Shrinking faster than any other nation’s, the projected

[thanghnvn]

"comma+with" phrase normally modify verb/clause near to it.

but I find hard to realize the meaning relations between "comma+with phrase" and verb/clause.

I want to understand these meaning relations more because this understanding helps me quickly realize the logic/illogic meaning in the structure with "comma+with phrase". anyone know the kinds of this meaning relation, pls, detail.

[jlucero]

As both Rey and Ron point out, the with here is probably not the part of the sentence that instructors would point out as being incorrect. I'm going to quote Ron's point:

this is the sort of construction that probably skirts the boundary of acceptability on the gmat - i'd think they would prefer other constructions (such as the one that's in the correct answer to this problem), although i would hesitate to declare this particular construction outright wrong.

thanghnvn, your question is valid, but it's difficult to explain why this "comma+WITH" construction is less preferable than the construction in C, other than simply saying "C sounds better". I would recommend learning the other problems with E (you can't say "a decline at"). There are times when learning the meaning of using different constructions is important, but this is not one of them.

[RonPurewal]

You're right that "intention to sustain..." is unidiomatic; that error alone justifies elimination.

However, it's unlikely that a GMAC problem would turn on this sort of idiom alone. Here, you also have a meaning that doesn't really make sense.

Here's what is actually happening in the situation described in the sentence:
* The state makes deposits into a fund.
* That fund is intended to sustain the state's economy"”in the future, once (a) the state's oil reselves are depleted and, presumably, (b) the fund has reached a certain size.

The deposits are not directly intended to sustain the Alaskan economy, so the phrasing of that choice doesn't make literal sense.

(Remember"”you NEVER have to make this kind of decision in isolation. All that's necessary is to notice that the correct answer makes much better literal sense than this one.)

[RonPurewal]

On #1, you have the wrong thing in boldface. If it's just "to sustain", then you're modifying the entire preceding action (unless you're dealing with some special idiom; here, you aren't).
So, #1 says that the action of depositing profits is directly intended to sustain the state's economy. That doesn't make sense; the fund has to mature first.

#2 makes sense as written, since that's the purpose of the fund itself (not of making the current deposits into it).

[RonPurewal]

*X do Y to do Z*. You have said that in this structure, either Y or X can do Z, as long as it makes sense and doesn't distort original meaning.

Unless "Y to do Z" is some special idiom, this type of construction describes the purpose of X's actions. I.e., it implies that, in order to achieve purpose Z, X does Y.

[Tadashi]

i read all the replies of this post.

Alaska regularly deposits some of its profits from the sale of oil into a special fund, with the intention of sustaining the state’s economy after the exhaustion of its oil reserves.

my question

in the with structures such as "with the intention of doing sth.", what does "with the intention of doing sth." modifies?

IMO, the with phrase modifies the whole preceding sentence, expressing a reason why Alaska deposits some of its profits.

So, why my sentence is wrong?

do you mean that it's alaska not the fund is sustaining the economy in my sentence. but why can't the fund?

Need you shed some light
thanks.
Tadashi

[Tadashi]

sorry,
allow me to add sth. to make myself understood more easily.


just want to comfirm:

Subject. A+Verb+O. with the intention of doing sth.

the logic subject of the gerund "doing" has to be the "Subject. A".
It is Subject A. that actually want to do sth.

eg. I went to Paris with the intention of learning French. [ok] -> I learn French.
eg. Apple Inc. deposits 10% of its annual profits in a hedge fund with the intention of sustaining its long term growth. [wrong, Apple Inc. won't sustain the growth. the fund will]

maybe i have some problem in understanding the word "sustain"... i guess..


Need your confirmation.
Thanks
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

sorry,
allow me to add sth. to make myself understood more easily.


just want to comfirm:

Subject. A+Verb+O. with the intention of doing sth.

the logic subject of the gerund "doing" has to be the "Subject. A".
It is Subject A. that actually want to do sth.

eg. I went to Paris with the intention of learning French. [ok] -> I learn French.
eg. Apple Inc. deposits 10% of its annual profits in a hedge fund with the intention of sustaining its long term growth. [wrong, Apple Inc. won't sustain the growth. the fund will]

These examples seem ok to me.

In the second example, one could possibly make a case that Apple's own intention is to sustain its long-term growth, but it's probably more accurate to say that the fund itself is intended to sustain that growth.

[puttukoni8]

sorry,

eg. I went to Paris with the intention of learning French. [ok] -> I learn French.
eg. Apple Inc. deposits 10% of its annual profits in a hedge fund with the intention of sustaining its long term growth. [wrong, Apple Inc. won't sustain the growth. the fund will]

These examples seem ok to me.

Hi Ron and MGMAT,

I am not familiar with the original examples for those 2; However, don't these examples violate 'Infinite of Purpose' rule(i.e. -> Use - 'to , in order to, or so as to' + 'verb=eat' Rather than 'preposition=to/of' + 'verb-ING=eating' to show purpose/intention )
?

So my view is -
eg. 1 I went to Paris with the intention TO LEARN French. [ok] -> I learn French.
eg. Apple Inc. deposits 10% of its annual profits in a hedge fund with the intention TO SUSTAIN its long term growth.

But we also know that - "Intention To" is Wrong Idiom.

Hence, I am really confused now. How to deal with such sentences ?

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

If you use "to + verb" to describe an intention, then the word "intention" creates redundancy.

[FanPurewal]

hi instructors

i want to make sure whether the only issue in E is unidiom usage of *decline at*?

thank you!

[RonPurewal]

hi instructors

i want to make sure whether the only issue in E is unidiom usage of *decline at*?

thank you!

The modifier doesn't make sense as a modifier.

The main sentence says that Japan's population IS shrinking. I.e., it's discussing something that is happening at present.

A projected decline is in the future. So, "with a projected decline" can't be used as a modifier, since the future doesn't describe the present.

Note that the correct answer handles the situation by linking two different verbs——in two different tenses——with "and". No modifier.

[FanPurewal]

hi instructors

i want to make sure whether the only issue in E is unidiom usage of *decline at*?

thank you!

The modifier doesn't make sense as a modifier.

The main sentence says that Japan's population IS shrinking. I.e., it's discussing something that is happening at present.

A projected decline is in the future. So, "with a projected decline" can't be used as a modifier, since the future doesn't describe the present.

Note that the correct answer handles the situation by linking two different verbs——in two different tenses——with "and". No modifier.

insightful! thank you Ron.

[RonPurewal]

sure.

[ishan.malhotra10]

I have a small doubt regarding this question. I am able to negate all the answer choices and reach to C, but I have a doubt regarding parallelism in it.

C) The population of Japan is shrinking faster than that of any other nation and is projected to decline by
In this if we take 'and' as the parallel tag (as instructed by Ron in mgmat study halls), then 'is projected' should be parallel to 'is shrinking'. Can you please explain how are these to parallel. thanks