On account of a law passed in 1993, making it a crime punish

[RonPurewal]

By the way, be careful with "immigrants" and "emigrants".

Immigrants move into a country. Emigrants move out.

Doesn't matter in this problem, obviously, but that's a pretty big difference.

[reotokate]

2). Choice B:

another problem in Prep Verbal: post26678.html

considers "with + noun + modifier" construction correct as it modifies the whole sentence rather than the subject "the honeybee’s stinger"; so isn't it legit here as well as it modifies the entire sentence starting with "emigrants"?

Thank you!

In that problem, the modifier actually describes the sentence it's attached to. I.e., the honeybee's stinger, by staying where it is inserted, has the described effect. So "with the effect that..." (or whatever it says) is an accurate descriptor of that sentence.

In this sentence, "with a law..." doesn't describe the immigrants, nor does it describe anything that the immigrants did. So it can't describe either the subject or the sentence.

Thank you!!

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[gyb192483]

Hi Ron,

Can you please tell how making is modifying law in option D.....shouldn't we have a comma after 1933 similar to the original sentence....

as per my understanding....

without comma + ing modifies the immediately preceding noun....

Please correct if my understanding is incorrect.....

well, there are TWO essential modifiers in that sentence, both of which are traditionally placed after the noun. (both of them are participial modifiers - one a present participle, one a past participle)
* passed in 1933
* making it a crime...
since we can't place both of these modifiers directly after the noun, we have to place one of them after the other.
since "passed in 1933" is the shorter of the two, we elect to place that one after the noun.**

--

**this is often the "rule" that's used for the placement of two items that have the same grammatical priority - i.e., you don't know which one to place first, since they're both things that go in the same place.

for instance:
i dedicated a song to my father
i dedicated to my father a song that recounted all the lessons he taught me in life

both of these are correct constructions; if you reverse the placement in the second one, it becomes too confusing / difficult to read.

Hello Ron,
Regarding D, I am confused about the grammar structure. Could you please help me to clarify?

I think the grammar structure is "make it adj for sb to do sth". "It" here works as a placeholder and postpones the infinitive. So i can understand the structure if it is "making it punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold".
1. My concern is "a crime". What is the function of "a crime" here?
2. What does "by imprisonment " modify?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

I think the grammar structure is "make it adj for sb to do sth". "It" here works as a placeholder and postpones the infinitive. So i can understand the structure if it is "making it punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold".
1. My concern is "a crime". What is the function of "a crime" here?

You can "make something a xxxxx", too.
If you take your homework and make it a game, you'll do a better job on it.

The law took this act, and made it a crime.

2. What does "by imprisonment " modify?

That describes how the newly defined crime would be punished, so, it must describe "punishable".
This is pretty clear from context -- what did you find confusing about it?

[gyb192483]

I think the grammar structure is "make it adj for sb to do sth". "It" here works as a placeholder and postpones the infinitive. So i can understand the structure if it is "making it punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold".
1. My concern is "a crime". What is the function of "a crime" here?

You can "make something a xxxxx", too.
If you take your homework and make it a game, you'll do a better job on it.

The law took this act, and made it a crime.

Hello Ron,
Thanks very much!
But I still have a problem


According to your above explanation, we got the following structure: make it+ a xxxxx +adj+for sb to do. Is it an idiom? I know that "make it adj for sb to do " is an idiom. But for this structure, i don't have an idea. Please help to instruct

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

According to your above explanation, we got the following structure: make it+ a xxxxx +adj+for sb to do. Is it an idiom? I know that "make it adj for sb to do " is an idiom. But for this structure, i don't have an idea. Please help to instruct

Thanks!

It's a correct construction. Call it an idiom; call it a thingamajig; call it a pink flamingo; call it Bob. Just know that ... it's a thing, and it works.

[gyb192483]

According to your above explanation, we got the following structure: make it+ a xxxxx +adj+for sb to do. Is it an idiom? I know that "make it adj for sb to do " is an idiom. But for this structure, i don't have an idea. Please help to instruct

Thanks!

It's a correct construction. Call it an idiom; call it a thingamajig; call it a pink flamingo; call it Bob. Just know that ... it's a thing, and it works.

Thanks! Have a nice day!

[RonPurewal]

Sure. You too.

[boncourage]

B. With a law passed in 1933 that makes it a crime [punishable by imprisonment] that a United States citizen hold

E. Due to a law being passed in 1933 that makes it a crime [punishable by imprisonment] for a United States citizen to hold

Hi Ron, are B and E also incorrect because of the tense of "makes"? From the context which describes just a situation in the past, we could conclude that the law passed in 1933 and its influence is not the case any more. So B and E could be ruled out.

Pls. correct me if this logic is wrong. Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

If the law is still in effect, then that combination of tenses could work.

E.g.,
Because the law mandates a minimum 6-month sentence, Smith was sent to prison.
--> If this law is still in effect today, this sentence is correct.

Because the law mandated a minimum 6-month sentence, Smith was sent to prison.
--> If this law was repealed at some point after Smith's trial, this sentence is correct.

[RonPurewal]

Perhaps the problem is that you're misinterpreting "passed".
In the context of a law, "passed" is the same thing as "created". (The word "passed" comes from the process by which a bill must pass through Congress.)

In many other contexts, "passed" has the opposite meaning. For instance, if an opportunity has passed, then that opportunity has expired. But not so with laws.

[boncourage]

Thanks Ron!!

When reading this SC, I thought that "punishable crime = the possession of gold in form of bullion or coin for a U.S. citizen" must not be something happening nowadays.Then I found "makes" suspicious...

I'd better not consider something outside the sentence...

[danli311]

It's a correct construction. Call it an idiom; call it a thingamajig; call it a pink flamingo; call it Bob. Just know that ... it's a thing, and it works.[/quote]

Dear instructors,

Sorry to drag on this question again, but after reading all the previous posts (which have already provided an explicit analysis), I still have a couple of questions.

1. choice A and B contains that a US citizen hold, which violates agreement, it should be holds? (assuming that I wouldn't have known the idiom make it a crime for xxx to before seeing all these posts).

2.In B, the with issue
I understand that I should read the question literally and with here does not make sense, as immigrants did not arrive with a law in hand, i.e. it does not and should not convey the meaning as in With an opener, I opened a bottle of beer.

However, I remember another question in which with seems to possese a different meaning (at least to me), i.e. with a present participle (-ING form) to represent circumstances that are contemporaneous with the action described in the main clause. Pls see link below for reference.
prep-q-because-of-wireless-service-costs-plummeting-t6871.html

Hence, my question is, could with be taken as meaning contemporaneous events in this question since With a law passed in xx making xxx

Once again, thank you for the help!

[RonPurewal]

"Contemporaneous" doesn't really pass muster here, either. The situation described in the sentence could obtain at any point after 1933 -- even decades later -- as long as the law stayed in effect.

In the example you cited, note that the things in the modifier (plummeting costs and increasingly common cell phones) pertain reasonably directly to the "people" that follow the modifier. Those people are paying the (decreasing) costs, and those people are more and more commonly using cell phones.
The same is not true for the immigrants here. They have nothing to do with the passage of the law.