The state has proposed new rules that would set

[jp.jprasanna]

sorry but having read all the posts in this thread, i still have a problem about option D.

in D, "with the intent of blah blah blah",we know that,in general, COMMA+ PREPOSITION should be an adverbial modifier and modifies the preceding clause.

questions:
1.in this PREP problem, in option D, does the rule mentioned above still apply here?

2.i know that COMMA verbING is also a adverbial modifier and modifies the preceding clause,moreover, the action of the verbING should apply to the subject of the preceding clause.
i wonder,in term of the COMMA PREPOSITION,such as WITH phrases, does the phrase apply to the subject of the preceding clause too?
and if so, then in this problem in option D,"with the intent of blah blah blah" means that the subject of the main clause--->the states are the real ones that are with the intention of blah blah blah??

Ron and experts,please make the questions clear.
and thank you very much.

Hi let me try, Instructors please correct me if Im worng.

If you have COMMA + PREP it should apply to both the subject and action of the clause that the prep phrase is attached to for example in this quetion :

The state has proposed new rules that would set minimum staffing levels for nurses, with the intent of ensuring that blah blah -

The above bold Should make sense with the sub and its verb so we can mentally rephrase and check whether it makes sense

The state has proposed new rules, with the intent of ensuring that blah blah, that would set minimum staffing levels for nurses.. - Makes sense meaning wise and also grammatically hence correct.

here is another example in which the COMMA + PREP is used incorrectly. (real GMAT question)

The spectacular disintegration of a comet last year in full view of ground- and space-based telescopes provided new insights into how comets form and may thus force a rethinking of the role of comets in the delivery of organic compounds to the evolving Earth.

Option D -

Last year, in full view of ground- and space-based telescopes, a comet's spectacular disintegration provided new insights into how comets form and thus possibly forcing

The original version is correct and Option D is wrong (apart from other obvious errors) also because of " in full view of ground- and space-based telescopes"

Rephrased sentence looks like this -

Last yea, a comet's spectacular disintegration provided new insights , in full view of ground- and space-based telescopes, into how comets form and thus possibly forcing

WRONG because of

Comet's spectacular disintegration in full view of telescopes provided insights

not because

The insights were provided in in full view of ground- and space-based telescopes

Instructors please correct me if Im wrong.

[RonPurewal]

jp, if prep phrase + comma comes BEFORE a clause, then it should modify the whole clause.
if it comes after, then it could modify the whole clause, but it could also just modify the last noun. in that case, context is king.

Last yea, a comet's spectacular disintegration provided new insights , in full view of ground- and space-based telescopes, into how comets form and thus possibly forcing

WRONG because of

Comet's spectacular disintegration in full view of telescopes provided insights

not because

The insights were provided in in full view of ground- and space-based telescopes

Instructors please correct me if Im wrong.

i'm sorry, but i don't understand what you are asking here. it would help if you asked an explicit question (that is one sentence long and ends with a question mark).

thanks

[jp.jprasanna]

jp, if prep phrase + comma comes BEFORE a clause, then it should modify the whole clause.
if it comes after, then it could modify the whole clause, but it could also just modify the last noun. in that case, context is king.

thanks

Hi Ron - Is my below re-phrased version of the answer correct? (marked in bold)


If you have COMMA + PREP it should apply to both the subject and action of the clause that the prep phrase is attached to for example in this quetion :

The state has proposed new rules that would set minimum staffing levels for nurses, with the intent of ensuring that blah blah -

The above bold Should make sense with the sub and its verb so we can mentally rephrase and check whether it makes sense

The state has proposed new rules, with the intent of ensuring that blah blah, that would set minimum staffing levels for nurses.. - Makes sense meaning wise and also grammatically hence correct.

[jlucero]

JP- you're trying to rephrase an incorrect answer choice. The correct answer here is (A). There are a number of issues with (D) which are referenced on the first page of this thread.

[nowwithgmat]

sorry but having read all the posts in this thread, i still have a problem about option D.

in D, "with the intent of blah blah blah",we know that,in general, COMMA+ PREPOSITION should be an adverbial modifier and modifies the preceding clause.

questions:
1.in this PREP problem, in option D, does the rule mentioned above still apply here?

2.i know that COMMA verbING is also a adverbial modifier and modifies the preceding clause,moreover, the action of the verbING should apply to the subject of the preceding clause.
i wonder,in term of the COMMA PREPOSITION,such as WITH phrases, does the phrase apply to the subject of the preceding clause too?
and if so, then in this problem in option D,"with the intent of blah blah blah" means that the subject of the main clause--->the states are the real ones that are with the intention of blah blah blah??

Ron and experts,please make the questions clear.
and thank you very much.

hello ron

you give an example

a couple of decades ago most college football teams played a very defensive game, with the purpose of running down the clock, but this strategy has become obsolete in today's fast-paced, more offensively oriented game

can you please show how underline portion is correct here.

also asking help about the quoted question..
thanx

[zhongshanlh]

Hi,Ron and Manhattan experts, i would like to more about COMMA+with

as u said, when we have with before a comma, the with phrase functions as an adverbial modifier and modifies the whole following clause.
that clear.

when we have COMMA+with, the with phrase can either function as an adverbial modifier or a noun modifier,decided by the context.

however, what i want to know is when the with phrase is placed after a comma and modifies the whole preceding clause, does the phrase have to apply to the subject of the clause,just as the COMMA+verbING ???
it will be so kind of u if u could provide us some examples and elaborate the question.
thank u in advance.

[tim]

if a modifier applies to a whole clause, then by definition it does not have to apply specifically to the subject. as for examples, perhaps you can look through the materials you have to find examples on your own of where this concept is applied. it will be much more helpful to discuss these ideas in the context of actual problems..

[jyothi h]

hmm, it appears that there's some misinformation in the previous posts on this thread.

* in choice (d), there's not a problem with the "that" modifier.
such modifiers can be, and often are, placed at a certain distance from what they modify -- as long as the meaning is clear and the sentence can't be interpreted in any other reasonable way.
for a solid example showing that this modifier is not the problem, check out #50 in the DIAGNOSTIC verbal section (*not* #50 in the normal SC chapter) of og11, og12, or og13. (the diagnostic chapter is identical in all three editions.)

* "ensure" does not take the command subjunctive.

in general, the command subjunctive is used for three types of situations:
-- commands/demands (your contract stipulates that you be on time every day),
-- requests (i would like to ask that you be on time),
-- statements of importance (it is imperative that you be on time every day).

"ensure", which is not one of these, just uses normal indicative verbs. (to ensure that you are on time to the meeting, please allow extra time for traffic delays.)

--

regarding choice (d), there are basically 2 issues:

1/
the simultaneous use of "ensure" and "should" is redundant;

2/
the placement of "in a hospital emergency room" is sort of weird. at first glance it seems to indicate that the emergency room itself is put through triage. even upon rejecting this interpretation, it doesn't convey the idea that the patients are actually put through triage in the emergency room (= definitely the intended meaning in the original sentence).

Hi Ron,

I believe the usage of "that" in option D is still an issue , even if it is followed by plural "are" , because it would now refer to patients , and as per my understanding , "that" cannot be used to refer to people ?
Request you to correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks in advance!

[thanghnvn]

"with+phrase" is a preposition which can modify a noun or a verb/clause. when it modifies a noun, it should be close to that noun.

when if modifies a verb. there is a problem.

- it modify a verb and associate with the subject of that verb. consider:
with good spirit, I learn gmat. (I have good spirit)

- it modifies a verb/clause but is in absolute phrase. absolute phrase provides context for main clause and may not associate with the subject of the subject. absolute structure can be created from 2 separate sentences.

he play. I learn gmat

I learn gmat, (with) he playing.

(we can keep or omit "with")

[RonPurewal]

I believe the usage of "that" in option D is still an issue , even if it is followed by plural "are" , because it would now refer to patients , and as per my understanding , "that" cannot be used to refer to people ?
Request you to correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks in advance!

no.
i'll repeat my earlier exhortation: check out #50 in the OG diagnostic-test chapter, in which exactly the same type of modifier is used in a correct answer.

[ningli_21]

I thought this is an example for appositives. If not please let me know.

this is correct; the modifier here is an appositive modifier (a noun that describes the idea of the previous clause).

the rules for such modifiers are somewhat flexible, but are usually divided on the basis of whether the appositive noun is concrete or abstract.

Ron, shouldn't this be a resumptive modifier instead of an appositive modifier?

[tim]

how does that matter? remember, sentence correction is about knowing what to DO with a sentence, not knowing a bunch of obscure terms. so the question you asked is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate how it impacts our approach to the sentence..

[ningli_21]

Tim your response makes me frown, did you really just type all that? I did not question about YOU or any other MGMAT staffs' approach to the question, but rather trying to understand a term that was mentioned in Ron's original post. Use an incorrect term maybe irrelevant to you but it is relevant to me for understanding the concept.

[tim]

Ron would tell you the exact same thing I have, namely that knowing obscure terms is far less important than knowing what to do in a particular situation. The specific term you use is objectively irrelevant as long as you recognize what category the situation falls into and process the sentence accordingly. Call the term whatever you want, as long as you know what to do with those words when you see them! :)

[SC312]

Ron,

Can we eliminate options B) and C ) on the basis that ensure/ensuring should be followed by that since we need to refer to the idea of "atleast one nurse is assigned for every four patients put through triage ..." and not just the noun nurse.

Thanks