In 1988, the council on Economic Priorities began publishing

[gauravtyagigmat]

Can't we kick out A and B based on

A) comma + with = comma + prepositional modifier...modifies the entire previous clause.......which is not correct....it should modify the immediate preceding noun....so we should not use comma + preposition setup.
B) had is incorrect tense.....
C) where is used to modify places.
D) same as A.
E) Correct.

yes, correct.

--

also, remember that of NOUN VERBing is an incorrect construction if the "VERBing" is actually meant to be the object of the preposition.
in this case, the consumers' HAVING the power is the actual thesis, not the consumers themselves, so "of consumers having" is wrong.

--

for instance:
i took a picture of dolphins frolicking in the surf --> correct, since the picture was of dolphins (not "of frolicking")

how do i know that verbing is the object of preposition..
in above example ?

picture was take of dolphins who were frolicking in the surf
hence according to me object of preposition "of" is "dolphins frolicking in the surf" not dolphin alone

Please explain what is the exact meaning which i am missing in this pattern

[calm.jing]

sorry for talking too much.

comma+with phrase can not modify the preceding noun. it must modify the previous clause.

that is why d is wrong

"with phrase" following a noun modifies that noun (there is no comma)

is my thinking correct ? pls confirm

correct

Dear experts,

I am still not sure whether "comma + prepositional phrase" can ONLY modify the preceding clause. Here is my example:

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction, now with numbers five times greater than when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970's.
(the sentence is from OG verbal, but I am not copying the whole problem. Is it okay? If not, please let me know and I will not do that again, thx!)

This sentence is wrong. The official explanation says the comma introduces a confusing phrase seeming to modify extinction.

But according to the previous posts, the "with" phrase is preceded by comma and therefore should modify the clause rather than the preceding noun. I am really confused. (In fact, I think that sentence is bad because of wrong comparison.)

So, what exactly does "comma + prepositional phrase" modify when it is placed at the end of the sentence? Does it depend on context, or is that official explanation just inaccurate?

Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

calm.jing, the OG explanation there is not quite accurate. (Many OG explanations are of lower quality than the problems themselves.)

The issue is that, even if "... with numbers xxxx" is taken to describe the previous clause, it still doesn't make sense.
The renewed population numbers are a circumstance that arose AFTER the bird's brush with extinction, so "with those numbers" cannot be used to DESCRIBE that brush with extinction.

The use of the word "now" is immaterial; even with that word there, you're still trying to use a present observation to DESCRIBE a pastsituation. No.

Same problem here:
I broke both my legs in a motorcycle accident five years ago, now able to run again.
You see what's wrong, right?
To fix this, you need a new verb that adjust the timeframe: I broke both my legs in a motorcycle accident five years ago, but am now able to run again.

[RonPurewal]

My other -- more important -- advice is that you should ignore random forum users who post as though they are experts/moderators. These posters post misinformation just as often as, and perhaps more often than, they post correct/helpful information.

We moderate every thread on this forum, so just wait for us to respond.
(:

[calm.jing]

My other -- more important -- advice is that you should ignore random forum users who post as though they are experts/moderators. These posters post misinformation just as often as, and perhaps more often than, they post correct/helpful information.

We moderate every thread on this forum, so just wait for us to respond.
(:

Yeah, sure. :)
Thank you very much for those replies!

So, about the "with" phrase. The action described in the "with" phrase must happen simultaneously with what it is describing, right? (And that's why it is "with"...)

[RonPurewal]

So, about the "with" phrase. The action described in the "with" phrase must happen simultaneously with what it is describing, right? (And that's why it is "with"...)

I can't immediately think of a reasonable context in which such a modifier would function otherwise. So, yes.

[gauravtyagigmat]

Can't we kick out A and B based on

A) comma + with = comma + prepositional modifier...modifies the entire previous clause.......which is not correct....it should modify the immediate preceding noun....so we should not use comma + preposition setup.
B) had is incorrect tense.....
C) where is used to modify places.
D) same as A.
E) Correct.

yes, correct.

--

also, remember that of NOUN VERBing is an incorrect construction if the "VERBing" is actually meant to be the object of the preposition.
in this case, the consumers' HAVING the power is the actual thesis, not the consumers themselves, so "of consumers having" is wrong.

--

for instance:
i took a picture of dolphins frolicking in the surf --> correct, since the picture was of dolphins (not "of frolicking")

how do i know that verbing is the object of preposition..
in above example ?

picture was take of dolphins who were frolicking in the surf
hence according to me object of preposition "of" is "dolphins frolicking in the surf" not dolphin alone

Please explain what is the exact meaning which i am missing in this pattern

I am posting it because i think my post got missed

[RonPurewal]

Ask yourself whether the construction makes sense if the __ing modifier is removed. If the construction still makes sense that way, then you're good.

I took a picture of dolphins frolicking in the surf
--> I took a picture of dolphins.
This sentence still works, still makes sense, and still carries the same meaning (albeit with less description of what the dolphins are doing). So, correct.

I've never heard of dolphins feeling human-like emotions.
--> I've never heard of dolphins.
Nope. Totally different (and rather far-fetched) sentence. The original is mean to express that you've never heard [i]that dolphins do something. The latter sentence implies that you're altogether unaware of the existence of dolphins.
To express this idea properly, you'd need an alternate construction, e.g., I've never heard that dolphins feel human-like emotions.

[cshen02]

Can't we kick out A and B based on

A) comma + with = comma + prepositional modifier...modifies the entire previous clause.......which is not correct....it should modify the immediate preceding noun....so we should not use comma + preposition setup.
B) had is incorrect tense.....
C) where is used to modify places.
D) same as A.
E) Correct.

Why using past tense is wrong in B?

[RonPurewal]

Why using past tense is wrong in B?[/color]

It isn't. (The correct answer is in the same tense!)

Honestly, you would be best served by ignoring explanations from non-moderators, unless a moderator specifically says they are correct.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

by the way, if you didn't know that "whose" is perfectly well able to modify inanimate objects as well as people (i.e., it's not restricted to those words for which you'd use the pronoun "who")... now you know.

Hi Ron,

You mention that "whose" can refer to things other than people, things such as inanimate objects. That being said, does "whose" require a singular or a plural antecedent?

In this problem, "whose" should refer to the article(Shopping for a better world) -- I thought that the article was singular therefore "whose" wasn't the appropriate pronoun here.

Thanks!

[tim]

What other word would you use instead of "whose" for a singular antecedent?

[xiaolanjingheleaf]

Can't we kick out A and B based on

A) comma + with = comma + prepositional modifier...modifies the entire previous clause.......which is not correct....it should modify the immediate preceding noun....so we should not use comma + preposition setup.
B) had is incorrect tense.....
C) where is used to modify places.
D) same as A.
E) Correct.

Hi, Ron. I kept a record what you have said in another post as the following:

""With xxxxx" can describe a noun or an action, depending on context.

E.g.,

My friend bought a Honda CR-Z, with the manual transmission that he specifically wanted.
(Here, we're describing "Honda CR-Z")

My friend bought a Honda CR-Z, with the money from an insurance payout rather than with an auto loan.
(Here, we're describing "My friend bought...")
"

If what I quote is true, then choice D should not be elimiated because "with should modify the preceding sentence." So what is the real problem with D?

Surprisingly, when I return to the page where I found the above-quoted words, I found they are not there anymore. The website should be https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... -from-prep，please-helpï¼쳌-t22142.html and the quoted words were just after the words: "That shouldn't be news, though, since most SC principles require a little common sense."

[RonPurewal]

If what I quote is true, then choice D should not be elimiated because "with should modify the preceding sentence." So what is the real problem with D?

in comparison to the other choices, "a thesis that is a simple one" is clearly inferior.

normally you should save "wordiness" for last, but the wordiness/redundancy here is so blatant that you can kill that choice on sight.

[RichaChampion]

Where is used to modify places. Where follows the touch rule or Not?