The first trenches..

[RonPurewal]

Dear instructors:
can you tell me what's wrong with "having been cut" in option C? why can't we use having+done after a noun.?
please help! thanks in advance!

well, that modifier is equivalent to saying have been cut... (if it's attached to something in the present or future tense), or had been cut... (if it's attached to something in the past tense).

e.g.
Students having finished Math 101 and 102 are eligible to take Math 201.
--> this is like saying "students who have finished..."; this tense actually makes sense here.

the problem is that this doesn't translate into the tense of the sentence in this problem, because the trenches were cut (in the past). "have been cut" is not a sensible tense here, so the modifier "having been cut..." doesn't work either.

--

in general, you're going to find that modifiers with "having..." are somewhat rare, because they will usually (not always!) be written with "who"/"that" when possible. for instance, the sentence above -- while not incorrect as is -- would most likely be written instead as Students who have finished...

[philipp.schams]

[Content deleted based on request from user.]

[RonPurewal]

whats wrong with the passive form "were cut"? trenches usually don't "cut" but rather "get cut" (passive). Please help

"Cut" here is not a verb. It's a modifier, like "driven" or "given". When it's a modifier, it is a passive form.
E.g.,
* The person driven home was driven home by someone else.
* The first trenches cut into xxxx were cut by someone else.

If you want to make this kind of modifier active, then it's "cutting". or "driving" or "giving".
E.g.,
* The person driving home is driving himself/herself home.
* The bulldozer cutting trenches is actually cutting the trenches.

[soulwangh]

well, that modifier is equivalent to saying have been cut... (if it's attached to something in the present or future tense), or had been cut... (if it's attached to something in the past tense).

e.g.
Students having finished Math 101 and 102 are eligible to take Math 201.
--> this is like saying "students who have finished..."; this tense actually makes sense here.

the problem is that this doesn't translate into the tense of the sentence in this problem, because the trenches were cut (in the past). "have been cut" is not a sensible tense here, so the modifier "having been cut..." doesn't work either.

Hi, Ron

1/
Please help confirm my personal interpretation of your words related to the reason why "have been cut" is not a sensible tense here.

Because it is an isolated historical event that the trenches were cut in to the ground, and this event has no bearing on the other event that the trenches have provided evidence.

Am i correct?

2/
Is "with having done" modifier definitely wrong under any circumstance?

People in another forum believe that "with having done" modifier is definitely wrong.
Although this modifier never shows up in correct answers, I don't think this is a hard rule because there is no justified reason saying that under any circumstance, this modifier is wrong.

I think If we can find reasons which can justify the usage, we cannot say it is wrong.

3/
If you agree with my opinion, please confirm the following sentence.

This sentence is a right answer from SC.

Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about .....

Here, the bold faced part serves as a causal factor toward the latter event--now drawing solid conclusion. And the time indicator "over the past twenty years" also emphasizes a continued effect. That is to say, these two events related to each other in terms of cause-effect logic. Therefore, the usage is correct.

What if I change the sentence into this one?

Neuroscientists, with a wealth of knowledge having been amassed over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about ....

Is it correct?

Hope it dose not miss the point!
Thank you in advance!

[RonPurewal]

1/
Please help confirm my personal interpretation of your words related to the reason why "have been cut" is not a sensible tense here.

Because it is an isolated historical event that the trenches were cut in to the ground, and this event has no bearing on the other event that the trenches have provided evidence.

Am i correct?

Seems accurate.

2/
Is "with having done" modifier definitely wrong under any circumstance?

I don't see that kind of thing anywhere in this problem. To which answer choice(s) are you referring?

[RonPurewal]

What if I change the sentence into this one?

Neuroscientists, with a wealth of knowledge having been amassed over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about ....

Extremely valuable piece of advice #1 -- Don't try to edit GMAC's sentences.
In my experience, at least 99% of attempted "edits" of GMAC sentences by forum users have issues. Worse, the vast majority of those issues are things the GMAT doesn't even test, forcing us to give awkward responses along the lines of "Well, no, but don't worry about it".

It's a good idea to make your own (MUCH SIMPLER) sentences, as illustrations of the principles you learn "” but leave GMAC's sentences alone. Learn from them. Don’t edit them.

--

No, this new version wouldn't work, because it doesn't indicate that the neuroscientists themselves are the people who have amassed the knowledge.

It's like saying "Jai drives his cars at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour" vs. "Jai collects cars that have been driven at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour". The first sentence actually tells us that Jai himself drives the cars at those speeds. The second doesn't.

[soulwangh]

No, this new version wouldn't work, because it doesn't indicate that the neuroscientists themselves are the people who have amassed the knowledge.

It's like saying "Jai drives his cars at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour" vs. "Jai collects cars that have been driven at speeds greater than 150 miles per hour". The first sentence actually tells us that Jai himself drives the cars at those speeds. The second doesn't.

Hi, Ron.
Nice suggestions and brilliant examples!
I will do according your recommendation.

Another questions:

Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about ...., are now drawing solid conclusions about .....
1/
In this sentence, what kind of modifier is "having done"- Noun modifier or adverbial modifier?
2/
I know comma+doing is an adverbial modifier when it presents at the end of the sentence. But I don't know whether this rule applies in "S,having done,VO" pattern. It seems that "doing" can also be a non-essential noun modifier in "S,having done,VO". Please help clarify.
3/
I am confused because there is a saying that "having done" with or without comma can only serve as adverbial modifier. Also, another opinion is "having done" can be noun modifier,but only non-essential one.
Which one is correct?

Thanks for your precious advices.

[RonPurewal]

Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about ...., are now drawing solid conclusions about .....
1/
In this sentence, what kind of modifier is "having done"- Noun modifier or adverbial modifier?
2/
I know comma+doing is an adverbial modifier when it presents at the end of the sentence. But I don't know whether this rule applies in "S,having done,VO" pattern. It seems that "doing" can also be a non-essential noun modifier in "S,having done,VO". Please help clarify.

If "comma + ___ing" comes after nothing but a noun, then it has to modify the noun.

[RonPurewal]

3/
I am confused because there is a saying that "having done" with or without comma can only serve as adverbial modifier. Also, another opinion is "having done" can be noun modifier,but only non-essential one.
Which one is correct?

I don't know what "non-essential" means, so I can't help you there.

If a "___ing" modifier DOES NOT follow a comma, then it should modify a noun.

E.g.,
I told Susan to be wary of pickpockets, watching her purse.
--> I was watching Susan's purse (presumably to prevent theft) while I warned her about pickpockets.

I told Susan to be wary of pickpockets watching her purse.
--> If there are pickpockets watching Susan's purse, she should be suspicious.

[soulwangh]

Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about ...., are now drawing solid conclusions about .....
1/
In this sentence, what kind of modifier is "having done"- Noun modifier or adverbial modifier?
2/
I know comma+doing is an adverbial modifier when it presents at the end of the sentence. But I don't know whether this rule applies in "S,having done,VO" pattern. It seems that "doing" can also be a non-essential noun modifier in "S,having done,VO". Please help clarify.

If "comma + ___ing" comes after nothing but a noun, then it has to modify the noun.

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your reply.

I think it is kind of weird that in "S, ving, VO" pattern, ving is a noun modifier but should relate to the main Verb.
1/
Never mind. According to my observation, it seems that no matter the placement of "comma+verb-ing"in a sentence,it modifies or relates to the subject and(without or) verb in the main clause. Right? Please confirm.
2/
In "S, ving, VO", What is the relationship, if there is some general relationship, between the modifier and the main clause? Does it indicates that the main clause happens under the background condition of the modifier or something else?please certify,thank you!

BTW, Thank you for all the replies you give me! They are very helpful.
Wish you happy holidays in advance!

[RonPurewal]

I think it is kind of weird that in "S, ving, VO" pattern, ving is a noun modifier but should relate to the main Verb.

Why would that be weird?

It's nice to have a construction that implies that sort of thing. If there were no such construction, then such relationships would often have to be spelled out in annoying detail.

1/
Never mind. According to my observation, it seems that no matter the placement of "comma+verb-ing"in a sentence,it modifies or relates to the subject and(without or) verb in the main clause. Right? Please confirm.

Precisely the point.

[RonPurewal]

2/
In "S, ving, VO", What is the relationship, if there is some general relationship, between the modifier and the main clause? Does it indicates that the main clause happens under the background condition of the modifier or something else?please certify,thank you!

Just ask yourself whether there's a relationship. If there's a reasonably direct relationship... good enough. If not -- or if you have to make up an entire chain of intermediate reasoning from scratch -- then, not good.

There's no sense in trying to memorize a list of possible relationships, because (1) "there's a relationship" is something you're perfectly capable of understanding already, and (2) such a list would actually have negative utility, since you might exclude legitimate relationships that aren't on it.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

I eliminated A/B/E because of "simultaneously with" -- isn't that redundant?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

I eliminated A/B/E because of "simultaneously with" -- isn't that redundant?

Thanks!

Choice E is the correct answer.

Official answers are not wrong.

[JbhB682]

HI Experts– I don’t understand why the verb “were arising” in (A) is wrong exactly.

“Were arising” is past continuous tense

The past continuous tense per my understanding is used for actions

- in the past
- actions that were ongoing in the past until another event

So in this case -- isn't "Were arising" apt because "Were arising" was ongoing in the past ?

This 'ongoing action' is clearly ON-GOIGN IN THE PAST, because of the adverb "simultaneously"

complex societies "Were arising" simultaneously with the celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia