As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed

[vaibhav_agarwal2002]

as far as HOW TO SPLIT, you'll notice that i've given several different angles from which to approach this one.
there aren't really genuine "splits" - i.e., easily identifiable points of divergence between clearly parallel items - so you just have to try to identify any of the multitude of errors present.

As usual
AWESOME Explanation man!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ron thank god you are not a CEO of a big MNC
having you on mgmat is a great opportunity for avg people like me
god bless ya

[RonPurewal]

Ron thank god you are not a CEO of a big MNC

i would be a very, very bad ceo of a multinational.

[sushmit]

Lets try to break this sentence up:

The Honeybee's stinger stays where it inserted, with the result that....

doesnt it say that the stinger stays with the result?

[vsatish_chandra]

Can we eliminate answer choice A also because the modifier 'staying where it is inserted' is written as a non-essential modifier, i.e., within commas?

"....heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this.... "

I think 'staying where it is inserted' is an essential modifier since without that the sentence would not fully convey the reason for the honeybee's death.

Is this correct?

[RonPurewal]

Can we eliminate answer choice A also because the modifier 'staying where it is inserted' is written as a non-essential modifier, i.e., within commas?

"....heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this.... "

I think 'staying where it is inserted' is an essential modifier since without that the sentence would not fully convey the reason for the honeybee's death.

Is this correct?

it isn't, really; the difference between "no comma -ING" and "comma -ING" is much bigger than just essential versus nonessential.
more to the point, though, the essential/nonessential modifier difference is not tested on this exam, so it isn't worth worrying about.

if you are interested in the proper use of "comma -ING", you can check out this thread:
post46255.html#p46255
note that there's also another thread linked in that post, too -- two whole threads of joy!

[sairamramkumar]

Ron,

Please find my question below these sentences :

i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
--> i've never heard of bees
doesn't make sense anymore. wrong.

..results in the act of stinging causing...
--> ..results in the act of stinging
doesn't makes sense anymore. wrong.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
--> i have a picture of my cousin.
still makes sense, so this one is ok.


By giving these sentences you mean to say that those sentences that give proper meaning till a point,for example,

results in the act of stinging causing

here we need to consider only till "results in the act of stinging" and check whether the sentence makes any sense.

But in the sentence ,i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey , since we get a proper meaning we are assuming the sentence structure is correct.

Am I making sense here :)


Thanks,
Sairam

[padurar2009]

I think it should be seen more easily. In nature everything is easier. We humans try to complicate everything. Bees have their role for centuries, and we try to use them even phrases. Try to respect more. Then you will understand the meaning.

[tim]

Ron,
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
--> i've never heard of bees
doesn't make sense anymore. wrong.

you have changed the meaning to something that is illogical, but that isn't the point. the point is "i've never heard of bees" is grammatically correct, and that's what you should concentrate on in removing modifiers. furthermore, there is nothing that unilaterally doesn't make sense about "i've never heard of bees"; there could conceivably be a person somewhere in the world who hasn't heard of bees.. :)

[davetzulin]

E. The honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes

Tim or Ron I have a few questions,

(1). to clarify, is the bolded prepositional phrase a adverbial prep modifier modifying the previous clause "stinger is heavily barbed and stays..." ?

(2). "with" should only be followed by noun phrases according to what Ron said in another thread. So "with + noun + relative pronoun" is OK? I'm a bit confused between:

"with the result being" <-- incorrect since it has a verb-ing
"with the result that" <--- correct since it is using a relative pronoun?

then what constitutes a noun phrase?

(3). although this appears in every answer choice "the result" and then "causes" seems redundant.

(4). "i have an interest in cats meowing"

it makes logical sense that "i have an interest in cats, but i really want to say I have an interest in the meowing of the cats. kind of like a complex gerund phrase. is that example ok?

[tim]

(1) I would say it is okay to classify the prepositional phrase this way, if you need to give it a name..

(2) Don't worry about what is called a "noun phrase"; the important thing is that the phrase starting with "that" is modifying "result". IF you want a label, "that" is a relative pronoun that introduces a subordinate clause. This is perfectly fine in a prepositional phrase..

(3) I disagree that there is any redundancy. Each word is being used, at least in the correct answer, in a way that makes sense and is relevant to the sentence as a whole..

(4) If you have an interest in meowing and not in cats, then "cats" shouldn't be a noun here. If "cats" remains as a noun, it makes no sense for "meowing" also to be a noun, which forces it to be an adjective and forces you to be interested in cats. :) To fix this, change it to "cats' meowing"; now "cats'" is a possessive adjective describing the meowing, the thing you're really interested in..

[davetzulin]

Tim,

really really great answers. though I need to clarify on (2)

the problem with "with" was from this post by Ron:

also, the way the gmat uses 'with ...', it must be followed by a noun or noun equivalent. so, for instance, you could say 'with her 15 recordings', but you can't say 'with her 15 recordings disappointing...' (which is no longer a noun phrase).

'with her 15 recordings disappointing' just looks like "with + noun + modifier". It seems incorrect to me only because the "recordings" are doing the verb-ing "disappointing", but I don't believe that was Ron's intention with that example.

then in our example:

"with the result being"
"with the result that"

both cases look like:

"with + noun + modifier"

how come a present participle modifier is not OK, but a relative pronoun modifier is OK modifying a noun following with?

thanks again Tim

[RonPurewal]

"with" occupies a rather special place in the hearts of gmac's problem writers. in other words, "with" is NOT used like other prepositions, and so, accordingly, there are some unique points to absorb about its use.

the clearest example of this special usage is in the non-underlined part of og12 problem 29:
with individual bulls and cows receiving awards, fetching unprecedented prices, and exciting enormous interest

this usage directly violates the principles for the use of other prepositions.
specifically, "with + noun + VERBing" is allowed even though the VERBing, rather than the noun, is the intended object of "with". (i.e., in the sentence above, prize-stock breeding was not "with bulls and cows" -- it was specifically with prizes awarded to these animals.)

this is veeeerrry interesting, since other prepositions definitely CANNOT be used in the same way.
for instance, i've never heard of people biting dogs is incorrect, because it implies that i've "never heard of the people", rather than the act of biting as intended. (one could write i've never heard that people have bitten dogs instead.)

a similar usage can be found in og12 #23, with an __ED instead of an __ING modifier ("with its weight concentrated...")

__


in conclusion:
"with" has its own special set of rules, independent of (and contradictory to) the rules for other pronouns.
be careful!

[agarwalmanoj2000]

"first off, the construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN. (that isn't usually the case, so, if you're in doubt, you should strike choices with this sort of construction.)

for instance:
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
WRONG. this is not an issue of whether you've heard of bees themselves; it's an issue of whether you've heard of their stinging dogs.

...results in the act of stinging causing...
WRONG. this doesn't result in the act of stinging itself; it results in what is caused by the act of stinging.

Please advise how to identify whether preposition refers directly to the NOUN or not?

if you have "preposition + NOUN + VERBing", then "VERBing" is just a modifier, and can be dropped without changing the surrounding grammar.
therefore, the sentence should still make sense, in context, if you write it as just "preposition + NOUN", without the "VERBing" modifier.
therefore, the sentence at hand can be reduced to "... results in the act of stinging".
that's incorrect -- the act of stinging is not the result here; the fact that the stinger is heavily barbed does not cause the actual act of stinging.

go ahead and apply this principle to the examples above:

i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
--> i've never heard of bees
doesn't make sense anymore. wrong.

..results in the act of stinging causing...
--> ..results in the act of stinging
doesn't makes sense anymore. wrong.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
--> i have a picture of my cousin.
still makes sense, so this one is ok.

1)
He is CEO of an MNC soaring quickly.
He is CEO of an MNC. << Right makes sense

2)
I saw a bird sitting on the man standing out.
I saw a bird sitting on the man << Right makes sense

3)
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
i've never heard of bees << Right makes sense

4)
Retailers reported loss, because of their sales being bad.
Retailers reported loss, because of their sales << Right makes sense

5)
Retailers reported loss, because of their sales having been bad.
Retailers reported loss, because of their sales << Right makes sense

I am removing the VERBING modifier in all 5 sentences. All make sense and appear correct to me, but I guess based on other post last three are incorrect.

I do not know why last 3 are incorrect and how to differentiate right and wrong cases.

Please advice.

Thank you in advance.

[aps_asks]

Very Good Explanation provided by Ron....Initially in this post !

[davetzulin]

thanks again Ron,

So "I've never heard of bees stinging dogs"
should be
"I've never heard that bees sting dogs"

How about this? "I've never heard of bees that sting dogs", i'm guessing this is still wrong.

so in summary is preposition + noun + verbing almost always incorrect? the case you mentioned:

"there is a picture of Tom sleeping"

seems pretty rare on gmat problems anyway.