gas & electric company

[Tadashi]

Gomenasai.
I am not able to catch your point.

"As long as it still contains the singular form "company", the sentence is still describing a "merger" of only one company, which is nonsense."

don't understand..
maybe I shall make my question understood clearly.

OA:the merger of the nation’s leading gas company and leading electric company is intended to create a huge network for marketing the utilities in question as states open their utility markets to competition.

My version:the merger of the nation’s leading gas company and leading electric company is intended to create a huge network for marketing the utilities in question ,with states opening their utility markets to competition.

The only difference between my version and OA is the boldface.
So, I wonder if my version is correct? Does my version convey the same intended meaning?

DOMO ARIGATO.
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

In the previous post, you wrote:

The merger of the nation’s leading gas and leading (PS. I added it) electric company

This only says "company" once. So it's only referring to one company, which is "leading" in both areas.

This time, you wrote:

My version:the merger of the nation’s leading gas company and leading electric company

This time, you wrote "company" twice. So, this time, you're referring to two companies.

Big difference.

[RonPurewal]

My version:the merger of the nation’s leading gas company and leading electric company is intended to create a huge network for marketing the utilities in question ,with states opening their utility markets to competition.

The only difference between my version and OA is the boldface.
So, I wonder if my version is correct? Does my version convey the same intended meaning?

DOMO ARIGATO.
Tadashi.

Nope.
If you use "with", you're saying that the following words describe something that's a component or aspect of the previous thing.
That's not the message here. The message is that the states are opening their markets"”i.e., something they are going to do anyway"”AND SO the companies want to create a huge network in the resulting open market.

[RonPurewal]

here are some (hastily created) examples:

Apple had record sales in December, with consumers racing to snap up presents for Christmas.
—> the consumers who "raced" to buy apple products in december accounted for PART OF december's revenues. (these consumers DID NOT constitute the entirety of the market for those products! if they did, "with" would no longer describe a component observation, and so would no longer make sense.)

Apple had record sales in December as consumers raced to snap up presents for Christmas.
—> consumers were racing to buy presents anyway. apple just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and so lots of people bought Apple products.

hope that helps.

[Tadashi]

Thank you for your time and help first!

2 more following questions

1.

may I say " If you use "with", you're saying that the following words describe something that's a reason, component, or aspect of the previous thing."


[eg. With the cost of wireless service plummeting in the last year and mobile phones becoming increasingly common, many people are now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends]

in the eg. provided by me, the with structure seems to offer a reason, not a consequence. Because the cost plummeted last year, blabla.....

Please shed more light.
2.
[sentence 1]Apple had record sales in December, with consumers racing to snap up presents for Christmas.

[sentence 2]Apple had record sales in December as consumers raced to snap up presents for Christmas.

[sentence 3]Apple had record sales in December when consumers raced to snap up presents for Christmas.

S1 convey a latent idea of "consequence" as you mentioned above.
Although "Apple had record sales" & "consumers raced to snap up presents" happened in the same time frame contemporaneously , S2 does't have convey such idea.

May I understand your example like this?
S2 has the same meaning as S3 has. Am i right?



DOMO ARIGATO
Tadashi.

[Tadashi]

typo

[RonPurewal]

May I understand your example like this?
S2 has the same meaning as S3 has. Am i right?



DOMO ARIGATO
Tadashi.

Not really, though GMAC will never test such nuances.

----- YOU DO NOT NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE FOR THE GMAT EXAM -----

In those constructions, "as" suggests that the two observations are actually related. "When""”which can still be used in such a situation"”does not necessarily carry such an implication.

E.g.,
The traffic starts to get heavier at 3 p.m. as students get out of school.
"”> This sentence implies that the students contribute significantly to the traffic.

The traffic starts to get heavier at 3 p.m., when students get out of school.
"”> No such implication; just two observations that happen to occur at the same time. (The point of this sentence could be something like, "Poor students... just when they get out and want to drive somewhere, there's traffic.")

[Tadashi]

Thanks for your time.
Impressive explanation.
Tadashi.

[Tadashi]

two more questions about this problem.

1/ the use of "as" as a conjunction.
IMO. 3 ways (not sure, please confirm, thanks)

(1) conjunction "as" is somewhat like "when"

(2) conjunction "as" is somewhat like "because","since"

eg. (DIY eg.) As IT technology develops more and more rapidly, silicon valley will have more high-tech start-ups than before.

(3)as...as structure.

2/ the use of "with" as a prep.
You told me 3 ways

(1) reason: eg. Apple had record sales in December, with consumers racing to snap up presents for Christmas. ---Ron

(2) component: eg. A house with a swimming pool in Tokey is usually extremely expensive. ---Tadashi.

(3) aspect of the previous thing :
eg. With the cost of wireless service plummeting in the last year and mobile phones becoming increasingly common, many people are now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends. ---GMAT prep.

eg. (not sure, will appreciate it if you can confirm) with tears in his eye, the old man said goodbye to his little son.


I saw a sentence in NYT yesterday: For the study, researchers used a standard protocol to produce pain, with individuals plunging an arm in ice water for a minute


Definitely an example of (3) am I right?

sometimes it's hard for me to tell "consequence" form "aspect of the previous thing" maybe because they share a common structure like "with+NOUN+DOING"..

Hope you can teach me some useful approach.

Thanks for your time and effort in advance.
Tadashi.

[Tadashi]

You said: if you write "...with X VERBing", the implication is that this is happening at the same time as the verb in the main clause.

You also said: aspects of previous thing

do they conflict?


Please shed more light.
Thanks,
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

That's "previous" = "written earlier in the sentence". Not earlier in time.
Sorry if that was unclear.

[Tadashi]

sorry , still can't fully understand rule no.3: "aspect of the previous thing"

I guess maybe I don't understand the word "aspect", though I've looked it up in the dictionary already.

Hope you can shed more light on that.

Thanks for your consideration.

Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

sorry , still can't fully understand rule no.3: "aspect of the previous thing"

I guess maybe I don't understand the word "aspect", though I've looked it up in the dictionary already.

Hope you can shed more light on that.

Thanks for your consideration.

Tadashi.

The idea there is that the thing in the modifier is some sort of sub-component of the main idea.
This notion is fundamentally somewhat vague. You shouldn't look for a precise "whole"/"component" relationship; it's good enough for the modifier to represent, on some level, a "sub-topic" of the previously presented idea.

E.g.,
The city experienced its worst traffic congestion in years, with some drivers taking up to an hour just to move one mile forward.
Do you see what I mean about the "sub-component" here?
The drivers mentioned in the second part are but a few of the many, many drivers stuck in the traffic. In that sense, their situation represents just one aspect/component of the overall traffic situation.

[Tadashi]

Thank you very much indeed.
An explanation in need is an explanation indeed, HAHA
Tadashi

[RonPurewal]

Sure.