For the farmer who

[Suapplle]

Unless the original has been typed incorrectly, there is no comma between "providing them with high energy feed" and "... and milking them regularly".

in the version I have,there is a comma between "providing them with high energy feed" and "... and "milking them regularly",I search the internet,maybe there should have a comma,but I am not sure which is correct,I will try to find the screenshot,very sorry.

[RonPurewal]

Sure, take a look and let us know what you find.

It's not going to affect the outcome of the problem, because that choice is wrong either way. (I.e., if the comma is there, then you can eliminate on the basis of bad parallelism.) But it would still be interesting to know.

[Suapplle]

Sure, take a look and let us know what you find.

It's not going to affect the outcome of the problem, because that choice is wrong either way. (I.e., if the comma is there, then you can eliminate on the basis of bad parallelism.) But it would still be interesting to know.

Hi,Ron, I met this question in prep software, there is a comma between "providing them with high-energy feed" and "milking them regularly". I have the screen shot, but I do not know how to insert it, really sorry. so since A has a bad parallelism, E is correct? I think it is not easy for me to find this split. does choice A has other mistakes? thanks a lot.

[RonPurewal]

Yes, E is correct.

You can also eliminate A because the modifier is nonsense.
"Comma + __ing" needs to describe the preceding action. Here, though, "providing them with high energy feed and milking them regularly" has nothing to do with "keeping them cool". Totally separate things.

[Suapplle]

Yes, E is correct.

You can also eliminate A because the modifier is nonsense.
"Comma + __ing" needs to describe the preceding action. Here, though, "providing them with high energy feed and milking them regularly" has nothing to do with "keeping them cool". Totally separate things.

thanks a lot~Ron~^_^~

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[gbyhats]

Hi Manhattan Instructors ;)

Sorry for editing... I can't resist asking: what if we remove "the" in (D)
(I duplicate the original question at the bottom)

--

In other word, does GMAT test the use of the plural form?

--

Since Ron's earlier post shows that use of present tense and future tense are both OK, the only differences between (D) & (E) are 1) whether to use "the"; 2) whether to use the plural form of Holstein cow:

(D) ...the Holstein cow produces milk
(E) ...Holstein cows will produce milk

--

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 2275 gallons of milk each year.

A. providing them with high energy feed and milking them regularly, Holstein cows are producing
B. providing them with high energy feed, and milked regularly, the Holstein cow produces
C. provided with high energy feed, and milking them regularly, Holstein cows are producing
D. provided with high energy feed,and milked regularly, the Holstein cow produces
E. provided with high energy feed,and milked regularly, Holstein cows will produce

[RonPurewal]

the non-underlined part contains "them", so the singular form is wrong.

not the kind of thing you should miss!

[gbyhats]

the non-underlined part contains "them", so the singular form is wrong.

not the kind of thing you should miss!

Oops! I'm sorry...

Thank you for telling me that ;)

[RonPurewal]

sure.

[JasonH713]

Gprep #2

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 2275 gallons of milk each year.

A. providing them with high energy feed and milking them regularly, Holstein cows are producing
B. providing them with high energy feed ,and milked regularly, the Holstein cow produces
C. provided with high energy feed, and milking them regularly, Holstein cows are producing
D. provided with high energy feed ,and milked regularly, the Holstein cow produces
E. provided with high energy feed ,and milked regularly, Holstein cows will produce

OA : E

Killed B,C and D for S-V agreement and parallelism issues..
In E how is to keep, provided and milked parallel ..

In A can we assume providing and milking is part of taking care to keep them cool ?

heh. it looks like choice (a) is an "indian trap"
seriously, not a joke.
if there is a single biggest issue in the grammar of second-language english speakers who happen to hail from india or pakistan, that issue is the drastic overuse of the "are ...ing" construction. (native speakers of english will recognize "are producing" at once as awkward.)

another problem with part (a) is the modifier. although "providing... and milking..." is a grammatically acceptable modifier, it doesn't make any sense in context, since these are not two things that farmers do WHILE or AS A CONSEQUENCE OF keeping the cows cool. (if you're going to use comma + -ing, then one of these two should hold.)
see #124 (og 12th edition) or #127 (og 11th edition), correct answer, for a sentence in which such a modifier actually does make sense.

in choice E, the parallel structures are
cool
provided with...
and
milked regularly

(i would have guessed "keep them cool, provide them with..., and milk them..."—but that isn't there, of course. and that's why we shouldn't try to "edit" the sentences.)

--

note that you also can't say "THE holstein cows", unless you're referencing a particular, specific, known group of holstein cows (something that you clearly aren't doing). since you're talking about holstein cows in general, you don't use the article "the".
this is another thing well known, totally subconsciously, to native speakers of english; it's hard-won wisdom for non-native speakers.

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your explanation. Totally agree with your point that the present participle phrases do not make any sense in the context.
However, I am wondering would it make more sense if the sentence were put in this way ''...who takes care to keep them cool, to provide them with high energy feed and to milk them regularly...'' since these three components are parallel.
And I also want to know if the tense of the main clause is a split point that helps eliminate the choices. Is ''...will produce'' more preferred than ''... are producing'' ?

Thanks and best regards!

[RonPurewal]

I am wondering would it make more sense if the sentence were put in this way ''...who takes care to keep them cool, to provide them with high energy feed and to milk them regularly...'' since these three components are parallel.

when i first read this sentence, i too was expecting to see "keep", "provide", and "milk" in parallel.
but... that doesn't happen in any of the choices. oh well, that's just how life works sometimes.

there is still a clear and unambiguous winner among the choices, so there's no problem.

[RonPurewal]

would it make more sense if…

now, this…
don’t.
don’t do this.

this kind of thinking will have deleterious effects on your ability to solve these things, for at least two different reasons:

1/
“make sense” is binary.
* if a choice makes sense, then its meaning is acceptable.
* if a choice doesn’t make sense, then its meaning is not acceptable.
end of story.
“make more sense” and “make less sense” are not things. don’t let imaginary complexity ruin real simplicity!

2/
you’re asking about something that’s not an option in the first place.
since you have to pick one of the choices they actually give you, such thought processes are, at best, a complete waste of your time (and at worst a pernicious distraction from the stuff that’s actually tested).

look, i feel your pain here: i’m also a professional editor, and i can come up with all sorts of beautiful and elegant ways to (re-)write these sentences. but, if those beautiful and elegant versions aren’t actually available (in the choices), then…what’s the point? unfortunately, there isn’t one.

[RonPurewal]

Is ''...will produce'' more preferred than ''... are producing'' ?

"preferred" is not a thing. (once again, don't let imaginary complexity ruin actual simplicity.)
'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' (a.k.a. 'right' and 'wrong') are things.

--

'is/are __ing' is used to articulate what is happening RIGHT NOW, in the present, as the sentence is being written. (note "is being" there--that's happening right now, too.)
e.g.,
Thanks to the rapid expansion of the Silicon Valley tech industry, California is producing new billionaires faster than the other forty-nine states combined. (this is happening right now.)

note that 'is/are __ing' also carries a sense of impermanence—i.e., 'this is happening NOW, but things could change.' (the sentence above admits the possibility that, eventually, other states could start minting billionaires faster than california.)

if something is a general truth, it CANNOT be expressed as "is/are __ing".

[RonPurewal]

also note that both "will produce" and "produce(s)" make sense here.
there is a difference—and that difference is exactly what you would expect from a simplistic understanding of these tenses—but both interpretations are reasonable.

consider:

People who enjoy their work are more successful in their careers.
(= same timeframe—the enjoyment and the success are simultaneous)

People who enjoy their work will be more successful in their careers.
(current enjoyment is a reliable indicator of later success)

so, in this problem...
...if the effects are immediate (if the cows start producing xxxxx as soon as the farmers do those 3 things), then, "produce(s)".
...if the effects are delayed (if the farmers have to do those things for a while before the cows reach optimal production), then, "will produce".
both of these interpretations are sensible.