GMAT Forum
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: Because there are provisions.....
right, that material is going to be updated/edited accordingly.
- NicoleT643
- Students
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:05 pm
Re: Because there are provisions.....
Hi Ron, I assume that you maybe annoyed by the comma+Ving issue of this post, however after reading the entire thread, I still have a question unsolved.
As you mentioned:
1) when you use a COMMA -ING modifier after a clause**, you should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
-- the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause
AND
-- the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.
Therefore in choice C, "the islets" is not the subject of stimulating, choice C is incorrect.
I chose C because of the sentences in Manhattan Guide book : Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values
I used to think that, comma+Ving can modify the previous clause, and the subject of Ving does not need to be the subject of the previous clause. The subject of the Ving is the consequence of the subject+verb in the main clause -- for example, the subject of "leading" is not crime but "crime has decreased", crime does not lead a rise in property values.
Ron said this sentence is incorrect and the sentence in the guide book is not a good example. Therefore whenever I run into a question with "comma+Ving", I should consider : 1) the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause; 2)the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.
Furthermore, the subject of comma+Ving has to be logical with the main subject, and can not be subject+action (as the example -- Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values)
Please confirm if I am correct in this topic. Thank you.
PS: I have to say that this thread about the usage of comma + Ving has fundamentally changed how I think the usage of comma+Ving in Gmat. And I am very grateful on running into this thread!
As you mentioned:
1) when you use a COMMA -ING modifier after a clause**, you should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
-- the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause
AND
-- the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.
Therefore in choice C, "the islets" is not the subject of stimulating, choice C is incorrect.
I chose C because of the sentences in Manhattan Guide book : Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values
I used to think that, comma+Ving can modify the previous clause, and the subject of Ving does not need to be the subject of the previous clause. The subject of the Ving is the consequence of the subject+verb in the main clause -- for example, the subject of "leading" is not crime but "crime has decreased", crime does not lead a rise in property values.
Ron said this sentence is incorrect and the sentence in the guide book is not a good example. Therefore whenever I run into a question with "comma+Ving", I should consider : 1) the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause; 2)the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.
Furthermore, the subject of comma+Ving has to be logical with the main subject, and can not be subject+action (as the example -- Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values)
Please confirm if I am correct in this topic. Thank you.
PS: I have to say that this thread about the usage of comma + Ving has fundamentally changed how I think the usage of comma+Ving in Gmat. And I am very grateful on running into this thread!
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: Because there are provisions.....
this pair of sentences should make everything more clear:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p111214
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p111214
- ZhengJ600
- Students
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:52 am
Re: Because there are provisions.....
Apologies in advance if my question has already been answered.
Why are "provisions" and "provide" in choice A redundant? I thought that provisions mean stipulations, which are items specified in a law document ("code" in this case). Can "provisions of the new code provide..." simply mean that "items of the new code provide that..."?
Thank you.
Why are "provisions" and "provide" in choice A redundant? I thought that provisions mean stipulations, which are items specified in a law document ("code" in this case). Can "provisions of the new code provide..." simply mean that "items of the new code provide that..."?
Thank you.
- Sage Pearce-Higgins
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 1336
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:04 am
Re: Because there are provisions.....
I encourage you not to look for redundancy in GMAT problems. It actually occurs very rarely, and you can almost always eliminate wrong answers for other reasons. Answer A here has a problem with the pronoun 'they' that is much easier to identify.
Technically, you could writing that 'provisions provide ...', but it's basically bad style in English to repeat the same word or words with the same root. It would be like writing 'The driver drove...' or 'The runner ran...'. When I read something like that in a GMAT problem I think 'that sounds clunky, I'm suspicious of that answer', but I can almost always find something more definite with which to eliminate answer choices.
Technically, you could writing that 'provisions provide ...', but it's basically bad style in English to repeat the same word or words with the same root. It would be like writing 'The driver drove...' or 'The runner ran...'. When I read something like that in a GMAT problem I think 'that sounds clunky, I'm suspicious of that answer', but I can almost always find something more definite with which to eliminate answer choices.
- ZhengJ600
- Students
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:52 am
Re: Because there are provisions.....
Thanks Sage, but just to confirm: is the reason why you think "they" is incorrect because "they" doesn't have a clear antecedent as "they" is too far away from "provisions"?
- Sage Pearce-Higgins
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 1336
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:04 am
Re: Because there are provisions.....
No need to quote my previous post when you post.
No. The distance between a pronoun and its antecedent is not an issue. In the correct answer the pronoun is just as far away from its antecedent. In fact, I'd add 'pronoun ambiguity' to my list of topics worth avoiding (along with concision). It's almost always too subjective an area to be tested on GMAT. In theory, any pronoun is ambiguous, since you might say that it refers to one of many nouns in the sentence. (Note, how in that previous sentence 'it' refers to 'any pronoun', but someone might uncharitably claim that the pronoun is referring to 'theory', or 'sentence'. These are clearly nonsensical interpretations.) There are other problems with A, as the thread above discusses.
No. The distance between a pronoun and its antecedent is not an issue. In the correct answer the pronoun is just as far away from its antecedent. In fact, I'd add 'pronoun ambiguity' to my list of topics worth avoiding (along with concision). It's almost always too subjective an area to be tested on GMAT. In theory, any pronoun is ambiguous, since you might say that it refers to one of many nouns in the sentence. (Note, how in that previous sentence 'it' refers to 'any pronoun', but someone might uncharitably claim that the pronoun is referring to 'theory', or 'sentence'. These are clearly nonsensical interpretations.) There are other problems with A, as the thread above discusses.