A study of food resources in the North Pacific between 1989

[uae918]

choice b features the standard use of a prepositional phrase as an adverb modifier:
'(possibly) as a result of', like other prepositional phrases that follow commas, serves to modify the action of the preceding clause (i.e., were dwindling). this is totally standard usage, so make sure you know it.

I understand that any prepositional phrase that either follow comma or doesn't follow comma serves to modify the action of the preceding clause.

nope. some of them do, but some of them act as adjectival modifiers (i.e., modifying nouns). this totally depends on context; there's no formula based on parts of speech alone.

for instance:
I went to see the royal palace in Brussels. --> in this case, "in Brussels" modifies just "the royal palace", not the whole clause.
I went to see the royal palace in 1995. --> in this case, "in 1995" modifies the whole clause.

e.g. both below mentioned sentences are correct wherein in both 'possibly as a result of an' is modifying the preceding clause.

creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, possibly as a result of an increase in temperature

creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling possibly as a result of an increase in temperature

Am i correct?

the second is wrong. if you modify the prepositional phrase itself with an adverb, then you must place a comma beforehand.

Hi Ron,

Sorry for asking another question on such an old thread. I think I'm seeing some conflicting messages from you regarding the usage of prepositional phrases and got kind of confused, so I want to confirm with you...

You mentioned above that and I quoted, "the second is wrong. if you modify the prepositional phrase itself with an adverb, then you must place a comma beforehand." Can you please elaborate on this? I remember seeing in the thread (link below) you mentioned that prepositional phrase (without comma) can modify either a noun or an action
(https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 26-45.html)

If prepositional phrase without comma can be used as an adv modifier, then why the "as a result of" can only be seen as adj modifier in this sentence "creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling possibly as a result of an increase in temperature"? Especially "as a result of" is actually closer to the action "were dwindling" than the noun "food supplies"

Many thanks!

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I can't ask Ron to clarify this point as he doesn't work on these forums any more. However, I've read through the above thread and I can say with confidence that these rules about prepositional phrases are much more complicated than anything you need to know for GMAT. Genuinely, so long as you can (1) recognize a prepositional phrase and (2) appreciate that the meaning of prepositional phrases often depends on their location in a sentence, you'll be fine for GMAT. The precise rules about how prepositional phrases function and where comma placement should be are simply too complicated to be worth your while knowing.

[ScottD643]

I’m not sure if I can link to the question, even though it was discussed previously on this thread (*see* “Stacy’s Rule”, first page, about 3 or 4 posts down).

I will attempt to make my own sentence with respect to the guideline mentioned in hopes of relaying my question.

‘Following diminishing work hours available to employees, the union staged a strike.”

I was under the impression that “following” is similiar, in its use, to a Preposition (I believe some grammarians may refer to “following” as a preposition).

As such, I viewed the question cited (as well as my best attempt at creating my own sentence) as an error in the construction of a prepositional phrase.

The union did not stage the strike “following work hours.” The union staged a strike following the DECREASE in work hours made available.

I tend to see these errors akin to a Fused Participle error.

Regardless of the formal grammar terms, would you say that this is a proper explanation of what is going on in my sentence and the cited problem?

I believe another example shows up in this problem in the thread.

“_____ , resulting FROM increasing sea surface temperatures ….”

“Increasing” seems to be, more or less, an adjective. The true object of the preposition is “sea surface temperatures.” As such, the construction is illogical. Nothing resulted “from sea surface temperatures.”

If anything, there was a result “from an INCREASE in sea surface temperatures .”

My question is the following:

Is the above the correct line of reasoning with respect to this issue?

And to the extent that you can talk about the question cited in the Stacy’s Rule Post, would you say that something similar is happening there as well?

Many thanks in advance and all the best!

[Whit Garner]

‘Following diminishing work hours available to employees, the union staged a strike.”

The union did not stage the strike “following work hours.” The union staged a strike following the DECREASE in work hours made available...would you say that this is a proper explanation of what is going on in my sentence and the cited problem?

I would say that your explanation uses solid logic in terms of meaning - I wouldn't worry about the technical terminology

“_____ , resulting FROM increasing sea surface temperatures ….”

“Increasing” seems to be, more or less, an adjective. The true object of the preposition is “sea surface temperatures.” As such, the construction is illogical. Nothing resulted “from sea surface temperatures.”

If anything, there was a result “from an INCREASE in sea surface temperatures .”

Is the above the correct line of reasoning with respect to this issue? And to the extent that you can talk about the question cited in the Stacy’s Rule Post, would you say that something similar is happening there as well?

Your logic IS correct! Nice work making the connections!

[ScottD643]

A much overdue and belated thank you!

‘Following diminishing work hours available to employees, the union staged a strike.”

The union did not stage the strike “following work hours.” The union staged a strike following the DECREASE in work hours made available...would you say that this is a proper explanation of what is going on in my sentence and the cited problem?

I would say that your explanation uses solid logic in terms of meaning - I wouldn't worry about the technical terminology

“_____ , resulting FROM increasing sea surface temperatures ….”

“Increasing” seems to be, more or less, an adjective. The true object of the preposition is “sea surface temperatures.” As such, the construction is illogical. Nothing resulted “from sea surface temperatures.”

If anything, there was a result “from an INCREASE in sea surface temperatures .”

Is the above the correct line of reasoning with respect to this issue? And to the extent that you can talk about the question cited in the Stacy’s Rule Post, would you say that something similar is happening there as well?

Your logic IS correct! Nice work making the connections!