another prep sc

[chedan-ing]

hi! Ron and Tim~

i have a question about the verb tense here in choice C. i think the usage of past perfect is justified, since, " until the end of....."indicates a past tense, and the " remain...." happend before " until the end of.....". so we need a past perfect to indicate " remain..." happens right before "until the end of.....".
please correct me if i'm wrong.
thanks~

[RonPurewal]

hi! Ron and Tim~

i have a question about the verb tense here in choice C. i think the usage of past perfect is justified, since, " until the end of....."indicates a past tense, and the " remain...." happend before " until the end of.....". so we need a past perfect to indicate " remain..." happens right before "until the end of.....".
please correct me if i'm wrong.
thanks~

no, because there's no context at the end of the century to which the "remaining" is relevant.

analogy:

I was a high-school teacher until 2004.
this makes sense all by itself.

I had been a high-school teacher until 2004.
alone, this is nonsense; it doesn't work unless i provide further context, i.e., something that happened in 2004 (or later) to which my tenure as a high-school teacher was directly relevant.

[duyng9989]

[quote="RonPurewal"]pooja is right on. make sure you get the takeaway here: in the case of an initial subject-less modifier in front of a comma, the modifier should always be followed IMMEDIATELY by the noun / noun phrase that's being modified.
there should not be any intervening constructions such as the prepositional phrase that appears here. totally unacceptable.

--
Hi.

Sometimes, I see GMAT accepts two modifiers in in front.

Eg: In her book illustrations, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives, Beatrix Potter capitalized on her keen observation and love of the natural world. (Correct one)

(I don't quote the whole sentence because it is from OG). I just want to mention the case. Ron/Tim you can delete my post if it still violate the rule of quoting OG source :D.

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

Sometimes, I see GMAT accepts two modifiers in in front.

Eg: In her book illustrations, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives, Beatrix Potter capitalized on her keen observation and love of the natural world. (Correct one)

this is not really two initial modifiers; it's really one initial modifier, with another modifier embedded inside it,
i.e.
(In her book illustrations(, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives),) Beatrix Potter...

in other words, that's just the green modifier. the purple modifier modifies something in the green one -- not "Beatrix Potter" -- so the complaint of "two initial modifiers" is not valid here.

if you don't see what i mean, try taking away the purple modifier. that works, right? so, the green one (which would still be there) must really be an initial modifier describing beatrix potter.
on the other hand, try taking away the green modifier -- if you do that, then the purple one has to disappear along with it.

when we say "don't use two initial modifiers", we are talking about something like this:
Coming home from school, riding my bike, I was knocked down by the wind.
here, "coming home from school" and "riding my bike" are both genuinely initial modifiers, attempting to describe "I".

(I don't quote the whole sentence because it is from OG).

actually, yeah, you wrote the whole sentence. (: that sure looks like a complete sentence to me.

(I understand that you meant "I'm not quoting the whole problem with answer choices"; i'm just being sort of a jerk)

[cshen02]

Sometimes, I see GMAT accepts two modifiers in in front.

Eg: In her book illustrations, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives, Beatrix Potter capitalized on her keen observation and love of the natural world. (Correct one)

this is not really two initial modifiers; it's really one initial modifier, with another modifier embedded inside it,
i.e.
(In her book illustrations(, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives),) Beatrix Potter...

in other words, that's just the green modifier. the purple modifier modifies something in the green one -- not "Beatrix Potter" -- so the complaint of "two initial modifiers" is not valid here.

if you don't see what i mean, try taking away the purple modifier. that works, right? so, the green one (which would still be there) must really be an initial modifier describing beatrix potter.
on the other hand, try taking away the green modifier -- if you do that, then the purple one has to disappear along with it.

when we say "don't use two initial modifiers", we are talking about something like this:
Coming home from school, riding my bike, I was knocked down by the wind.
here, "coming home from school" and "riding my bike" are both genuinely initial modifiers, attempting to describe "I".

(I don't quote the whole sentence because it is from OG).

actually, yeah, you wrote the whole sentence. (: that sure looks like a complete sentence to me.

(I understand that you meant "I'm not quoting the whole problem with answer choices"; i'm just being sort of a jerk)

Thanks Ron for making the modifier thing clearer.
Also for the modifying issue, I have the sentence below
XYZ, in her illustrations, carefully coordinated them with narratives and capitalized on her keen observation and love :)
Someone says the " coordinated" seems to modify "her illustrations", I just don't see it that way.

[RonPurewal]

Ok, here's the deal with sentences like that: When modifiers are separated by commas, they're not part of the core of the sentence. In other words, the sentence has the same meaning"”though with less descriptive detail"”if they are removed.

For instance,
My room is behind the third door, which is painted green.
--> My room is door #3. I'm just noting that it's green to help you find it, but it's the third door, regardless of whether the modifier is there.

Vs.
My room is behind the third door that is painted green.
--> My room is the third green door. It may be door #99, but it's the third door that is green.
Note that it's impossible to remove this modifier without corrupting the sentence. The resulting sentence will still be grammatically sound, but it will say something altogether different.

That's the background.

Once you understand that, you can see what the issue is with the sentence you quoted. Specifically, references should still make sense if modifiers between commas are taken out.
Try removing the modifier there. See what happens to the pronoun.

This will never be the only thing wrong with a sentence, but it's a thing.

[RonPurewal]

(It's an extremely minor thing, too"”the sentence you quoted is actually the only GMAC sentence I've ever seen to which it's relevant.)

[cshen02]

(It's an extremely minor thing, too"”the sentence you quoted is actually the only GMAC sentence I've ever seen to which it's relevant.)

:) I see. My sentence just doesn't work when the non essential modifier is taken out...the pronoun refers to nothing then.

[RonPurewal]

Pretty much.

Remember, though"”Don't pay attention to tiny nuances at the expense of major themes.
I've seen this happen too many times"”especially with students who've been studying for too long.
Having mastered the main principles, they dive headlong into little tiny nuances"”which appear on the test primarily to distract you"”to such an extent that they start forgetting to think about the main principles!

If that's starting to happen, it's time to take the test and get it over with.

[cshen02]

Pretty much.

Remember, though"”Don't pay attention to tiny nuances at the expense of major themes.
I've seen this happen too many times"”especially with students who've been studying for too long.
Having mastered the main principles, they dive headlong into little tiny nuances"”which appear on the test primarily to distract you"”to such an extent that they start forgetting to think about the main principles!

If that's starting to happen, it's time to take the test and get it over with.

Yeah! I will take it soon!

[RonPurewal]

Excellent.

[lemonperb]

Sometimes, I see GMAT accepts two modifiers in in front.

Eg: In her book illustrations, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives, Beatrix Potter capitalized on her keen observation and love of the natural world. (Correct one)

this is not really two initial modifiers; it's really one initial modifier, with another modifier embedded inside it,
i.e.
(In her book illustrations(, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives),) Beatrix Potter...

in other words, that's just the green modifier. the purple modifier modifies something in the green one -- not "Beatrix Potter" -- so the complaint of "two initial modifiers" is not valid here.

Hello Ron, I don't know if can I ask the question from OG here.

Original sentence:
In her book illustrations, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives, Beatrix Potter capitalized on her keen observation and love of the natural world.

My question is: Can I move "Beatrix Potter" to the beginning of the sentence? So the sentence will go like:
Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives, capitalized on her keen observation and love of the natural world.

Will the changed sentence be wrong because "capitalize" will then modify the closet noun "her narratives", thus becoming ambiguous?

[RonPurewal]

"Capitalized" is a verb. Verbs are not modifiers. So, no.

That construction would technically be equivalent to the one with "In xxx" in front of Beatrix Potter. You wouldn't see it in a correct answer, though, because it's stylistically weird. (Style issues aren't tested.)

[HemantR606]

hi! Ron and Tim~

i have a question about the verb tense here in choice C. i think the usage of past perfect is justified, since, " until the end of....."indicates a past tense, and the " remain...." happend before " until the end of.....". so we need a past perfect to indicate " remain..." happens right before "until the end of.....".
please correct me if i'm wrong.
thanks~

no, because there's no context at the end of the century to which the "remaining" is relevant.

analogy:

I was a high-school teacher until 2004.
this makes sense all by itself.

I had been a high-school teacher until 2004.
alone, this is nonsense; it doesn't work unless i provide further context, i.e., something that happened in 2004 (or later) to which my tenure as a high-school teacher was directly relevant.

Hi Ron,

I found this sentence in 5th edition Manhattan SC guide (page 109):

"Right: By 1945, the United States HAD BEEN at war for several years."

I can't figure out the difference between the sentence above and the sentence you have quoted as nonsensical - I had been a high-school teacher until 2004..


Please help.


Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

"by 1945" is a totally different animal.
that construction is specifically used for exactly the same kinds of context where "has/have __ed" and "had __ed" are appropriate:
• completion of an action by a certain point
• ongoing action up to a certain point

this post contains a bit more detail about the intent of those two tenses. it goes well beyond what you need to know for this exam, but may nonetheless be illustrative.
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p58397