hissing and rearing back, broadening the flesh behind its head the way a cobra does.[/i] as parallelism,

if can review as parallelism, then comma can be replaced with and, right?
if cannot review as parallelism, then what the different from parallelism?


one more question
normally, prep + NOUN + Ving is incorrect in GMAT, in this case, it is correct, did i miss somthing?
would you please point out when prep + NOUN + Ving will be correct?

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

Hi GMATGuruNY - Are there ANY OTHER valid USAGES of with + NOUN modifier in GMAT ?

@ GMATGuruNY - Could you please shed some light on the above aspect ?

Look forward to your thoughts. Much thanks in advance!

Please refer to my post here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/suggested-po ... 88786.html