gas & electric company

[RonPurewal]

the problem with sentence #3 is that it's basically unreadable.

your underlying thought process is on point, in the sense that the following sentences are essentially identical in meaning:
With all the noise in here, I can't focus on my work.
I can't focus on my work with all the noise in here.

the main reason why the second version is workable, though, is its brevity. it's readable because it's short.
if the sentence is substantially longer—as is the case here—then the same type of thing becomes an unreadable mess of words, with no punctuation to save it.

needless to say, this is a style issue, and style issues aren't tested on this exam.
so—as in 99.9% of all cases with "user edits"—the answer is "#3 isn't really ok, but you don't need to worry about the reasons why."

[gmatkiller_24]

Here are some (hastily created) examples:

Apple had record sales in December, with consumers racing to snap up presents for Christmas.
"”> The "racing" is specific to Apple products.

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.

crystally clear example! You are the one!

haha

thanks Ron

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[RonPurewal]

note exactly what i wrote:

It's ok if the first action precipitates the second

this does not say that the first action MUST precipitate/cause the second one. it just gives that as one possibility.

what's essential is the 'component' relationship, which—as you've already recognized—holds perfectly well here.

[harika.apu]

note exactly what i wrote:

It's ok if the first action precipitates the second

this does not say that the first action MUST precipitate/cause the second one. it just gives that as one possibility.

what's essential is the 'component' relationship, which—as you've already recognized—holds perfectly well here.

Yes Ron. I understand now
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[KathyL227]

No. In your version, "company" would still have to be changed to "companies".

E.g., Officers from the city's police and fire departments brought Christmas presents to needy children yesterday.
Note that "departments" is plural. ("Police and fire department" would suggest that the city has one department that provides both services.)

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

Hi Ron,

My question about "for marketing the utilities in question". What dose this in question mean?

Thanks.

Kathy

[RonPurewal]

What dose this in question mean?

what do you think it means?

it's the same in all five choices—and there's quite a bit of context—so you can probably figure it out. what can you deduce?

i'm not trying to be mean here.
'YOU figure it out' accounts for the vast majority of language learning, in basically any language in the whole world (once the learner has progressed beyond basics).

[CrystalSpringston]

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)

Hi Ron, I tracked both this thread and others to generalize the usage of "with modifier". Pls take a look at below and correct me if anything is wrong. Thank you!

1. with +modifier is placed afterwards:
1) if a comma precedes it:
I saw you wrote in another thread that comma+with can modify both action and noun. Pls help to confirm whether it is true? And if so, could be the comma be ticked out when the with modifies a noun?
If you use "with", you're saying that the following words describe something that's a component, consequence, or aspect of the previous thing.
2) if no comma:
the with modifier only modifies nouns preceding it.

2. with+modifier is placed before the main clause:
If "with ___" comes BEFORE the main sentence, it describes some sort of precipitating circumstance

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron, I tracked both this thread and others to generalize the usage of "with modifier".

this is not a good way to learn things.

you should learn language concepts by absorbing and retaining examples—NOT by trying to make 'rules' or 'generalizations'.

think of how you learned your own first language, whatever language that might be.

how many 'rules' did you learn?
most likely zero.

if you learned any 'rules' in school, you did so only in retrospect—i.e., for concepts that you already fully understood.
e.g., native speakers of english understand that "My dogs has fleas" is wrong by the time they're six or seven years old—but they don't learn the concept of 'subject' or 'verb' for several more years.)

how many EXAMPLES did you learn?
thousands upon thousands upon thousands.
perhaps even literally millions.

as soon as you've internalized enough examples of some idea, FORGET ANY AND ALL 'RULES' and just make analogies to your examples.
this ^^ is how the human brain works.
it's not how computers work—but our brains aren't computers.

(incidentally, this is also the only reason why experience has value. if our brains used 'rules', then experience would be completely worthless.)

[RonPurewal]

2) if no comma:
the with modifier only modifies nouns preceding it.

nope.
this idea is contradicted right here on this page.

top post on this page:
I can't focus on my work with all the noise in here
this sentence is perfectly ok.
with all the noise in here describes "I can't focus on my work."

[RonPurewal]

[b]I saw you wrote in another thread that comma+with can modify both action and noun. Pls help to confirm whether it is true?

if 'with xxxxx' is blocked off by commas that don't belong to any other construction, then it should describe the entirety of the action/sentence.

in this respect it behaves much like 'comma + __ing', as discussed here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p102559

on the other hand, the commas could belong to another construction.

e.g.,

I don't want to purchase a car with more interior space than I will actually use.
(with more... describes "a car")

I don't want to purchase a car, such as a full-size sedan, with more interior space than I will actually use.
(with more... still describes "a car". the commas belong to the purple thing—so, as far as with xxxxx is concerned, the commas do not exist.)

[RonPurewal]

the most important thing here, though, is that this exam does not test the presence/absence of commas. so, really, this is not the right place for you to focus your attention.

[CrystalSpringston]

Hi Ron, I tracked both this thread and others to generalize the usage of "with modifier".

this is not a good way to learn things.

you should learn language concepts by absorbing and retaining examples—NOT by trying to make 'rules' or 'generalizations'.

think of how you learned your own first language, whatever language that might be.

how many 'rules' did you learn?
most likely zero.

if you learned any 'rules' in school, you did so only in retrospect—i.e., for concepts that you already fully understood.
e.g., native speakers of english understand that "My dogs has fleas" is wrong by the time they're six or seven years old—but they don't learn the concept of 'subject' or 'verb' for several more years.)

how many EXAMPLES did you learn?
thousands upon thousands upon thousands.
perhaps even literally millions.

as soon as you've internalized enough examples of some idea, FORGET ANY AND ALL 'RULES' and just make analogies to your examples.
this ^^ is how the human brain works.
it's not how computers work—but our brains aren't computers.

(incidentally, this is also the only reason why experience has value. if our brains used 'rules', then experience would be completely worthless.)

Ron, your words are inspiring. Making generalizations and then remembering them are viewed as important skills in school not only for foreign language study but also for other subjects, in my countries. So, unfortunately I always study in that way to deal with all kinds of exams. But I agree with you that one can find it difficut to USE this foreign language flexible and reasonable by just remembering sort of rules but no thinking at all. I feel the SC of GMAT is a good example of challenge to the outdated study method.
Sometimes it takes much valuable time to try to APPLY these rules. Thanks for your suggestion. Maybe changing the way of think can contribute to the exam more than I previously thought.

[KathyL227]

What dose this in question mean?

what do you think it means?

it's the same in all five choices—and there's quite a bit of context—so you can probably figure it out. what can you deduce?

i'm not trying to be mean here.
'YOU figure it out' accounts for the vast majority of language learning, in basically any language in the whole world (once the learner has progressed beyond basics).

my personal understanding is "utilities w marketing issues".
Sorry about the questions about vocabulary, I know it is not the purpose of the forum here. But I searched the e-dictionaries, but couldn't find relevant explanation there.

Kathy