Modifer: present participle

[purduesr]

Is it wrong to have present participle modifier to have an adjective? The latest SC guide by MGMAT doesn't have any explanation as to whether it is acceptable to have adjective in front of a present participle modifier. For example, in the following gprep problem, I had picked C and I'm not sure whether C is not preferred choice because it has adjective before present participle modifier or because the present participle modifier just doesn't make sense in the way it is phrased. Can someone tell me why C is wrong? thanks



Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.

A. Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

B. Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated

C. Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating

D. Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large areas under maritime code, this has already stimulated

E. Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating

[siddharth.sheth]

Hello :)

C is wrong for the following reasons:

under provisions of new maritime code is a misplaced modifier, wrongly modifying sea areas.

already stimulating the subject for this is not clear. What is already stimulating .....disputes?

And lastly, this sentence describes a cause and effect relationship. Because X......Y


Hope that helps.

Cheers :)

[Ben Ku]

Is it wrong to have present participle modifier to have an adjective? The latest SC guide by MGMAT doesn't have any explanation as to whether it is acceptable to have adjective in front of a present participle modifier.

First, "already" is an adverb, not an adjective. Because it's an adverb, it needs something (a verb or other adverb) to modify; here it has nothing.

"Already" is used with a helping verb, such as be, do, or have.

I am already asleep.
He has already taken a shower.

I think Siddarth said it well:

already stimulating the subject for this is not clear. What is already stimulating .....disputes?

In this sentence, "already" is not associated with a helping verb, so this fragment (the part after the comma) does not function as a modifier.

Hope that makes sense.

[navdeep_bajwa]

Why A is wrong
Why B is right

Isn't the use of B change the meaning of the sentence as the original sentence intends to say provosions have stimulated disputes and not maritime code

[sandeepgupta176]

Navdeep ....they in option A seems to give an ambiguous pronoun fallacy.

They can refer to sea areas or provisions.....not clear

IT in option B clearly refers to the CODE, the only referent.

Moreover its the code not the provisions of code that stimulate the disputes.

Hope it clarifies....

correct me if i am wrong..

[tim]

Sandeep is correct about the ambiguity of the pronoun in A. However, either the code or its provisions can stimulate disputes, so the pronoun becomes the real issue in resolving this one.

[saintjingjing]

Sandeep is correct about the ambiguity of the pronoun in A. However, either the code or its provisions can stimulate disputes, so the pronoun becomes the real issue in resolving this one.

but the code is single, so they can not refer "code". they can only refer to provisions according to "either the code or its provisions can stimulate disputes, "

So in A, there is not pronoun ambiguous, right?

[messi10]

Hi saintjingjing,

There is a pronoun ambiguity in A as Sandeep has pointed out in his post. However, Tim has rightly clarified Sandeep's post that either the code or its provisions can stimulate the disputes.

This is kind of saying that you cannot differentiate between A and B on the basis of "meaning".

However, as Sandeep says, there is a pronoun ambiguity (grammar error) in A

Regards

Sunil

[jnelson0612]

Sunil is again correct. :-)

[saintjingjing]

Sandeep is correct about the ambiguity of the pronoun in A. However, either the code or its provisions can stimulate disputes, so the pronoun becomes the real issue in resolving this one.

but the code is single, so they can not refer "code". they can only refer to provisions according to "either the code or its provisions can stimulate disputes, "

So in A, there is not pronoun ambiguous, right?

But, according to tim, I guess, since tim says"However, either the code or its provisions can stimulate disputes", and tim did not mention islets ---> they, he just say"either code or provisions-->they in logic meaning" so I think tim tend to explain that they can only refer provisions, not islets. right?

[alextjp]

Sandeep is correct about the ambiguity of the pronoun in A. However, either the code or its provisions can stimulate disputes, so the pronoun becomes the real issue in resolving this one.

but the code is single, so they can not refer "code". they can only refer to provisions according to "either the code or its provisions can stimulate disputes, "

So in A, there is not pronoun ambiguous, right?

But, according to tim, I guess, since tim says"However, either the code or its provisions can stimulate disputes", and tim did not mention islets ---> they, he just say"either code or provisions-->they in logic meaning" so I think tim tend to explain that they can only refer provisions, not islets. right?

Hi saintjingjing,

I think that perhaps the best way for you to approach this SC is - look at the first part only, i.e. Because there are provisions of the new maritime code, and don't even pay attention to all the other riff raff that follows that, which is a prepositional phrase. Then, it in answer B makes perfect sense as a referent to code.

[saintjingjing]

thanks, I know what tim wants to say

But I want to make sure in A,
They can refer to sea areas/ provisions
the reasons are sea areas / provisions both can make senses. so ,if one of them can not , this sentence will not be fallcy, right? even there are two plural nouns here

[jnelson0612]

thanks, I know what tim wants to say

But I want to make sure in A,
They can refer to sea areas/ provisions
the reasons are sea areas / provisions both can make senses. so ,if one of them can not , this sentence will not be fallcy, right? even there are two plural nouns here

I believe that to be true, yes.

[cumulonimbus]

Hi,
A is also wrong because of redundancy - Provisions and Provide.
I read it in some post as mentioned by Ron.

[tim]

i wouldn't even worry about that unless you can find NO grammar issues with A whatsoever. find one grammar problem and the whole question of redundancy is irrelevant. remember, your primary focus should be on grammar..