The federal immigration station on Ellis Island

[syxphoebe]

The federal immigration station on Ellis Island, which was first opened in 1892, then rebuilt in 1900,
processing nearly three quarters of all immigrants entering the United States in the first quarter of
the twentieth century.
(A) The federal immigration station on Ellis Island, which was first opened in 1892, then rebuilt in
1900, processing nearly three quarters of all immigrants entering the United States in the first
quarter of the twentieth century.
(B) Having processed nearly three quarters of all immigrants who enter the United States in the first
quarter of the twentieth century, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island first opened in 1892
and then was rebuilt in 1900.
(C) Processing nearly three quarters of all immigrants to enter the United States in the first quarter
of the twentieth century, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island first opened in 1892, being
rebuilt in 1900.
(D) First opened in 1892, then rebuilt in 1900, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island
processed nearly three quarters of all immigrants entering the United States in the first quarter of
the twentieth century.
(E) Of all immigrants to enter the United States in the first quarter of the twentieth century, the
federal immigration station on Ellis Island processed nearly three quarters of them, having first
opened in 1892 and rebuilt in 1900.

answer:D
i chose B

my question:
(1)Is "having done..."a bad structure？
（2）"then"--->adv.
whether "first opened in 1892,and then rebuilt in 1900"is better?

thx in advance

everytime i see such as this long sentence ,i am confused.

[stock.mojo11]

The federal immigration station on Ellis Island, which was first opened in 1892, then rebuilt in 1900,
processing nearly three quarters of all immigrants entering the United States in the first quarter of
the twentieth century.
(A) The federal immigration station on Ellis Island, which was first opened in 1892, then rebuilt in
1900, processing nearly three quarters of all immigrants entering the United States in the first
quarter of the twentieth century.
(B) Having processed nearly three quarters of all immigrants who enter the United States in the first
quarter of the twentieth century, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island first opened in 1892
and then was rebuilt in 1900.
(C) Processing nearly three quarters of all immigrants to enter the United States in the first quarter
of the twentieth century, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island first opened in 1892, being
rebuilt in 1900.
(D) First opened in 1892, then rebuilt in 1900, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island
processed nearly three quarters of all immigrants entering the United States in the first quarter of
the twentieth century.
(E) Of all immigrants to enter the United States in the first quarter of the twentieth century, the
federal immigration station on Ellis Island processed nearly three quarters of them, having first
opened in 1892 and rebuilt in 1900.

answer:D
i chose B

my question:
(1)Is "having done..."a bad structure？
（2）"then"--->adv.
whether "first opened in 1892,and then rebuilt in 1900"is better?

thx in advance

everytime i see such as this long sentence ,i am confused.

Having by itself is not a bad structure. Here it is wrong. We dont need it here. The sentence does not make any sense as it is in B and seems to say that FIS on EL opened by itself. See the missing was in B

[StaceyKoprince]

In this structure (in B), the opening "having" clause implies "after having done this (processed the immigrants), the subject in question then did something else" (or "then was able to do something else").

The problem here is that the opening "having" clause clearly indicates that it is talking about a specific timeframe (the first quarter of the 20th century) that occurs AFTER the timeframe in the main sentence (beginning with 1892). Ellis Island can't first have processed all those people between 1900 and 1925 and then opened in 1892.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here:

（2）"then"--->adv.
whether "first opened in 1892,and then rebuilt in 1900"is better?

I don't understand your terminology on the first line. On the second line, "better" is entirely relative. Better than what?

[hberens18]

Can someone explain what is wrong with E?

[RonPurewal]

Can someone explain what is wrong with E?

* the "having" modifier doesn't make sense.
it is not ungrammatical; it just doesn't fit in context.
for the correct CONTEXT in which COMMA + -ING modifiers must appear, see here:
post24246.html#p24246

* also, you can't say BOTH "of all immigrants" AND "of them". this is fatal redundancy.

[kamalsinghy]

In option E, I can see that

"Of all the immigrants to enter ..., federal immigration station ..."

I think 'federal immigration station' is not one of the immigrants. So it's wrong for this reason as well. If I am wrong please correct me.

Thanks,
Kamal

[RonPurewal]

In option E, I can see that

"Of all the immigrants to enter ..., federal immigration station ..."

I think 'federal immigration station' is not one of the immigrants. So it's wrong for this reason as well. If I am wrong please correct me.

Thanks,
Kamal

this is a good point, and i believe that you are indeed correct.

[violetwind]

Hi Ron, How should I see the "entering" in the choice D?

it seems not that right to me as it implies an ongoing process, isn't it?

[kvitkod]

Ron, whether it is possible to use TWO modifiers for one subject like in D.

First opened in 1892, then rebuilt in 1900, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island

[messi10]

Hi,

Hi Ron, How should I see the "entering" in the choice D?

it seems not that right to me as it implies an ongoing process, isn't it?

Since it is the right answer choice it has to be correct. My understanding is that the term is "immigrants entering the US" is a gerund. But I am not 100% certain so please wait for an instructor to clarify.

Ron, whether it is possible to use TWO modifiers for one subject like in D.

First opened in 1892, then rebuilt in 1900, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island

Once again, it has to be OK because it is a part of the right answer. I think the reason is that it is a part of series of parallel modifiers so both of them do not have to touch the noun "the federal immigration station"

Regards

Sunil

[jnelson0612]

Hi,

Hi Ron, How should I see the "entering" in the choice D?

it seems not that right to me as it implies an ongoing process, isn't it?

Since it is the right answer choice it has to be correct. My understanding is that the term is "immigrants entering the US" is a gerund. But I am not 100% certain so please wait for an instructor to clarify.

Ron, whether it is possible to use TWO modifiers for one subject like in D.

First opened in 1892, then rebuilt in 1900, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island

Once again, it has to be OK because it is a part of the right answer. I think the reason is that it is a part of series of parallel modifiers so both of them do not have to touch the noun "the federal immigration station"

Regards

Sunil

Actually, "entering" is a present participle since the phrase "entering the US" is modifying the "immigrants".

I agree with Sunil on the second point. Two parallel modifiers, back to back, are okay if they both describe the noun immediately following the second one.

[violetwind]

Actually, "entering" is a present participle since the phrase "entering the US" is modifying the "immigrants".

I agree with Sunil on the second point. Two parallel modifiers, back to back, are okay if they both describe the noun immediately following the second one.

So does a present participle implying a meaning of "ongoing process"?

Ron, could you elaborate on this question? or any previous post on this topic? Thank you!

[messi10]

Hi Jamie,

Actually, "entering" is a present participle since the phrase "entering the US" is modifying the "immigrants".

Thanks for the clarification, it makes more sense now.

Violetwind,

I think you are getting confused because the sentence is talking about past events and you feel "entering" is the wrong tense. The main verb of the sentence is "processed" which is in past tense. As Jamie has pointed out, "entering the city" is simply playing the role of modifying "immigrants". This is to imply that the federal immigration system was processing the immigrants who were in the process of entering the city.

Hope this helps

Regards

Sunil

[violetwind]

Hi Jamie,

Actually, "entering" is a present participle since the phrase "entering the US" is modifying the "immigrants".

Thanks for the clarification, it makes more sense now.

Violetwind,

I think you are getting confused because the sentence is talking about past events and you feel "entering" is the wrong tense. The main verb of the sentence is "processed" which is in past tense. As Jamie has pointed out, "entering the city" is simply playing the role of modifying "immigrants". This is to imply that the federal immigration system was processing the immigrants who were in the process of entering the city.

Hope this helps

Regards

Sunil

Dear Sunil,

Thanks for your discussion but I have seen several times from your answer that you don't get what I asked , as my exam day is approaching and I'm eager to get my question answered by instructors, could you please not answering my question? It will just bump it to the end of the line. thank you!

-------------------------------------------------------------------
What Im confused is not the tense, which I knew the action "entering" is in the past. I just wanna confirm 1)whether the present participle modifier has an implication of "ongoing process" and 2) how can we see its appearance, is it OK to use it when we don't wanna emphasize the meaning of "ongoing"?

Thank you~

[violetwind]

could any instructor take a look at my questions? It's been a month......

Thank you!