The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are

[RBBmba@2014]

The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell over the last two years.

A. which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell
B. which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen
C. which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling
D. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling
E. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen

OA : C

P.S: Although I got this one, just couple of quick questions --

1. In OA,I think, FALLING is a GERUND -- an action NOUN. (NOT a Verb-ing Modifier acting as a VERB) Right ?

2. In D: Usage of COMMA + With-MODIFIER is INCORRECT.

@ Verbal Experts - could you please provide quick clarification on the above ?

[VivianKerr]

A Gerund is when the -ing is the subject doing the action.

EXAMPLE: "Failing to get a high score is unacceptable."

"Failing" is the gerund.

"Falling" is just present continuous.

You're right on the money with the incorrect usage of "with." Modification aside, I think we sometimes forget the meaning of "with." When we say "with," it means 2 things are working together or happening together.

Here, "a five percent increase" is PART of the results/profits, not a separate idea. MEANING and MODIFICATION can definitely go hand in hand!

Here's my notes on this problem:



Hope this helps!

Best,
Vivian

[RBBmba@2014]

A Gerund is when the -ing is the subject doing the action.

EXAMPLE: "Failing to get a high score is unacceptable."

"Failing" is the gerund.

"Falling" is just present continuous.

OK. So, I think, ELLIPSIS is at play here...

after [they were] falling over the last two years -- THEY refers to Profits.

Am I correct ?

[RBBmba@2014]

Hi - any update on the above ?

Would much appreciate your reply.

[KarenVH]

In the OA, "falling" is a present participle. It would help if you would clarify how it would help *you* to know whether it's a gerund or a participle or something else. For instance, is there a particular rule that you're trying to apply here, such that getting this -ing form correctly labeled would help you to feel confident in your answer choice?

It is definitely unusual and probably ungrammatical to modify a clause with a With-modifier and separate the two of them with a comma. But as an earlier poster pointed out, it's also fruitful to think of this issue in terms of meaning. "With" is very vague -- it doesn't make clear the nature of the relationship between the ideas. It sounds as if the five percent increase is only very loosely connected to the profits, perhaps accompanying the profits in some way, whereas the intended meaning is that the profits actually increased five percent.

Karen

-----
Karen is the Head Verbal Tutor for Test Prep New York/Test Prep San Francisco. TPSF/TPNY is the only test prep co. that fuses content mastery and test-taking strategy with positive mindset. Tests, after all, don't measure only what you know or how well you know it; tests also measure how well you take tests.


Test Prep New York/Test Prep San Francisco
Maximize your Score, Minimize your Stress!
testprepny.com

[GMATGuruNY]

1. In OA,I think, FALLING is a GERUND -- an action NOUN. (NOT a Verb-ing Modifier acting as a VERB) Right ?

This line of reasoning seems valid.
A VERBing can serve as a NOUN.
A VERBing that serves as a noun is called a GERUND.
after can serve as a PREPOSITION.
OA: which have increased...after falling
Here, it is reasonable to interpret that falling (gerund) serves as the object of after (preposition).

2. In D: Usage of COMMA + With-MODIFIER is INCORRECT.

D: The results are evident...in its profits, with a five percent increase.
Here, it is not crystal clear what has increased.
If we construe that PROFITS have increased, we get:
The results are evident...IN its profits, WITH a five percent increase in its profits.
This meaning is contradictory, implying that the results are evident not only IN the profits but also WITH the profits.
Eliminate D.

[Needgmat]

Hi GMATGuruNY ,

Can you pleas explain the correct usage of COMMA+WITH?

Also please give some examples.

Many thanks in advance.

Kavin

[gocoder]

When we say "with," it means 2 things are working together or happening together.

Here, "a five percent increase" is PART of the results/profits, not a separate idea. MEANING and MODIFICATION can definitely go hand in hand!

Starfish, with anywhere from five to eight arms, have a strong regenerative ability, and if one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating and growing an extra one or two.

The highlighted sentence is as per OA.
if 'with' is to be used to imply two things working together, in the highlighted sentence, 'with' clause seems to explain how the lost arm is replaced, not an addition.

it suggests to me that 'with' clause in the starfish example seems to modify the previous clause, as does the 'with' clause in the 'profits question--both explaining the action of the main clause but not adding anything new.

[GMATGuruNY]

When we say "with," it means 2 things are working together or happening together.

Here, "a five percent increase" is PART of the results/profits, not a separate idea. MEANING and MODIFICATION can definitely go hand in hand!

Starfish, with anywhere from five to eight arms, have a strong regenerative ability, and if one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating and growing an extra one or two.

The highlighted sentence is as per OA.
if 'with' is to be used to imply two things working together, in the highlighted sentence, 'with' clause seems to explain how the lost arm is replaced, not an addition.

it suggests to me that 'with' clause in the starfish example seems to modify the previous clause, as does the 'with' clause in the 'profits question--both explaining the action of the main clause but not adding anything new.

Generally, COMMA + with after a clause serves to introduce something that accompanies the preceding action.

If one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating and growing an extra one or two.
Here, the usage of COMMA + with logically implies that the portion in green (the animal sometimes overcompensating) accompanies the preceding action in blue (the arm is quickly replaced).

D: The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a five percent during the first three months of this year.
Here, the usage of COMMA + with implies that the portion in red (an event that transpired DURING THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THIS YEAR) accompanies the preceding action in blue (the results ARE evident, an action that is happening NOW).
This sequence is illogical: an event in the past cannot accompany an action in the present.

[gocoder]

Generally, COMMA + with serves to introduce something that accompanies the preceding action.

If one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating and growing an extra one or two.
Here, the usage of COMMA + with logically implies that the portion in green (the animal sometimes overcompensating) accompanies the preceding action in blue (the arm is quickly replaced).

D: The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a five percent during the first three months of this year.
Here, the usage of COMMA + with implies that the portion in red (an event that transpired DURING THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THIS YEAR) accompanies the preceding action in blue (the results ARE evident, an action that is happening NOW).
This sequence is illogical: an event in the past cannot accompany an action in the present.

Thanks a ton for explaining this apparent discrepancy.
because COMMA + with generally serves to introduce something that accompanies the preceding action. would it mandate that 'with' clause should represent the time frame as that of the preceding action--something which was missing in the 'profits example, choice D' ?

[GMATGuruNY]

Thanks a ton for explaining this apparent discrepancy.
because COMMA + with generally serves to introduce something that accompanies the preceding action. would it mandate that 'with' clause should represent the time frame as that of the preceding action--something which was missing in the 'profits example, choice D' ?

This line of reasoning seems valid.
COMMA + with after a clause should serve to introduce something that is contemporaneous with the preceding action.

[Mo2men]

Thanks a ton for explaining this apparent discrepancy.
because COMMA + with generally serves to introduce something that accompanies the preceding action. would it mandate that 'with' clause should represent the time frame as that of the preceding action--something which was missing in the 'profits example, choice D' ?

This line of reasoning seems valid.
COMMA + with after a clause should serve to introduce something that is contemporaneous with the preceding action.

Dear Mitch

I would like to share your thoughts about an observation. I would eliminate D for another reason

D) Comma, with.............after falling..... Here the subject it omitted but should be implied but is it not clear where the subject.

C) ,which have ............. after falling .....Here the subject it omitted but should be implied and whichplays the role of the subject that referred to profits.

1- Is my line or reasoning enough to eliminate D?

2- Can In concluded that it is wrong to construct "comma +with............conjunction + Gerund' or "comma +with............conjunction + Independent clause'. The conjunction should connect two clauses NOT adverb and clause!!!!

Thanks

[GMATGuruNY]

Dear Mitch

I would like to share your thoughts about an observation. I would eliminate D for another reason

D) Comma, with.............after falling..... Here the subject it omitted but should be implied but is it not clear where the subject
1- Is my line or reasoning enough to eliminate D?

Correct!
In D, the agent for falling unclear, with the result that a reader cannot be certain who or what was FALLING.

C) ,which have ............. after falling .....Here the subject it omitted but should be implied and whichplays the role of the subject that referred to profits.

Here, the subject is NOT omitted: the subject for have increased is which.
Since which refers to profits, it is crystal clear that the agent for falling is profits, conveying that PROFITS were FALLING.

2- Can In concluded that it is wrong to construct "comma +with............conjunction + Gerund' or "comma +with............conjunction + Independent clause'. The conjunction should connect two clauses NOT adverb and clause!!!!

Thanks

This line of reasoning seems valid.

[[email protected]]

Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one issue at a time, and narrow it down to the right answer! To begin, here is the original question, with any major differences between the options highlighted in orange:

The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell over the last two years.

(A) which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell
(B) which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen
(C) which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling
(D) with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling
(E) with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen

After a quick glance over the options, there are a few key differences we can focus on:

1. which vs. with (modifiers)
2. increased / had increased / have increased (verb tense/subject-verb agreement)
3. it fell / it had fallen / falling / having fallen (verb tense/pronouns)

Since we're dealing with a modifier here, let's start with #1 on our list. This will determine if we should start the modifier with "which" or "with." Here is how each type of modifier works:

,which = noun modifier (the modifier must refer back to the noun right before the comma)
,with = adverbial modifier (the modifier must refer back to the clause before the comma)

Let's take a look at each option and determine if we need to use "which" or "with" here:

(A) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell
(B) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen
(C) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling
(D) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling
(E) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen

After looking more carefully, it makes more sense to use the noun modifier beginning with "which" because it clearly refers back to what it's modifying: profits. Using the word "with" here changes the meaning! It says that the results increased five percent, not the profits! Therefore, we can eliminate options D & E because they use an adverbial modifier that isn't clear or logical to use here.

Now that we have 3 options left, let's move on to #3 on our list: whether or not to use the pronoun "it." The first thing we need to ask ourselves when it comes to pronouns is "do they agree in number?" In this case, the pronoun "it" is referring back to the word "profits." So - do they agree in number? NO! The word "profits" is plural, and the pronoun "it" is singular.

(A) which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell
(B) which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen
(C) which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling

We can eliminate options A & B because they have a pronoun-antecedent agreement problem.

This leaves us with C as our correct option!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

[vietnam47]

if we see "to do, doing, and sometimes do-ed", we need to do the following
who/what in the sentence do the action of those verbal or those verbal refer to the action of any persons
what is tense/time of those actions presented by verbal. normally they take the tense of the main action
both to do and doing can refer to an action of a person/thing in the sentence or to action of anyperson/thing
do-ed must refer to the subject of the sentence

looking for this reference and time, we find meaning error