Does the conclusion escape you? Has understanding the tone of the passage gotten you down? Get help here.
yogeshthehackologist
Students
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:09 pm
 

Parallelism b/w verbs

by yogeshthehackologist Thu May 13, 2010 7:15 am

1. Employing groundbreaking techniques in alternative medicines, the patient's health improved in a few days.

As per Manhattan SC, the correct form is:
Employing groundbreaking techniques in alternative medicines, the doctors saw the patient's health improve in a few days.

I know step 1 is dealing with dangling modifiers. So, we need doctors. But, for the step 2, I am still not convinced with the reasoning. There has to be some reason why the second verb need not be in past tense or when and Why we donot need to follow the ||sm b/w the verbs.

If this is a case of Superficial Parallelism then I dont think IMPROVE (subordinate verb) is giving additional info on SAW (main verb).

Experts please explain.
tim
Course Students
 
Posts: 5665
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:08 am
Location: Southwest Airlines, seat 21C
 

Re: Parallelism b/w verbs

by tim Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:42 pm

"improve" does not work as a verb, because the only thing improving is the health, and we've already established that health cannot be the subject without creating a dangling modifier problem..

If i am correctly interpreting your question about tense it is irrelevant, because "employing" is not inherently present or past tense. You could say that the doctors are employing techniques or that the doctors were employing techniques..

If there are additional issues you meant for me to address based on the specific solution presented in the book, please let me know in greater detail what you would like me to cover and include a page number so i can see what wording you're referring to..
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Follow this link for some important tips to get the most out of your forum experience:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/a-few-tips-t31405.html
yogeshthehackologist
Students
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:09 pm
 

Re: Parallelism b/w verbs

by yogeshthehackologist Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:47 am

I am referring SC book 2003 Edition, page # 69, problem # 3.

I think I got your point. Thanks.
mschwrtz
ManhattanGMAT Staff
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:03 pm
 

Re: Parallelism b/w verbs

by mschwrtz Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:21 am

Yoges, I'm glad that Tim was able to clarify that, especially since I doubt that any of the Forum Instructors has a 2003 SC book handy.