gas & electric company

[Tadashi]

Sorry I need your help again Ron.

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.

1. component, 2. reason, or 3. aspect of the previous thing.

i don't think the boldface is either 1. component or 2 reason.
I don't think it falls into the third category

So the boldface plays which part in the sentence above?
can not understand.
Thanks,
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

"Component/aspect" applies when "with ____" comes AFTER the main sentence.

If "with ___" comes BEFORE the main sentence, it describes some sort of precipitating circumstance (which falls under the category of 'reason').
This is not some rule that you need to memorize. If you think about actually conveying real information in a sentence like this, common sense dictates that you're not going to throw "With + consequence" BEFORE the main sentence!

With a few bidders pushing up the price into the hundreds of thousands, the art quickly became unaffordable for all but the richest people at the auction.
--> With (precipitating circumstance), (main sentence = result).

[RonPurewal]

by the way--
when __ing modifiers are separated by commas, they must relate closely to the main sentence, regardless of their placement.

the difference is that the order of the parts should reflect the actual order (in time) of the things/states/events described. so, if you have a modifier that works both before and after the main sentence--a very rare occurrence indeed--the two meanings will differ substantially.

e.g.,
Losing the respect of his co-workers, John decided to relinquish his leadership of the committee.
--> john quit as head of the committee BECAUSE he was losing his co-workers' respect. ("losing..." happens first)

John decided to relinquish his leadership of the committee, losing the respect of his co-workers.
--> john lost his co-workers' respect BECAUSE he quit as head of the committee. ("john decided..." happens first)

[Tadashi]

Love your awesome explanation!!!
That's what I am looking forward to knowing!
Thanks!!!
Tadashi.

[Tadashi]

Hi Ron,
Before I can say to myself confidently that I fully understand all your explanation about this problem, I need your confirmation.

(1)For the study, researchers used a standard protocol to produce pain, with individuals plunging an arm in ice water for a minute.

My understanding--> with structure tells us aspects of the previous thing: a standard protocol.


(2)Apple had record sales in December, with consumers racing to snap up presents for Christmas.

My understanding--> [not sure] with structure tells us aspects of the previous thing.


(3)With consumers racing to snap up presents for Christmas, Apple had record sales in December.

My understanding-->With (precipitating circumstance), (main sentence = result).


(4) [DIY] A ship named White Star struck on a reef in the Pacific Ocean, with 73 people vanishing in cold water.

My understanding-->With structure tells us the consequence of the previous event.


Thanks for your time & effort in advance!
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

#1, #2, and #3 are fine.

#4 doesn't work. It's ok if the first action precipitates the second, but this structure doesn't work for sequential cause and effect. ("With" implies that the timeframe of both events is the same, or at least that the timeframe of the subsidiary event is contained within that of the larger event.)

E.g.,
*The entire block was flooded, with all but two homes demolished and rebuilt because of the damage
Doesn't work, since the rebuilding must have been later.

Vs.
The entire block was flooded, with all but two homes damaged beyond repair.
Makes sense. The damage was a consequence of the flooding"”but a simultaneous consequence. It happened during the flooding.

[Tadashi]

Now I think I can have a happy weekend, haha!
Thanks, Ron.
Your explanations are always the BEST!!!
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks for the kind words.

[eggpain24]

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.

fantastic explanations！

Ron！great~

[ZHUOC614]

Hi Ron,

your explanation for the usage of "with" is really awesome!!!

But I think I may not have grasped your idea thoroughly, and the following is my question:

You said:

When __ing modifiers are separated by commas, they follow almost exactly the same usages.

If the modifier works before and after the main sentence"”a rare occurrence indeed"”the two meanings will differ substantially.

1/Is "the __ing modifiers" in your sentence "comma -ing"? I am not sure what do you mean by saying "they follow almost exactly the same usages.". Would you please kindly give some examples?

2/What does "the modifier" imply? Do you mean "with noun -ing"?

By the way, the usages mentioned above seems to be "with noun -ing" but seems not to include other usages of "with" which is the same with a normal preparation. Am I correct?

Thank you for your time and considerations in advance!

[RonPurewal]

Examples are supplied with those statements. If you take a look at those examples, your questions will be answered.

By the way, the weird backward/forward quote marks are supposed to be dashes. A few of those dashes have mutated, for reasons I don't grasp.

[ZHUOC614]

Hi Ron,

Thank you so much for your suggestion to review that post again and I have read it again and indeed can understand it a lot better.

But I still want to confirm my understanding:

You mentioned:
When __ing modifiers are separated by commas, they follow almost exactly the same usages.

If the modifier works before and after the main sentence"”a rare occurrence indeed"”the two meanings will differ substantially.

In my opinion, you are talking about the same kind of usage(ie. a modifier can be used both before and after the main caluse ), but how can they be the same and differ substantially at the same time?

Thanks a lot and hoping for your explanation!

[RonPurewal]

You mentioned:
When __ing modifiers are separated by commas, they follow almost exactly the same usages.

^^ this:
• If you have (__ing modifier) + , + (sentence), then the __ing modifier should apply to the subject, but should also relate closely to the entire action of the sentence.
• If you have (sentence) + , + (__ing modifier), then the __ing modifier should apply most nearly to the subject (i.e., more directly than to any other noun), but should also relate closely to the entire action of the sentence.

The boldface requirement is the same. In neither instance is the modifier only describing a noun; instead, it also provides commentary on the entire sentence/action.

[RonPurewal]

If the modifier works before and after the main sentence"”a rare occurrence indeed"”the two meanings will differ substantially.

^^ this:
The time sequences are different.

E.g.,

Losing the respect of his subordinates, Josh quit his job in management.
––> Because he was already losing his people's respect, Josh quit.

vs.

Josh quit his job in management, losing the respect of his subordinates.
––> He had their respect until he quit. He lost it because he quit.

I don't have any idea how to express this as a generality--nor would it be particularly helpful if I did--but these examples should be enough to give you the right idea.

[Paris,Texas]

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.

Hi, Ron, sorry to bump this thread again.
I'm confused on some points you explained.
I read this thread 3 times, and then I make a conclusion by myself about "with"
according to your explanations on this thread, I think "main sentence+with..." is different with "main sentence+comma+with..."

i.e. a example mentioned before
-I can't do my homework with all this noise going on.

you said that,
note how closely related the modifiers are to the clauses they're describing. "with all this noise going on" directly describes the situation and the reason why you can or can't do your homework. "
so I think that in "main sentence+with..." "with..."can convey the reason why the main sentence happened.

however, in "main sentence +comma+with..." "with" can only convey the consequences/ aspects(components) about the "main sentence"

thus in we edit choice A (I know editing is not a good way to study gmat, yet I just want to convey my understanding about this problem and want you expert to modify my understanding)
and don't consider the part of "unlike..." just a single sentence.

1. With states opening their utility markets to competition, the merger of the nation's leading gas company and leading electric company is intended to create a huge marketing network for the utilities in question---> correct

because "If "with..." comes BEFORE the main sentence, it describes some sort of precipitating circumstance. "

2. The merger of the nation's leading gas company and leading electric company is intended to create a huge marketing network for the utilities in question, with states opening their utility markets to competition.---> incorrect

because "If '"with..." comes AFTER the main sentence, it describes consequence/ aspects(components) about the "main sentence" And "states open their utility markets" is reason ,not consequences/aspects.

3.The merger of the nation's leading gas company and leading electric company is intended to create a huge marketing network for the utilities in question with states opening their utility markets to competition.--->correct

As you said before "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."

AND this-----I can't do my homework with all this noise going on.
you said that,
note how closely related the modifiers are to the clauses they're describing. "with all this noise going on" directly describes the situation and the reason why you can or can't do your homework. "
So I think these two situations are similar. AND this usage of "with" is right.

Am I right? I am very confused whether the sentence 3 is right!
Hope to receive your genius explanation!
Thanks!