Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of...

[Samantha]

Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.
a. same
b. the intention of which is
c. intended
d. and intending
e. so intended as

OA: C

Further questions...
1. Is A wrong because it's wordy?
2. For C, is the phrase "intended to turn in good results..." modifying mutual funds or portfolios??

Thanks a bunch.

[Selvae]

A is wrong not because it is wordy but because it changes the meaning.

The subject here Portfolios - which is created and intented to make money.

So C

[kylo]

i think Selvae is correct.
A changes the intended meaning of the sentence.
A gives the impression that the portfolios have the intention to turn in good result but it is the Asset allocators who have the required intention.

hence IMO C is correct.


Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

i think Selvae is correct.
A changes the intended meaning of the sentence.
A gives the impression that the portfolios have the intention to turn in good result but it is the Asset allocators who have the required intention.

hence IMO C is correct.


Thanks!

yes, (a) implies that the allocators themselves, not the portfolios, will turn in good results. that doesn't make sense.

moreover, "intention to turn in..." is suboptimal idiomatic usage. the preferred idiom is "intention of turning in...".

[hberens18]

i think Selvae is correct.
A changes the intended meaning of the sentence.
A gives the impression that the portfolios have the intention to turn in good result but it is the Asset allocators who have the required intention.

hence IMO C is correct.


Thanks!

yes, (a) implies that the allocators themselves, not the portfolios, will turn in good results. that doesn't make sense.

moreover, "intention to turn in..." is suboptimal idiomatic usage. the preferred idiom is "intention of turning in...".

One last time for clarification....
Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.

",...with the intention to turn in..." Does this phrase refer to Asset allocators OR portfolios??

[chuckberry007]

Hi

Why C is correct? intended is past tense, the sentence does not indicate past tense or passive voice such as "is intended to make money"? Why choice D is also wrong?


thanks.

[RonPurewal]

",...with the intention to turn in..." Does this phrase refer to Asset allocators OR portfolios??

if it follows a comma, as it would here, it applies to the subject of the preceding clause.

i.e., it would apply to the allocators themselves, as i mentioned in my post above.
therefore incorrect.

[RonPurewal]

Hi

Why C is correct? intended is past tense, the sentence does not indicate past tense or passive voice such as "is intended to make money"? Why choice D is also wrong?


thanks.

"intended" is not past tense. it's a past participle, much like "thrown" or "taken". (as opposed to the actual past tense, which would be like "threw" or "took")
therefore, yes, this is a passive-voice construction.

it's like saying
the gold, taken from the tomb of Pharaoh X, ...
...which would also be OK.

this is a tough distinction, because, for any verb with a regular past participle (i.e., ending in -ed), the two forms look exactly the same, and therefore can only be distinguished by context.

--

(d) is wrong because "and intending..." must be parallel to something.
when a participle is used alone like that, it functions as an adjective, and so must be parallel to another adjective (or adjective phrase).
therefore, it is by default parallel to "in the form of mutual funds".
this would mean that it applies to the portfolios themselves.
this is problematic, because the portfolios aren't intending anything.

[chuckberry007]

Thanks Ron,

Just to clarify, it should be "intended" by someone or something for the passive construction right? I do know the following construction:

"the gold, taken from the tomb of Pharaoh X, ..." as taken is a form of action. Is intended also a form of action and we can use in passive construction as well?


"(d) is wrong because "and intending..." must be parallel to something.
when a participle is used alone like that, it functions as an adjective, and so must be parallel to another adjective (or adjective phrase)."

I dont really understand this part. Can you post an example?

Thanks a million!

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron,

Just to clarify, it should be "intended" by someone or something for the passive construction right? I do know the following construction:

"the gold, taken from the tomb of Pharaoh X, ..." as taken is a form of action. Is intended also a form of action and we can use in passive construction as well?

well, yes, it needs to be someone's intention.
just whose intention, though, doesn't need to be explicitly stated. (this is the beauty of the passive voice; agents need not be named, if their identity is irrelevant or unknown.)
similarly, you can talk about "gold taken from the tomb of pharaoh X" without naming the person who took it (if that person's identity is even known).

"(d) is wrong because "and intending..." must be parallel to something.
when a participle is used alone like that, it functions as an adjective, and so must be parallel to another adjective (or adjective phrase)."

I dont really understand this part. Can you post an example?

Thanks a million!

sure.

the company ramped up production of its budget computer, aiming to sell it in europe and intending to market it to downmarket consumers
--> correct. here, "aiming" and "intending" are parallel, as they should be (two simultaneous intentions of the company).

the company aims to sell the computer in europe and intending to market it to downmarket consumers
--> incorrect. you can't place the participle "intending" in parallel to the verb "aims".

[rohit21384]

Mutual funds can also be antecedent of intended in option C ?
Past particle with comma refers to closest noun on left....

In this sentence, non essential modifier "often in the form of mutual funds "is coming in between, my question is do we have to remove it and then see the immediate noun on left ?

In other words,
X,non essential modifier of X , past particle y (modifier)

now what past particle y will modify ?
is there any rule etc?

[RonPurewal]

In other words,
X,non essential modifier of X , past particle y (modifier)

now what past particle y will modify ?
is there any rule etc?

this is a really good question. in this case, unfortunately, it's going to depend on context.

the past participle (note spelling: participle, not particle - extremely important if you feel like googling these things) may modify X itself, or it may modify the noun at the end of the modifier. the only way to tell is via context.

in this case, you have two modifiers that are serving exactly the same function, i.e., modifying X (portfolios):
* often in the form of mutual funds
* intended to...
since there are two of them, you can't tag them both onto "portfolios" at the same time. therefore, you just have to make a decision about which one goes where.
in general, in cases like this, if one modifier is substantially shorter than the other one, you place it first.

[imhimanshujaggi]

Hi Ron ,

Could you please clarify the below part with an example?

Thanks !

In other words,

since there are two of them, you can't tag them both onto "portfolios" at the same time. therefore, you just have to make a decision about which one goes where.
in general, in cases like this, if one modifier is substantially shorter than the other one, you place it first.

[imhimanshujaggi]

HI MGMAT staff,

Can I safely assume that Past Participle cant modify Mutual funds since it is in non essential clause and therefore will modify portfolios only.

Can I take it as a rule.. otherwise please provide me a reasoning. I am not able to get the above comments posted by Ron.

Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.
a. same
b. the intention of which is
c. intended
d. and intending
e. so intended as

Thanks

[mschwrtz]

Can I take it as a rule.. otherwise please provide me a reasoning. I'm not sure that I follow this. You need a reason if there's no rule? I'll see what I can do.

Can I safely assume that Past Participle cant modify Mutual funds since it is in non essential clause and therefore will modify portfolios only.. Well, Ron suggested 'no, you can't assume that' when he wrote the past participle...may modify X itself, or it may modify the noun at the end of the modifier. the only way to tell is via context. That means that we know here that intended... modifies portfolios only because the other interpretation doesn't makes sense.

There may be an additional nuance here. If beginning of the non-essential clause is marked by a comma, then that clause ends when a second comma appears, or when the sentence ends, but not before.

This suggests that when a past participle follows a non-essential modifier set off by commas it modifies the noun at the end of that non-essential modifier. Here's a sentence in which the past participle reaches back over the non-essential modifier. Notice that the non-essential modifier is set off with commas.

Flyting is a Scots form of verbal combat, usually in verse, characterized by charges of perversity and cowardice.

It seems to me that characterized by... modifies combat.

Here's the same sentence without the second comma.

Flyting is a Scots form of verbal combat, usually in verse characterized by charges of perversity and cowardice.

It seems to me that characterized by... modifies verse.

Now, this is perfectly logical, but that doesn't mean that it's true of English, which is not always logical. After all, if a relative clause follows a non-essential modifier set of by commas, and if that non-essential modifier ends with a noun, we generally take the relative clause to modify that noun, and not to reach back over the clause. If English were logical, the same rule that applies to participial phrases would apply to relative clauses. But it doesn't.

So... show we a question where the difference we're chewing on is dispositive, and I'll chew on it some more.