Verb modifiers

[tim]

can you give us page numbers for the new version of the rule and the old version of the rule so we can take a look at the discrepancy and clarify things for you?

[ikuta.yamahashi]

can you give us page numbers for the new version of the rule and the old version of the rule so we can take a look at the discrepancy and clarify things for you?

Merry Christmas:

In the last paragraph on page 89 of new version Mgmat sc guide
"Infinitives of purpose can be used with unnamed agents in passive-voice sentences: The weight was lifted to free my leg. Just make sure that whoever does the lifting intends to free my leg. An Infinitive of Purpose needs to indicate the purpose of someone. The boulder rolled to free my leg implies nonsensically that the boulder wanted to free my leg."

I am sorry for not provide the page information of old version, because I don't have that version at hand. However, according to the original post of this thread, the quoted example is on page 90.

Many thanks

[jnelson0612]

Dear instructor:

I notice there is a revision on this point in the new sc stragegy guide.
But I am confused that why this sentence is acceptable?

Below quote is from 5eh Mgmat sc guide book:
Infinitives of purpose can be used with unnamed agents in passive-voice sentences: The weight was lifted to free my leg. Just make sure that whoever does the lifting intends to free my leg. An Infinitive of Purpose needs to indicate the purpose of someone. The boulder rolled to free my leg implies nonsensically that the boulder wanted to free my leg.

As I remember this sentence is a Wrong example in the old version.

Many thanks

Ikuta, yes. I am sure that our curriculum committee noticed a change in what the GMAT believes about this rule and adjusted the Strategy Guide accordingly from the last guide. I would always trust in whatever the most recent strategy guide says, and in this case that is Strategy Guide edition 5.

Thanks!

[ikuta.yamahashi]

Dear instructor:

I notice there is a revision on this point in the new sc stragegy guide.
But I am confused that why this sentence is acceptable?

Below quote is from 5eh Mgmat sc guide book:
Infinitives of purpose can be used with unnamed agents in passive-voice sentences: The weight was lifted to free my leg. Just make sure that whoever does the lifting intends to free my leg. An Infinitive of Purpose needs to indicate the purpose of someone. The boulder rolled to free my leg implies nonsensically that the boulder wanted to free my leg.

As I remember this sentence is a Wrong example in the old version.

Many thanks

Ikuta, yes. I am sure that our curriculum committee noticed a change in what the GMAT believes about this rule and adjusted the Strategy Guide accordingly from the last guide. I would always trust in whatever the most recent strategy guide says, and in this case that is Strategy Guide edition 5.

Thanks!

Thank you for your reply:

I also find another similar structure in Strategy Guide edition 5, but this time it is marked as WRONG.


Wrong: The building was demolished TO AVOID falling down accidentally.

The subject of the main verb was demolished is the noun building, which is also the implied subject of the infinitive to avoid. However, a building cannot avoid something intentionally. The sentence above is nonsensical.

What puzzled me is why above example is not acceptable, it seem contradict to below explaination for me. could you please help to explain?

Infinitives of purpose can be used with unnamed agents in passive-voice sentences: The weight was lifted to free my leg. Just make sure that whoever does the lifting intends to free my leg.

[jlucero]

It's a subtle difference for sure, but let's compare the two side by side and add the missing agent and his/her intention:

The boulder was lifted (by someone who wanted) to free my leg.

The building was demolished (by someone who wanted) to avoid falling down accidentally.

Notice how the first sentence makes complete sense. Someone wanted to free my leg.

When we try to make the same connection in the second sentence, we try to say: Someone wanted to avoid falling down accidentally. That isn't the intention here: "Infinitive of Purpose needs to indicate the purpose of someone."

A better sentence would be:

The building was demolished (by someone who wanted) to keep the building from falling down accidentally.

[ikuta.yamahashi]

It's a subtle difference for sure, but let's compare the two side by side and add the missing agent and his/her intention:

The boulder was lifted (by someone who wanted) to free my leg.

The building was demolished (by someone who wanted) to avoid falling down accidentally.

Notice how the first sentence makes complete sense. Someone wanted to free my leg.

When we try to make the same connection in the second sentence, we try to say: Someone wanted to avoid falling down accidentally. That isn't the intention here: "Infinitive of Purpose needs to indicate the purpose of someone."

A better sentence would be:

The building was demolished (by someone who wanted) to keep the building from falling down accidentally.

Thanks Joe.
But what is the diction difference(or meaning) between "to keep the building from falling" and that of "to avoid falling"? As a non-native the difference seems vague to me.

someone who wanted to keep the building from falling.
vs.
someone who wanted to avoid falling.

Is it wrong because the falling in the latter is dangling?

Yours
Ikuta

[tim]

it all has to do with who is going to be falling in each case. take a close look and see if you can tell who is falling in each of these examples..

[ikuta.yamahashi]

it all has to do with who is going to be falling in each case. take a close look and see if you can tell who is falling in each of these examples..

Cristal clear now, thanks
someone who wanted to keep the building from falling.
vs.
someone who wanted to avoid falling.
if we do not mention building explicitly, it will leave the reader to ask what will falling.

I find another similar official SC question on OG Verbal suplement.
I revise it a little.

...chalice, ..., was probably buried to keep from being
stolen by invaders.here if we don't mention the object of keep, it would be unclear what item being stolen by invaders.

Many thanks

[tim]

let us know if there are any further questions on this one..