OG 13, SC #35 - Questions about past participle modifier

[haisharonli]

Hi Manhattan GMAT Staff,

I have a general question about past participle phrase modifier in relation to OG13, SC #35.

I know that present participle phrase WITH comma (,-ing) is an adverbial modifier. But can past participle phrase WITH comma (,-ed) also be an adverbial modifier?

In #35, "earning" in (B) and (C) is modifying Jacqueline Cochran but is placed closer to "speed records", therefore making the sentence hard to process (per OG explanation). Does this apply to (D) and (E) as well, in which "earned" is an adverbial modifier? Or is a past participle phrase always a noun modifier regardless of comma in front.

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

I don't know the grammar terms ("past participle", "adverbial modifier", etc.), so I can't speak to that part of the question.

In #35, "earning" in (B) and (C) is modifying Jacqueline Cochran but is placed closer to "speed records", therefore making the sentence hard to process

If that's what the explanation says, then the explanation is wrong on that count.
"comma + __ing" modifies the subject+action of the entire preceding part, so that's not the issue.

The issue is that this type of modifier is inappropriate in the sentence at hand, because it doesn't describe the preceding clause. The preceding clause says that Cochran "held" the records -- i.e., held them already -- so "earning..." doesn't describe this action in any meaningful way.

We need a modifier that applies only to "records", and that correctly implies that the records had already been earned by the time described in the main part of the sentence.

[RonPurewal]

Or is a past participle phrase always a noun modifier regardless of comma in front.

I don't really know the terms here, but it seems you're asking about things that look like "earned", and not like "earning".

In written English in general, those things are certainly allowed to describe entire clauses.
E.g., I collapsed onto the couch, exhausted from a long day's work.

Whether GMAC does so in its official SC problems, though, is another question.
I don't think I've ever seen that kind of thing in an official GMAT SC question.

[harpreet1205]

Hi,

If you could please clarify whether the following reason is correct to eliminate A and B.

When You read the first two choices it seems as though aviation was new for planes ..but how can aviation be new for planes..
and C and D use where for time and in which for time respectively ,both of which are incorrect that leaves me with E

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

If you could please clarify whether the following reason is correct to eliminate A and B.

When You read the first two choices it seems as though aviation was new for planes ..but how can aviation be new for planes..

The structures in those choices are non-standard, yes.

But, the issue isn't always so simple. Sometimes, this kind of "for" is part of a larger construction.

E.g.,

Protein is important for bodybuilders.
--> This is the kind of construction you're thinking about here.

But
It is important for bodybuilders to eat protein.
--> If you think that the above construction is the only way to use "for", then you'll mistakenly think that this sentence is wrong.

and C and D use where for time and in which for time respectively ,both of which are incorrect that leaves me with E

You can't use "where" for a time period.

"In which" for a time period, though, is perfectly fine. (See problem #72 in the same chapter.) After all, things can happen in a time period -- so you can have a time period in which things happen.

[SahilV881]

Please explain:

Why is e option correct:

comma+ past participle modifier ", earned at a time..."

Firstly, There is no cause and effect established in this sentence and your 6th edition SC states cause and effect to be established in participle modifiers as a pre requisite (Page no. 64 sc 6th edition)

Secondly, How can an adverbial modifier possibly refer to the noun "records"?

[RonPurewal]

just to clarify—
we've been a bit overly indulgent by discussing the problem so much thus far. however, OG is a banned source here.

this extends not only to the text of the problems, but also to discussion of the problems. (it does not mean "let's just ask about OG problems without quoting them", as that would render the whole prohibition meaningless.)

thank you.