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

[RonPurewal]

2.If comma+ing can modify the participle, then i have another question.In my opinion, "being passed in 1993[/i] caused the law to have this effect."is the meaning author want to tell us.So i think the usage of "making" in choice A is good.Why do you eliminate choice A?
Thanks!!

The law itself made this action a crime.

[chetan86]

Hi Ron,

Just wanted to clarify one thing.
The construction of sentence "A law making it a crime punishable xxx " is same as the construction of sentence "Scientist have gathered evidence suggesting that xxx"? (OG13 SC 65)

In first sentence "making xxx" modifies "a law" and in the second sentence "suggesting that xxx" modifies "evidence"?

Thanks,
Chetan

[RonPurewal]

Those two modifiers work the same way, sure.

I'm confused by your reference to the "sentences", though, since the sentences (in their entirety) are clearly different.

Did you just mean "modifiers"?

[chetan86]

Yeah, those 2 sentences are different. I just wanted to know about the modifier.
Thanks a lot for your confirmation.

[RonPurewal]

sure.

[AllenY389]

"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.

Hi, Ron,
I'm confuse by the point you mentioned in this post.

you said that"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. "

In another thread "https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/gas-electric-company-t7376.html?sid=9120503f16664e83f1e9da8ecc2c3d4b"

you have mentioned some other examples about "with" that comes before the main sentence.

1. with a few bidders pushing up the price into the hundreds of thousands, the art quickly became unaffordable for all but the richest people at the auction.

in this sentence, is it because that in "with" construction, the "price" is the art's price. so the modifier (with a few bidders pushing price into the hundreds of thousands) pertain reasonably directly to the "art" that follows the modifier?

2. with consumers racing to snap up presents for Christmas, Apple had record sales in December.

in this sentence, "consumers" pertain reasonably directly to the"sales" that follow the modifier?

3. [another example in this thread, too. but not your example]
with their son attending a foreign college, the parents have some financial problems.

I'm confused on the third sentence. does "with" describe precipitating circumstance here? if yes, I can't find the direct relationship between the parents and their son's attending a foreign college.
just as the immigrants have no relationships with the passage of law.

Please help me! thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

those three examples are "with + noun + __ING...", which works differently.
that construction describes a circumstance that contributes to the entire situation described in the following clause, not just the subject.

1/ the bidders' actions made the art unaffordable for everyone else.
2/ the consumers' actions pushed sales to a new record.
3/ some aspect of the situation at this foreign college (e.g., financial aid is unavailable) is creating the problems.


in the problem at hand, the construction is not "with + noun + __ing". it's effectively just "with + noun (+ other modifiers)", which can be assigned to the following subject.

[Navneet]

Hi Ron
I have doubt regarding pronoun "it" in sentence
Nearly in all option sentence mean that
xxx makes/making it a crime xxx

Here "it" should be some action which is termed as crime

In Option C - Antecedent of it is " for a United States citizen holding xxx"

In option D - Antecedent of it is " for a United States citizen to hold xxx"

Option D clearly clearly conveys "to hold" to be a crime while option C does not.

Is above reasoning is right and be eligible to eliminate option C ?

[RonPurewal]

yes.

[ZHUJ908]

Those two modifiers work the same way, sure.

I'm confused by your reference to the "sentences", though, since the sentences (in their entirety) are clearly different.

Did you just mean "modifiers"?

hi, RON

Does your explanation mean that 'evidence that suggest=evidence suggesting'?

If so, then,
...evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that...

Can you explain why it is ambiguous?

Thanks a lot!

[RonPurewal]

...evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that...

from where are you quoting this?

this one doesn't work, because "no comma + __ing" generally describes the noun directly in front of it. so, this sentence (fragment) implies that the scientists themselves are making (probably verbal) "suggestions".

but i have no idea where you're quoting from, so, i don't know what to say beyond that point. context, please.

[ZHUJ908]

Hi Ron,

Just wanted to clarify one thing.
The construction of sentence "A law making it a crime punishable xxx " is same as the construction of sentence "Scientist have gathered evidence suggesting that xxx"? (OG13 SC 65)

In first sentence "making xxx" modifies "a law" and in the second sentence "suggesting that xxx" modifies "evidence"?

Thanks,
Chetan

Here is the context, top page of where I posted.

[RonPurewal]

ok, i see. (in the version you posted above, there's a ton of junk between "evidence" and "suggesting". that version implies that the scientists, not the evidence, "suggested" things.)

the difference between those two modifiers is subtle. because it is subtle, it will NEVER be the only decision point in a problem (--> go look for something more fundamental!).

the difference is basically this:
"...that [verb]s" implies that [verb]ing is a permanent or fundamental aspect of the noun that's described.
"...[verb]ing", on the other hand, implies that it's temporary and can/will change.

e.g., if i tell you that i have friends who work in finance, i'm implying that finance is their long-term career.
on the other hand, if i tell you that i have friends working in finance, then there is no such implication (e.g., maybe they'll quit tomorrow and become consultants, or form a startup, or retire and move to a tropical island).

[ZHUJ908]

[ron: i accidentally hit "edit" instead of "reply", thereby erasing the post that was here.

the essence of this post was "i'm a non-native english speaker, so these differences are hard for me. these are low-priority differences, right?"]

[RonPurewal]

^^ that question is very explicitly--and very clearly--answered by something you've already quoted:

the difference between those two modifiers is subtle. because it is subtle, it will NEVER be the only decision point in a problem (--> go look for something more fundamental!).