After several years of rapid growth

[RonPurewal]

When "while" is used to indicate a contrast, it should ideally be used to indicate a contrast between two simultaneous things. (If you're contrasting things in different timeframes, there are plenty of other contrast signals that can be used instead.)

[Suapplle]

When "while" is used to indicate a contrast, it should ideally be used to indicate a contrast between two simultaneous things. (If you're contrasting things in different timeframes, there are plenty of other contrast signals that can be used instead.)

So,in choice A,does the "while" and "then" contradict with each other?

[Suapplle]

Hi,Ron,can we use the "while" as a split to eliminate choice A and choice B,because "the health company became one of the largest health care providers" and "proved unable to handle the increase" do not happen at the same time?besides, is "while" and "then" contrary to each other?please help,thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Hi,Ron,can we use the "while" as a split to eliminate choice A and choice B,because "the health company became one of the largest health care providers" and "proved unable to handle the increase" do not happen at the same time?besides, is "while" and "then" contrary to each other?please help,thanks!

In general, even when "while" is used to describe a contrast, it's normally limited to things that happen in the same timeframe. So, I'd agree with this elimination.

[Haibara]

When "while" is used to indicate a contrast, it should ideally be used to indicate a contrast between two simultaneous things. (If you're contrasting things in different timeframes, there are plenty of other contrast signals that can be used instead.)

Ron，I"˜ve looked up the word "then" in Webster. I think "then" here means "at that time" or "immediately or soon afterward". At the first sight, I thought the two actions "became..." and "proved..." occurred almost at the same time or with short interval. Also, in light of meaning, I could see no reason that "became one of the largest health care providers" must occur in different time period from "proved unable to handle the increase in business".
So, why can't we use "while" here ? It seems to me that it really meets the requirement of simultaneity.

[Haibara]

i am still confused about this issue here.
now i know why C is wrong because in C, the gerund "paying" is intended act as a noun whole the verb "pay" actually has a noun form"payment",so "payment" is required here,am i thinking right?
second, if we apply the rule mentioned above, then i can not understand why in choice D and E,we use "paying" rather than "payment", as we know that after the preposition"in", we need a noun??
pls explain the two questions to me and thank you so much!

the explanation is neither brief nor simple, but it can be found in the video dated feb. 16, 2012, here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm

Sorry, Ron, to post the issue of "Gerund" vs "Action Noun" again, considering the fact that so many students have posted it previously. However, their arguments are so convoluted that I have to sort the issue out on myself.

As you said in the recording, Gerund forms are used when the subject is directly involved. Since, here, "the health care company " is presented in the sentence and is directly involved in the action of paying, we should use "paying", rather than "the payment to " after "...behind in", correct? Because the subject --"the health care company " is clear, then "its" before "paying" in Choice C is unnecessary and thus incorrect.
My question here is about "its payment to..." in Choice A and B. In your recording, you only talked about the form like "the payment to ", which I clearly know is incorrect here, since the subject is directly involved. But what about the form like "its payment to"? Is it legitimate or equivalent to "paying"? Or generally speaking, is "poessessive+Action Noun+of/to" equivalent to corresponding "Simple Gerund"? Also, if the verb doesn't have a form of Action Noun, then the form "possessive + doing+ of/to" equals "doing"? It is so weird.
In OG12-118, the correct answer has "by human beings' burning of fossil fuels", which makes sense there.

Please help me out. Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

I don't know the terminology you're using "” even Google/the internet doesn't seem to know what "simple gerund" means "” so I'll answer what I understand to be the question.

Possessive + __ing does not treat the __ing as an ongoing process. It treats the __ing as a point event, usually to discuss its effects, consequences, or something similar. (I don't have access to the OG at the moment, but I would guess that any reference to "human beings' burning of fossil fuels" would have something to do with environmental consequences, and would have nottihng at all to do with the actual steps of the combustion process.)
We heard about your walking into the wrong bathroom yesterday. --> It's just a thing; it's not considered as a process. We heard about it. (Now we're making fun of you.)

[RonPurewal]

In + __ing has largely the same connotations (ongoing process, involvement of subject) as plain old "__ing", as described in the video.

E.g., if a company falls behind in paying certain debts, then the company (= subject) is directly involved in the ongoing process of paying the debts.

[Haibara]

👍 Ron.
Actually, I learned the term "Simple Gerund" and "Complex Gerund" from Chapter 11 of Manhattan GMAT 5 Ed SC Book on Page 218.
Anyway，your explanation above is clear enough.

On another note, I'm afraid you missed my first question prior to this one about Gerund and Action Noun. So I have to quote it here to make it visible.

When "while" is used to indicate a contrast, it should ideally be used to indicate a contrast between two simultaneous things. (If you're contrasting things in different timeframes, there are plenty of other contrast signals that can be used instead.)

Ron，I"˜ve looked up the word "then" in Webster. I think "then" here means "at that time" or "immediately or soon afterward". At the first sight, I thought the two actions "became..." and "proved..." occurred almost at the same time or with short interval. Also, in light of meaning, I could see no reason that "became one of the largest health care providers" must occur in different time period from "proved unable to handle the increase in business".
So, why can't we use "while" here ? It seems to me that it really meets the requirement of simultaneity.

[jlucero]

👍 Ron.
Actually, I learned the term "Simple Gerund" and "Complex Gerund" from Chapter 11 of Manhattan GMAT 5 Ed SC Book on Page 218.
Anyway，your explanation above is clear enough.

On another note, I'm afraid you missed my first question prior to this one about Gerund and Action Noun. So I have to quote it here to make it visible.

When "while" is used to indicate a contrast, it should ideally be used to indicate a contrast between two simultaneous things. (If you're contrasting things in different timeframes, there are plenty of other contrast signals that can be used instead.)

Ron，I"˜ve looked up the word "then" in Webster. I think "then" here means "at that time" or "immediately or soon afterward". At the first sight, I thought the two actions "became..." and "proved..." occurred almost at the same time or with short interval. Also, in light of meaning, I could see no reason that "became one of the largest health care providers" must occur in different time period from "proved unable to handle the increase in business".
So, why can't we use "while" here ? It seems to me that it really meets the requirement of simultaneity.

I think Ron exactly answered this question already. While is to describe things that happen concurrently; then is used to describe what happens afterwards. In this case, the company became large AND THEN (after it got large) couldn't handle the increase in business.

[Haibara]

Thanks, Joe and Ron.

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[Tadashi]

Hi Ron


if there exists a dedicated noun form of a word, then don't use a gerund if you can use that noun form instead.

e.g.
don't use "developing" as a gerund, since you can use "development".
don't use "paying" as a gerund, since you can use "payment".


I don't understand that.

why I can't use developing as a gerund.
for example.

Developing a financial model for estimating japan's stock market is hard for Tom, a junior student.


OHHH....i find a another question..

Developing a financial model to estimate japan's stock market is hard for Tom, a junior student.

are the 2 sentences exactly the same? why sometimes we use "to do". why sometimes we use "for doing" ?

DOMO ARIGATO.
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

Tadashi, I did a workshop on this topic. Check the workshop dated Feb. 16, 2012, here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm

In your examples, the __ing form is actually BETTER than the noun form, because your sentences specifically refer to someone's individual experience of doing something.
The noun form (development), on the other hand, is a general notion that is detached from anyone's specific experience of the process.

The rule you're citing is a grammatical rule. If you need something to be a noun, then the dedicated noun form is better than the __ing form.
For instance, if you have a choice between "development" and "developing" in parallel to a noun, then you should go with "development".

I go into this topic in considerable detail in the workshop cited above. Check it out.

[Tadashi]

thanks for providing this link.
gonna check it out.
Tadashi.