SC:the Louisiana Purchase of 1803

[SC312]

Tim/ Ron,

I am sorry if I have misinterpreted what Ron tried to explain or wrongly quoted him.
I was referring to what Ron explained in the March 31, 2011 study hall (after 1 hour 10 mins).

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Tim/ Ron,

I am sorry if I have misinterpreted what Ron tried to explain or wrongly quoted him.
I was referring to what Ron explained in the March 31, 2011 study hall (after 1 hour 10 mins).

Thanks

I remember saying that, but only as a guessing method.

It's not a real means of elimination, since it's not an issue of right and wrong. It's a guessing method"”"”"Statistically, the specific noun is more likely to be correct."
This problem happens to be one that comes up on the short end of that statistic.

[eggpain24]

HI， Ron

In choice E

is the opening modifier “acquiring” also committing the mistake of redundancy by using “bought” as the main verb in the main sentence？

[RonPurewal]

HI， Ron

In choice E

is the opening modifier “acquiring” also committing the mistake of redundancy by using “bought” as the main verb in the main sentence？

Yes.

[TooLong150]

C. With the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the United States acquired 828,000 square miles for about four cents an acre, more than doubling its size and bringing

Experts, I am not questioning the official answer, but I just want to understand how "bringing" and "doubling" can be parallel to each other. I almost eliminated this answer, because this apparent parallelism would allow "more than" to apply to "bringing", but "more than" should not apply to "bringing" based on the meaning of the sentence. Where am I going wrong, and how may I better understand this structure in C?

[tim]

By their very nature (they are both participles), "doubling" and "bringing" are absolutely parallel. Your concern appears to be with the "more than" in front of "doubling". Just think of it as a modifier and you'll see that the parallelism works just fine.

[RonPurewal]

I almost eliminated this answer, because this apparent parallelism would allow "more than" to apply to "bringing",

I don't know where you got this implication, but it's not a thing. E.g., if I go to the grocery store and buy "black olives and tomatoes", then, no, I'm not necessarily buying "black tomatoes".

Whether the modifier belongs to both parts or just to the first part is, as usual, a matter of context.

[momo32]

this is one of those sentences in which a native speaker's first reaction would be something along the lines of, "huh? i can't tell at first glance what that pronoun stands for". ... but let me try to come up with something specific:
the intended referent of the pronoun is used:
* prior to the pronoun
-- AND --
* in a modifier between commas
if a referent ever satisfies both of these criteria, it is very unlikely that it's a legitimate referent for a pronoun.

Dear Ron，
May you specify the above and give some examples？

THX

[RonPurewal]

honestly, the best advice here is not to worry about this at all. the most likely outcome of worrying about tiny nuances is a LOWER score.

the point of SC is to test fundamental concepts. if there are nuances, it is virtually certain that (a) the nuances are included as distractions, (b) there are much easier ways to eliminate the choices under consideration.

consider yourself warned...

[RonPurewal]

in any case, the point of the above (which you're much better off ignoring anyway) is that modifiers between commas shouldn't contain necessary referents.
e.g., Tom, who was reading Smith's book, had nothing but positive things to say about it. --> in this sentence, "it" refers to "book"; this use is questionable.

again, though, you should not pay attention to nuances like this. the basics are what's actually tested.

[thanghnvn]

this is a hard problem in which comma+doing and doing+comma is tested

honestly I find this point in grammar books, the point is participle. but forget the name as ron said.

want to summarize for you

doing +comma or comma+doing when modifying main clause, besides showing a simultaneous action , have one of the meaning relation:

- an action paralel to action in main clause
- result of action in main clause
- reason of action in main clause
- context of action in main clause
- mothod of action in main clause


we should remember this meaing relations. to realize the meaning illogicness

why E is wrong

accquiring can not happen simultaneouly to bought. us bought and then acquire. this is logic.

the second part of E is right

us bought and the resutlt is doubling and bringing
this is correct in this world.

pls, comment, confirm. this is hard for me.

[RickyH486]

in any case, the point of the above (which you're much better off ignoring anyway) is that modifiers between commas shouldn't contain necessary referents.
e.g., Tom, who was reading Smith's book, had nothing but positive things to say about it. --> in this sentence, "it" refers to "book"; this use is questionable.

again, though, you should not pay attention to nuances like this. the basics are what's actually tested.

Hi master Ron, I have to first thank you for giving out so many brilliant explanations in this post. I have truly learned a great deal here. I absolutely admire you and firmly believe that your words are always the truths in SC. But I have to ask you about the concept:"* prior to the pronoun
-- AND --
* in a modifier between commas
if a referent ever satisfies both of these criteria, it is very unlikely that it's a legitimate referent for a pronoun"

Why do you feel that we are much better off ignoring this concept? In my humble opinion, this is a concept about pronouns and pronouns are one of the four important categories that GMAT SC test on (along with parallelism, SV-agreement, modifiers). Also in this post: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/another-prep-sc-t5704-15.html you have explained a similar concept.

Once you understand that, you can see what the issue is with the sentence you quoted. Specifically, references should still make sense if modifiers between commas are taken out.
Try removing the modifier there. See what happens to the pronoun.

This will never be the only thing wrong with a sentence, but it's a thing.

I want to also bring out the 3 priorities that you have taught us: 1. frequently tested things that are not extremely idiomatic/subtle (e.g parallelism, pronoun, modifier) 2. frequently tested things that are extremely idiomatic/subtle (e.g verb tenses, idioms) 3. infrequently tested things.

Is it because you believe this particular concept is 3 an infrequently tested things? I am looking forward to reading your explanations.

[RonPurewal]

if you are thinking about something like that, you are almost certainly missing something that's MUCH easier and/or more fundamental.

[RickyH486]

if you are thinking about something like that, you are almost certainly missing something that's MUCH easier and/or more fundamental.

After reading your advice, I looked at the choice again. You are absolutely right! Genius. Thank you so much.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.