Minivans carry as many as seven passengers

[zhongshanlh]

Dear Instructor,
For "D" is it correct to conclude that there are to modifiers that are connected with a comma. Describing the same noun "minivans"
This connection type is considered wrong on GMAT?
Thanks

no, it's possible to have two modifiers, connected by a comma, modifying the same noun. (<-- look, i just did it)
here's an official problem in which it happens:
the-anasazi-settlements-at-chaco-canyon-were-built-t2236.html

the main problem with choice (d) is the fact that "carrying..." is written as a modifier, so that there is an implication that it describes the following clause. i.e., the implication in choice (d) is that those comparative facts about minivans vs. other vehicles are only true when the minivans are actually "carrying up to seven passengers".

these facts -- the fact that minivans carry up to seven passengers, and the fact that they are X and Y and Z in comparison to other vehicles -- should be in parallel (as they are in the correct answer), since they are separate facts, of the same type, of equal priority.

Hi, Ron, i have a question about the v-ing here.
in option D,the sentence is constructed in such kind of construction:
Subject,v-ing,v-ed,Verb1 Verb2 ...
however, in some of ur other posts, i learned that when Verbing is inserted between the subject and the verb of the sentence, the Verbing is actually functioning as a noun modifier and modifies the subject the of sentence;i think it doesn't function as an adverbial modifier and modifies the whole clause.

am i thinking right?please clarify me and thank you very much!

[thanghnvn]

Ron said to us that we should learn from correct answer.

I quite understand that oa is A.

in oa A, "compared" modify subject of preceding clause, a far noun. Normally, do-ed modifies nearest noun. But in this correct answer, do-ed can modify far noun/subject of preceding clause.

so, in some cases, logic forces us to accept that do-ed can modifies a far noun and the rule that do-ed mofified nearest noun is not absolute.

[tim]

i think it doesn't function as an adverbial modifier and modifies the whole clause.

something that modifies the whole clause IS an adverbial modifier. am i reading your question correctly?

[tim]

Ron said to us that we should learn from correct answer.

I quite understand that oa is A.

in oa A, "compared" modify subject of preceding clause, a far noun. Normally, do-ed modifies nearest noun. But in this correct answer, do-ed can modify far noun/subject of preceding clause.

so, in some cases, logic forces us to accept that do-ed can modifies a far noun and the rule that do-ed mofified nearest noun is not absolute.

it actually has to do with parallelism. consider that the sentence "splits" into two parallel tracks after the word "minivans"; then "compared..." effectively touches "minivans". let me know if this makes sense; if not i can go into more detail..

[danli311]

Dear Instructor,
For "D" is it correct to conclude that there are to modifiers that are connected with a comma. Describing the same noun "minivans"
This connection type is considered wrong on GMAT?
Thanks

no, it's possible to have two modifiers, connected by a comma, modifying the same noun. (<-- look, i just did it)
here's an official problem in which it happens:
the-anasazi-settlements-at-chaco-canyon-were-built-t2236.html

the main problem with choice (d) is the fact that "carrying..." is written as a modifier, so that there is an implication that it describes the following clause. i.e., the implication in choice (d) is that those comparative facts about minivans vs. other vehicles are only true when the minivans are actually "carrying up to seven passengers".

these facts -- the fact that minivans carry up to seven passengers, and the fact that they are X and Y and Z in comparison to other vehicles -- should be in parallel (as they are in the correct answer), since they are separate facts, of the same type, of equal priority.

Dear Ron,

Sorry to open up this old thread, I still want to clear my thoughts on this Verb+ing issue.

In answer D-"Carrying ....passengers" are set off by commas on both sides, which is the so called non-restrictive modifier, and delivers a rather obscure meaning that only when minivans are carrying as many as 7 passengers will they costs less, etc.

My question is, if I understand correctly what you previously mentioned,
"minivans, carring ....passengers,"
would be the same in meaning as
"minivans carring as many as seven passengers"?

In short, I read your explanation as the non-restrictive modifier delivers the same meaning as the restricted modifer and I couldn't figure out what went wrong with my understanding. Please help!

Thanks a lot!!!

[RonPurewal]

I don't know the terms "restrictive" and "non-restrictive", so I'll just give you a bunch of examples.
In general, the idea is this: Modifiers blocked off by commas don't narrow down possibilities; they just give additional descriptive information. Modifiers not blocked off by commas generally do narrow down possibilities.

--

John, running to catch the bus, slipped on the icy pavement and fell.
--> It would be nonsense to take away the commas, because "John" -- who is just one person -- is impossible to narrow down.
--> "Running to catch the bus" describes John.
--> Importantly, "running to catch the bus" is related to the action of the sentence. (John was running when he slipped and fell.)

--

If this kind of relationship doesn't exist, the __ing modifier is inappropriate.

*Jesse, standing almost eight inches taller than me, is my brother.
--> Nonsense, because a height difference has no relationship to the fact that we are brothers.

--

"Which"/"who"/"whom"/"whose" implies no such relationship.

Jesse, who stands almost eight inches taller than me, is my brother.
--> This sentence is fine.


Looking at the examples above -- especially the first two -- you should be able to tell what's wrong with "carrying...". The biggest problem is the complete lack of any relationship between this capacity and the other ideas that follow (gas mileage, smooth ride, etc.)

[danli311]

Thank you !
Beautiful explanations.

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[Suapplle]

Dear Instructor,
For "D" is it correct to conclude that there are to modifiers that are connected with a comma. Describing the same noun "minivans"
This connection type is considered wrong on GMAT?
Thanks

no, it's possible to have two modifiers, connected by a comma, modifying the same noun. (<-- look, i just did it)
here's an official problem in which it happens:
the-anasazi-settlements-at-chaco-canyon-were-built-t2236.html

the main problem with choice (d) is the fact that "carrying..." is written as a modifier, so that there is an implication that it describes the following clause. i.e., the implication in choice (d) is that those comparative facts about minivans vs. other vehicles are only true when the minivans are actually "carrying up to seven passengers".

these facts -- the fact that minivans carry up to seven passengers, and the fact that they are X and Y and Z in comparison to other vehicles -- should be in parallel (as they are in the correct answer), since they are separate facts, of the same type, of equal priority.

Hi,Ron,can I say that no matter the placement of "comma+verb-ing"in a sentence,it modifies the subject and verb in the main clause?
And in this sentence,a sentence from both Og and prep.
Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.
What the relationship between the modifier and the main clause,does it indicates that the main clause happen when the modifier happen as in this case?please certify,thank you!

[soulwangh]

Dear Ron,
Thanks a lot for your help.
I wonder,
1, D has another mistake, because in D:
Minivans, carrying as many as seven passengers, compared with most sport utility vehicles, cost less,
The " compared with most sport utility vehicles" modify the nearer "passengers" , but the original intention is to modify the "Minivans"ï¼ŒSo D is wrong?

Hi， Ron
According to what you said in other post(I quote it as follows), I don't think the reason above solely can eliminate D. Because common sense informs us " compared with most sport utility vehicles" can not modify the "passengers".

Right?

it's possible to have two modifiers, connected by a comma, modifying the same noun. (<-- look, i just did it)
here's an official problem in which it happens:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/the-anasazi-settlements-at-chaco-canyon-were-built-t2236.html

[RonPurewal]

In choice D, it's also unclear exactly what's being compared. "Compared with xxxx" is sandwiched between the number of passengers and the other stuff, making it hard to tell exactly what the comparison is.

In the correct answer, "and" is used as a separator, making it crystal-clear what is actually being compared and what isn't.

[RonPurewal]

Choice D also suggests that the comparisons apply specifically to minivans carrying passengers (since "carrying" is used as a modifier).
The comparisons apply to minivans in general, so that doesn't make sense.

[Suapplle]

Hi,Ron, I am confusing about the two modifiers in choice D, the comma+v-ing and comma+v-ed.
can I say that no matter the placement of "comma+verb-ing"in a sentence,it modifies the subject and verb in the main clause?
And in this sentence,a sentence from both Og and prep.
Neuroscientists,having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.
The modifier "having amassed ....to adulthood" modifier the "Neuroscientists" only, or modify the entire main clause,"Neuroscientists are now drawing solid conclusions...."?
What the relationship between the modifier and the main clause,does it indicates that the main clause happen when the modifier happen as in this case?please certify,thank you!

[RonPurewal]

yes, there should still be an easily discernible relationship between the modifier and the subject+action. not just the subject.

e.g.,
Moe, standing almost seven feet tall, is one of the school's best basketball players.
--> makes sense, since height can reasonably give moe an advantage at basketball.

Moe, standing almost seven feet tall, is one of the school's best young scientists.
--> there's no plausible relationship between height and scientific aptitude, so this sentence is nonsense.



...and, even if the modifier begins the sentence, still the same kind of relationship must exist.

Standing almost seven feet tall, Moe is one of the school's best basketball players.
--> makes sense.

Standing almost seven feet tall, Moe is one of the school's best young scientists.
--> nonsense.

--

the ", which/who/whom/whose" modifier, on the other hand, does not need this sort of relationship to the sentence as a whole.

Moe, who stands almost seven feet tall, is one of the school's best young scientists.
--> this sentence is fine, although hopefully there would be some reason, in context, to write it.

[750plus]

Hello Instructors,

I have recently encountered this problem in my Prep 1 exam and the GMAC guys have changed the underlined portion smartly.

The question now is

Minivans carry as many as seven passengers, and compared with sport utility vehicles, most cost less, get better gas mileage, and make it easy for passengers to get in and out, and have a smoother, more car-like ride.

A. and make it easy for passengers to get in and out,
B. and allow passengers to get in and out easily,
C. and allow passengers to get in and out more easily,
D. make it easier for passengers when getting in and out,
E. allow passengers to get in and out more easily,

OA is E

Just wanted to bring it to your notice.