Question:In an attempt to produce premium oysters

[DiZ806]

Hi Ron,
I can not find any traces in relevant question,So hope you can answer it.

In an attempt to produce premium oysters, a firm in Scotland has developed a prototype of a submersible oyster farm, sitting below the surface of the ocean, and it provides ideal conditions for the mollusks' growth.
A.farm, sitting below the surface of the ocean, and it provides
B.farm, sitting below the surface of the ocean for providing
C.farm that sits below the surface of the ocean and providing
D.farm that sits below the surface of the ocean and provides
E.farm that is sitting below the surface of the ocean and it provides

I do not know why B is wrong?
And
In fact this question is a representativeness that I can not distinguish knowledge that the differences between "V-ING to modify" and "attributive clause to modify"
I know the theory about it.for example "V-ING modify the whole sentence" But I do not know how to use the difference exactly in concrete question.Could you give me some suggestion aming at this knowledge?
Thanks for your assistance.

[RonPurewal]

make sure you understand how ", __ing" modifiers work.

I dropped the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.
––> i didn't scare the dogs directly; my action did. but i (the subject) am the person/thing most directly responsible for "scaring the dogs".

in other words, these modifiers should describe the whole preceding action, and be most closely attributable to the subject of that action.

so, in choice B, you're saying that a firm in scotland is actually sitting beneath the surface of the ocean, for some reason related to creating a prototype. hmm. nope.

[DiZ806]

make sure you understand how ", __ing" modifiers work.

I dropped the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.
––> i didn't scare the dogs directly; my action did. but i (the subject) am the person/thing most directly responsible for "scaring the dogs".

in other words, these modifiers should describe the whole preceding action, and be most closely attributable to the subject of that action.

so, in choice B, you're saying that a firm in scotland is actually sitting beneath the surface of the ocean, for some reason related to creating a prototype. hmm. nope.

Thank you Ron!

I remember that "V--ING" in sentence sometimes modify subject but it sometimes also modify the closest noun.

I could not grasp it well.Could you give me some explanation and instructions?

Thank you very much!

[DiZ806]

make sure you understand how ", __ing" modifiers work.

I dropped the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.
––> i didn't scare the dogs directly; my action did. but i (the subject) am the person/thing most directly responsible for "scaring the dogs".

in other words, these modifiers should describe the whole preceding action, and be most closely attributable to the subject of that action.

so, in choice B, you're saying that a firm in scotland is actually sitting beneath the surface of the ocean, for some reason related to creating a prototype. hmm. nope.

My query above is not precise.
I mean that in some cases the "V--ING attributable to the subject of that action but in some cases "V-ING attributable to the closest noun.
I can not distinguish that.

Thank you Ron!

[RonPurewal]

"attributable to the closest noun" is for __ing without a comma.

for ", __ing", the above principles obtain.

[LouieL481]

Dear Ron,

From what I've observed, GMAT tends to use "that" clause to distinguish main actions from subordinating actions in correct answer choices whenever there is any ambiguity. As in choice D, although it totally makes sense that "sits below" and "provides" are parallel and both verbs describe the noun,“farm", the latter verb could be considered parallel with the main verb in a grammatical sense.
So, what is your take on that?

Many thanks!!

[RonPurewal]

it's not that complicated.

really, this all boils down to the fact that GMAC's correct answers will not contain bad writing.

here, we're dealing with a construction like this:
Someone has invented a robot that does X and says Y.

if the robot "does X" and the robot "says Y", then this is actually a good sentence—because that is how every normal human being will first read it.

if the actual meaning of the sentence is "Someone invented a robot, and that inventor says Y", then it's a bad sentence.
as you note, there is a purely mechanical justification for this interpretation—but exactly zero readers will process the sentence this way at first.
in fact, the vast majority of readers would NEVER process the sentence this way. never ever ever, not in a thousand years. (for basically the same reason, the vast majority of people would be terrible at writing code, or legal language, or anything that doesn't follow the rhythm of normal human processing.)

GMAC will NOT write bad sentences as correct answers. so, it's a waste of your time to explore those interpretations.

[RonPurewal]

if you really want to have fun with this topic, look at problem #50 in the OG Diagnostic chapter (NOT the sentence correction chapter).

that one is structured like this:
Some countries want to devise a method of xxxxxx that will protect yyyyyyy and thwart people who do thing A and do thing B.

if the considerations raised here were actually issues, then there would be a zillion billion thousand different permutations of 'verb A goes with subject B' here.
...but, fortunately, those things are not issues.
so, we only have to consider the single interpretation that would occur to a normal human being reading the sentence: "protect" and "thwart" are parallel, as are "do thing A" and "do thing B".

[LouieL481]

Thanks Ron.
Unfortunately, I am no exception. (reading legal documens and coding are my worst nightmares)
Though I don't have the issue with processing information, I tend to overthink because after getting a short exposure of GMAT SC, I realize that I've always used some grammars inappropriately either in my writings or in my daily conversations. I've probably made tons of mistakes on the usage of 'which and that‘ in my work...tsk tsk.
Anyways, it's nice to pick your brain once a while. I really appreciate your explanations.

[tim]

Yeah, there is a very specific set of skills you need to draw on to solve GMAT problems. Glad to hear you got your questions answered.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron.
Unfortunately, I am no exception. (reading legal documens and coding are my worst nightmares)

^^ no, you're missing my point.
i guess you should probably blame me for failing to communicate adequately here, because, in fact, you've gotten exactly the opposite of the point i was trying to make.

if these things are your 'worst nightmares', that's a GOOD thing!

my point is that people who think 'like lawyers' or 'like coders' will waste their time considering 'alternative interpretations' that are complete nonsense, because, if you're writing legal language or computer code, that's how you have to think.

if you DON'T think in those ways, then your mind will naturally alight upon the correct interpretation of the sentence. you won't waste any time on the nonsense alternatives—because you won't even think of them in the first place.

[RonPurewal]

look again at the OG problem i cited.
in 'computer' terms, there are probably hundreds of different ways to process the parallel items in that sentence.
to a human being who is using normal common sense to interpret the sentence, though, only one meaning—the correct one—will spring to mind.

[LouieL481]

Thanks Ron.
Unfortunately, I am no exception. (reading legal documens and coding are my worst nightmares)

^^ no, you're missing my point.
i guess you should probably blame me for failing to communicate adequately here, because, in fact, you've gotten exactly the opposite of the point i was trying to make.

if these things are your 'worst nightmares', that's a GOOD thing!

quote]
I did hear ya. I just thought that it would be a good thing to have in life, maybe besides taking standardized tests.

[RonPurewal]

being able to do those things is good... if you have to do those things (or something similar).

for most people, i doubt that either of these things will ever prove necessary. (the legal reading would help with taxes, but most people don't do their own taxes if there's any nontrivial complexity involved.)

[AsadA969]

make sure you understand how ", __ing" modifiers work.

I dropped the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.
––> i didn't scare the dogs directly; my action did. but i (the subject) am the person/thing most directly responsible for "scaring the dogs".

in other words, these modifiers should describe the whole preceding action, and be most closely attributable to the subject of that action.

so, in choice B, you're saying that a firm in scotland is actually sitting beneath the surface of the ocean, for some reason related to creating a prototype. hmm. nope.

Ron,
If I write a sentence like:
I've switched off my laptop, pressing the shut down button.
will it be correct sentence?
Thanks.