Part of the proposed increase in state education spending

[aditya8062]

RON wrote (in the last post on page 1 ) : (1) equivalent to "several" -- basically an idiomatic expression.
e.g., A number of students arrived early to the dance and had to wait outside.
--> it should be clear why this interpretation doesn't work in the sentence above.

RON can you please explain as why the construction "a number of students" does not work in the above sentence (the one i have marked bold)

i believe that in a construction "a number of students" the subject is always "students" ,so "students arrived early" does make sense ?
even in the Manhattan SC book following correct sentence is given : A number of students in the class are hard workers

[RonPurewal]

"The sentence above" was a reference to the sentence in the problem.

Your boldface sentence is an example in which that construction actually DOES work.

[thanghnvn]

[quote="sheetal"]Source: GMATPrep Test

Part of the proposed increase in state education spending is due to higher enrollment, since the number of students in public schools have grown steadily since the mid-1980's and, at nearly 47 million, are at a record high

A) enrollment, since the number of students in public schools have grown steadily since the mid-1980's and, at nearly 47 million, are at

B) enrollment, with a number of students in public schools growing steadily since the mid-1980'and, at nearly 47 million, reaching

what is wrong with B?
pls, discuss with me on the following point.

"with+noun+ adjective" to modify main clause in B is correct. in this phrase, "growing" and "reachinh" are parallel correctly and "at nearly 47 milion" modifies "reaching" correctly.

the only error and the biggest error with B is "A"

B dose not use "the number" but " a number". This use mean there are many numbers of public students and only one of the numbers is growing. Wrong meaning.

I see the B have no other error. the pattern in B is quite correct.

the native speaker solve most sc questions correctly but they can not explain fully . they are using there "ear" not using logic and grammar rule. This is why the non native find it hard to learn sc. even the explanations in og books is not full, making non native find it hard to learn sc.

[RonPurewal]

I see the B have no other error. the pattern in B is quite correct.

Nope.

The main sentence is written in the present tense (is due to...).

___ing modifiers don't have a tense of their own; they adopt the tense of whatever they're attached to.
Choice B is thus nonsense, because it implies that "...growing steadily" AND "reaching at all-time high" are things within the present timeframe.

These events"”especially the growth"”MUST appear in a different timeframe, so ___ing's don't work. You need verbs in a new tense.

[thanghnvn]

perfect explanation, Ron, Thank you

we need a new tense in choice B.

"since " requires present perfect. but "growing" and "reaching" take the tense of main clause, the present tense. wrong.

thank you, Ron

whenever we see "doing" we need to ascribe a tense to this doing.

[RonPurewal]

Yes, that's the point.

[gmatkiller_24]

still solve this problem based on the meaning:

we have the non-underlined part that : Part of the proposed increase in state education spending is due to higher enrollment (which has already conveyed a cause-and-effect relationship)

if we start the underline part（like the one in choice A） by : since the number of students in public schools have grown steadily since the mid-1980’s (here the first " since" convey cause-and-effect relationship)

but it makes no sense to say that because the number grow → increase is due to higher enrollment（what sounds weird logically）

the underlined part should be converted to a portion into further illustrations of “ high enrollment”

is that thinking ok？

[RonPurewal]

if we start the underline part（like the one in choice A） by : since the number of students in public schools have grown steadily since the mid-1980’s (here the first " since" convey cause-and-effect relationship)

to do this, we'd have to make fundamental changes to the message of the sentence (which talks about a proposed increase in spending).

if the sentence were to begin with this idea, it would have to end with something like "...an increase in spending has been proposed." or something like "the proposed increase in spending is justified."

[RonPurewal]

...and that ^^ is a very good illustration of why you shouldn't try to 'transform' or 'edit' GMAC's sentences into any form that isn't actually in the answer choices.

in %99.9 of cases, doing so will invoke things that are issues, but that GMAC does not test.

[RonPurewal]

but it makes no sense to say that because the number grow → increase is due to higher enrollment（what sounds weird logically）

the underlined part should be converted to a portion into further illustrations of “ high enrollment”

absolutely correct... and very insightful!

[sri balaji143]

Without getting into grammatical terminology (which isn't going to help anyone), here's a basic explanation of how that construction works.
When you have "with + noun + VERBing...", that part should describe some aspect, part, or consequence of the stuff that precedes it -- but shouldn't summarize the whole thing.

e.g.
Foundation X received over $1 million in donations last year, with over $500,000 coming from a single anonymous donor.
--> this works, because the 500k is not the whole amount of the donations; it's just a part.

Here, the part after "with" IS the higher enrollment, so "with" is inappropriate. That's a direct explanation, so you want the colon.

Ron,

Thanks for the great explanation.

I understood the meaning behind 'with modifiers'. Also the main clause is talking about increase in expenditure of state education but 'with' is talking about higher enrollment , aren't they two different things? Its like this one-gyrafalcon once survived a close brush with extinction, with numbers reaching 1 million.

If the sentence were something else-Part of the proposed increase in state education spending is due to higher enrollment,with the highest percentage of the funds going for scholarships to students of developing countries, would the sentence be correct?

Please let me know the errors in my reasoning,

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

I understood the meaning behind 'with modifiers'. Also the main clause is talking about increase in expenditure of state education but 'with' is talking about higher enrollment , aren't they two different things?

the part right before "with" ends with "...is due to higher enrollment".
if the next part describes the ENTIRETY of that higher enrollment -- as it does here -- then the "with" construction (which is used for describing a part/component of something) is inappropriate.

[RonPurewal]

If the sentence were something else-Part of the proposed increase in state education spending is due to higher enrollment,with the highest percentage of the funds going for scholarships to students of developing countries, would the sentence be correct?

this sentence is nonsense, because the modifier is not describing anything in the preceding sentence at all.

...but, again, PLEASE stop trying to "edit" GMAC's answer choices.
as i've already written on a few of your other posts, there is no point whatsoever in trying to do this -- if you do, you'll just end up creating sentences that are incorrect, mostly for reasons that aren't even tested on this exam.

[JbhB682]

B) enrollment, with a number of students in public schools growing steadily since the mid-1980'and, at nearly 47 million, reaching

Pathik

I am sorry i didn't understand this. Could you please explain
1. why "with.." is an adverbial clause
2. How is it (incorrectly) modifying "spending is.."

na

1) when prepositional phrases follow commas, they are adverbial modifiers (which modify the action or main verb of the preceding clause)
2) that's the action / main verb of the preceding clause

Hi Sage -

i) Could you please give examples of the red above ? This is news to me

I have tried with this but not sure (made up sentence)

Tax revenues are a record high in Country X, since the election of the third party candidate

Preposition : "Since"

Is the underline thus an adverbial modifier now ?

-------------------------

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Tax revenues are a record high in Country X, since the election of the third party candidate

'Since' is a tricky word: it can be both an adverb (meaning much the same as 'because') or a preposition (with a meaning similar to 'after'). In the example you cited, you don't need to use a comma, so that doesn't relate to Ron's rule.

Reading through the posts above, Ron is really just talking about the phrase starting 'with...'. Here it certainly is a modifier, and here's a simpler example:
The students had a huge party at the end of the semester, with many of them dancing late into the night.

Take a look at SC 740 and SC 782 from OG 2018 for more examples like this.