SC: A venomous snake

[RaffaeleM39]

I found this question in the MGMAT Sentence Correction strategy book(chapter 3)

A venomous snake designated the emblem of the rebellion by the insurgency

The solution mark the clause as incorrect, the correct one being

A venomous snake was designated the emblem of the rebellion by the insurgency

The book explains that the original sentence is a fragment, with designated as a past participle

I thought the original sentence was correct, with "designated" being not a past participle, but a past simple. A past simple should be a working verb, so the sentence is not a fragment

1. Can you explain why my reasoning is incorrect?

2. While I understand that a participle alone cannot be a working verb, how can I discern a past participle from a past simple?

Thanks

[AJJ837]

Hello,

When I read that sentence, I can understand why it is a fragment but i'm not sure how past participle/past perfect come into play here. So in order to avoid confusing myself or you, i'll try to explain why I think the sentence is a fragment. My reasoning might be flawed, so I hope we get some expert feedback!

To me, first of all, the sentence is illogical. If "designated" was the working verb in this sentence, it would mean that the venomous snake did the designation. That is, the venomous snake "officially assigned a specified status"(dictionary definition of designate) the emblem.... Considering that the sentence is trying to say that it was the venomous snake that was "assigned the specified status" of emblem of the rebellion, not that the venomous snake made the assignment of the specified status, the original sentence is illogical.

A sentence needs a subject and working verb for it to be correct. Since there is no working verb here ("designated" as the verb would make the sentence illogical), then this original sentence is incorrect.

[RaffaeleM39]

I understand. So "designated" can't be the working verb because the snake is the object of the designation and not the subject. Thanks

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Nice explanation, AJJ837! I agree with your assessment: if 'designated' were a verb, then the sentence would have an absurd meaning. Perhaps we'll add this note to our next edition.