The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close

[RonPurewal]

plz explain why if the above rule (your explaination ) is applied ,then parallel construction is not disturbed ?
thanks

there does appear to be an exception here. as far as i know, this is a unique exception among official problems.

still, note the following:
* there is no wrong answer choice that does have that kind of construction, so the rule still won't lead you astray;
* in cases like this, you should go ahead and pick whichever choice conforms most closely to the principles with which you're familiar. if nothing is perfect, look for whatever is closest to perfect.

[davetzulin]

Ron,

After reading your post about "now", i realize that this problem is a lot harder than I originally thought.

Answer choice C, although wrong, has an interesting structure I'd like clarification on.

If re-written, (inserted), would it be OK?

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction, its numbers now fivefold what they were when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970’s.


or does it have to be?

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction, its numbers ARE now fivefold what they were when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970’s.

if the second half of the comaprison contains a verb, "what they were" for example, does the first part require a verb? In the first example, the first half of the comparison seems to imply the to be verb, "the numbers [are] now fivefold"

thanks

[RonPurewal]

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction, its numbers now fivefold what they were when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970’s.

this choice is grammatically ok, but it doesn't make sense -- you've created a modifier that doesn't actually modify anything.

the point of "its numbers are now fivefold..." is to create a contrast with the previous clause (which says that the bird almost went extinct at one point), not to describe/modify it. so you can't use a modifier here.

note that the correct answer does not use one, either.

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction, its numbers ARE now fivefold what they were when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970’s.

this is a run-on sentence (= complete sentence + comma + complete sentence). not ok.

[davetzulin]

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction, its numbers now fivefold what they were when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970’s.

this choice is grammatically ok, but it doesn't make sense -- you've created a modifier that doesn't actually modify anything.

the point of "its numbers are now fivefold..." is to create a contrast with the previous clause (which says that the bird almost went extinct at one point), not to describe/modify it. so you can't use a modifier here.

note that the correct answer does not use one, either.

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction, its numbers ARE now fivefold what they were when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970’s.

this is a run-on sentence (= complete sentence + comma + complete sentence). not ok.

i totally see it now, thanks again Ron

[RonPurewal]

sure.

[rohan.nanda]

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction; its numbers are now five times greater than when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970’s.
A. extinction; its numbers are now five times greater than
B. extinction; its numbers are now five times more than
C. extinction, their numbers now fivefold what they were
D. extinction, now with fivefold the numbers they had
E. extinction, now with numbers five times greater than
This is GMATPREP question. Pls help narrow down to the correct answer. Also what are the errors in the wrong choices?

Ron,

Firstly, thank you so much for following up on every post. You and Stacy are heroes to us :D.

Now, is it okay to say:

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction; its numbers are now fivefold what they were when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970’s.

or is it a Run-on sentence?

It's not in the options, just wanted to clarify my concepts. Is there a thead on the usage of <number>fold?

[tim]

this is not a run-on sentence, because the semicolon appropriately separates the two independent clauses. however, it is still incorrect because as far as i know <number>fold should be used as a modifier, and you are using it as a noun here..

[Haibara]

Ron, I also have some problems regarding choice D&E.
I notice you have said

if you're going to use "now" + some phrase as a modifier, then "now" must accurately modify the action and timeframe of the preceding clause.

And you have given an example:

e.g.
James is expanding the scope of his job search, now looking in Malaysia and Thailand as well as in Singapore
--> this sentence is correct, because "now looking in..." actually modifies (describes) the way in which james "has expanded his search".

I think the adverb"now" is closet to "looking", in terms of placement , why can't "now" modify looking? You said "now' should modify preceding verb "has expanded" and that really perplexed me. The action of "has expanded" clearly occurred in the past, not "now". If "now" modifies "look", and the whole phrase "now looking in Malaysia...." modifies the previous clause, the sentence also makes sense here .

Back to Choice D&E (I know they are wrong).
The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction; its numbers are now five times greater than when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970’s.
D. extinction, now with fivefold the numbers they had
E. extinction, now with numbers five times greater than

I still have the feeling that "now" modifies the following prepositional phrase "with ...", though I admit that the prepositional phrase "with numbers five times... " lacks any direct relation to the preceding verb "has survived" , since "with" has to imply some kind meaning of 'together'.

Another question is about the word "fivefold". I seldom see a "No.+ fold" on GMATprep, could it be used in comparison? Or how it should be used in a correct way?
Thank you in advance.

[RonPurewal]

I think the adverb"now" is closet to "looking", in terms of placement , why can't "now" modify looking?

It does.

You said "now' should modify preceding verb "has expanded" and that really perplexed me.

"Now" describes "looking".
The entire phrase "now looking...""”a single modifier"”describes the expansion of the job search.

This conforms to what I wrote earlier. Look at the part you quoted from me: it discusses the use of "now" + some phrase as a modifier. Not just "now".

[RonPurewal]

The action of "has expanded" clearly occurred in the past, not "now". If "now" modifies "look", and the whole phrase "now looking in Malaysia...." modifies the previous clause, the sentence also makes sense here .

Well, no.
One of them is actually a direct explanation of the previous idea. The whole bit about Malaysia and Thailand is exactly how/where James is expanding his job search.

The other is unrelated to the previous idea"”even contradictory"”and describes a much later result with no direct connection to the previous thought.
The previous thought regards a "brush with extinction""”meaning LOW population numbers. Very low, perilously low, numbers. For a ___ing modifier to make sense here, it would have to describe ... low numbers. I.e., it would have to describe the "brush with extinction" itself.
If there are now 5 times as many gyrfalcons as there were before, then the "brush with extinction" is a distant memory, and the gyrfalcon is now doing just fine (or at least much, much better"”5 times better, to be exact).

[RonPurewal]

Consider:

The hiker was stranded on the mountain and nearly starved to death, eating only 300 calories a day and losing twenty pounds in two weeks.
Makes sense.

[i]The hiker was stranded on the mountain and nearly starved to death, now eating extra-large meals to gain the weight back.
Separate thoughts, Doesn't make sense with a modifier.

Another question is about the word "fivefold". I seldom see a "No.+ fold" on GMATprep, could it be used in comparison? Or how it should be used in a correct way?
Thank you in advance.

"I seldom see it" is the lesson here. Not anything you should worry about.

[CarrieL721]

Hi Ron,

I chose E, and I have read your explanations about it, but I am still confused about the usages of ", now with....", can we break them down as follows,

1. about "comma+ with.......", what dose it modify?
the preceding noun? eg: a close brush of extinction;
or the subject of the preceding sentence?, for example: "The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale, with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, connected by a complex regional system of roads." here " comma+with" modifies the settlements;
or the verb of the preceding sentence, in this sentence "has survived", i think if in this case ", with numbers five times greater than" modifies "survived", it make sense.

2. about "subject verb object with B", there is no comma before with, dose "with B" definitely modify the closest noun? for example: "In addition to her work on the Miocene hominid fossil record, Mary Leakey contributed to archaeology with her discovery of the earliest direct evidence of hominid activity and painstakingly documenting East African cave paintings", in this sentence, this original sentence is wrong because "with her discovery" modified "archaelogy", right? but the meaning doesn't make sense. If "with her discovery" could modify "contributed", then it will be correct.

3. about " comma+ now verb-ing/verb-ed/with/other prepositions....", are they the same with the sentences without "now"?, here are these "now" structures correct forms or incorrect ones that GMAT intents to confuse us?

Thanks for your help!

[RonPurewal]

nb: watch the spelling of "does". (many instances of "dose" ––> post becomes hard to understand)

1/
these modifiers generally describe the entire preceding action/clause (much as "comma + __ing" modifiers do).

verbs are basically meaningless without their subjects, so there's automatically going to be a close relationship to the subject, too. (not a separate principle; it's just not possible to "describe an action" without describing how the subject does that action.)
e.g., in the chaco canyon sentence, "with up to 75 xxxx" is a description of how the settlements were built "on a spectacular scale"——but also applies to the subject ("the anasazi settlements") itself.

[RonPurewal]

2/
can describe either a noun or an action.

I like fish sandwiches with garlic sauce
("with garlic sauce" describes the sandwiches, not my appreciation of them)

I eat fish sandwiches with great enthusiasm
("with great enthusiasm" describes how i eat the sandwiches, not the sandwiches themselves)

[RonPurewal]

the above not a special property of "with", by the way; the same applies to other prepositions.
e.g.,
I don't know anyone in Texas ("in texas" describes "anyone")
I bought this book in Texas ("in texas" describes "i bought the book")