SC Modifiers (Can you explain this example please?)

[Guest]

The MGMAT SC book in action problem set asks us to underline the modifying phrases and identify the noun that is being modified. If there is an error we are supposed to rewrite the sentence correcting the mistake.

I'm writing on the forum because I freak out when I see unusual word construction and don't have the confidence/knowledge to accept it as correct. There's nothing worse then seeing an answer that looks more confusing an awkward then the original sentence and not understanding why it is correct. That being said:


4) David tried a handful of desserts from the table, which ultimately gave him an upset stomach.


David tried a handful of desserts from the table, which ultimately gave him an upset stomach.

Desserts is the noun and the phrase "which ultimately gave him an upset stomach" is the modifying clause.

I was confused as to which rule applies to this sentence. Here's what I noticed:

1) The word table touches the clause and incorrectly modifies the noun. The desserts are what gave him an upset stomach, not the the table.

2) The clause "which ultimately gave him an upset stomach" appears to be an essential part of the sentence. The information given in the original sentence tells us who is sick, why they are sick, the location of the food that made him sick, and how much of the food he had.
If I remove the clause, the sentence only answers the question of what David did, how many desserts he tried, and where did he got them from.


The book says the answer is:

David tried a handful of the table's desserts, which ultimately gave him an upset stomach.


I have a huge problem with the "the table's desserts". It gives a connotation of ownership to an inanimate object. The table is mentioned in the sentence to demonstrate where the desserts came from. How does this make sense? If David took a bunch of wood from the forest, could you say, "David took a bunch of the forest's wood..."?

Is it wrong to say...

David tried a handful of desserts from the table, ultimately giving him an upset stomach.


Please help if you can because I'm getting really frustrated and am about to freak out.

[Guest]

I agree to the above poster... Possesive can only be used to claim ownership and only for living things.. It cannot be assigned to inanimate objects.. however one exception is that possesive can be used for personified objects as in the nature's laws or a foot's length in that the foot and nature can stand for humans... Table's dessert is plain wrong.. HTH

[RonPurewal]

Is it wrong to say...

David tried a handful of desserts from the table, ultimately giving him an upset stomach.

technically, yeah, this version is wrong as well, because "him" should be "himself" - because the subject of "giving" is david.
(background: the "-ing" modifier, having no subject of its own, is assumed to have the same subject as the preceding clause.)

this is not an easy sentence to fix. after 20 seconds' long, hard thought, i came up with
david tried a handful of desserts from the table, ultimately experiencing an upset stomach as a result.

if i were the gmat, i might also write the sentence as
daved tried a handful of desserts from the table, desserts that ultimately gave him an upset stomach.
this of course sounds preposterous, but that's mainly a result of its weird combination of formal gravitas and completely informal subject.
when the tone is more appropriately matched to the subject, this is an ideal construction. compare the use of 'wasps' in this example, or look at "findings" in problem #79 in the OG verbal supplement.