Because there are provisions.....

[RonPurewal]

about the OG question:

Could "applying" jump over the non-essential phrase starting with "which", if it made sense, and modify the clause "Many house builders offer".

the sentence is still nonsense with that interpretation -- obviously, house builders don't pay rent, so it makes no sense to say that house builders will "apply part of the rent" to something -- so it doesn't matter. you're talking about a choice between two nonsense interpretations.

more generally, if a sentence actually required this sort of "jump" to be interpreted correctly, then it would be a very badly written sentence.
GMAC's correct answers are not badly written sentences.

[RonPurewal]

and, finally, the sentence about crime and property values is not from GMAC.
(remember—official sentences are NEVER, EVER, EVER written in the first person. ANY sentence that contains "i", "me", "we", "our", etc. CANNOT be from GMAC.)

so, don't worry about that example. your general understanding of these modifiers appears to be ok, and that's all that matters. (your revision, by the way, turns that sentence into a fragment—it doesn't have a verb anymore.)

[RichaChampion]

also, here's some "extra credit" knowledge:
there ARE constructions that can stand for the abstract information in an entire clause (unlike pronouns, which are limited to standing for actual nouns). chief among these are the COMMA + NOUN modifiers.
however, the presence of "because" at the beginning of choice (d) would preclude the use of those modifiers as well.

here's an example:
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked most observers.
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y; this finding has shocked most observers.
--> both correct. note that "a finding", following the comma, or "this finding", standing alone after the semicolon, stands for the entirety of the clause that comes before it; you couldn't use "which" here, because "which" would automatically refer to Y.

If my understanding is correct "a finding" is an abstract noun. Since it is abstract in nature so instead of modifying the noun before the comma it modifies the entire preceding clause. jut like you gave an example of strategy in some other question.

This one -

"An appositive noun modifier, a type of modifier that NEVER appears in spoken language but that appears on the GMAT a lot. The reason is that, unlike relative pronouns such as 'which', these modifiers don't have to touch their referent.
For instance: The general tried to get his troops to retreat before being surrounded, a strategy that ultimately failed.
Exceptions - If you have an appositive modifier that's an abstract noun - such as "strategy", "figure", "statistic", "findings", "situation", "change", "difference", etc. - then such an appositive may be allowed to describe the entire situation described in the previous clause.
For instance, the example I gave above with "a strategy..."Also, for further examples, see #59 and #79 in the purple verbal supplement OG book."

[RichaChampion]

because studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, this finding has shocked most observers.
--> incorrect. the presence of "because" at the beginning of the first clause means you can't use "this finding" anymore.
i don't have any idea what the actual rule is here, but i do know with 100% certainty that these constructions are allowed and disallowed respectively.

Because introduces a subordinate clause. that means now we need a full clause(IC) apart from because one.

because studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, this finding has shocked most observers.

But the truth is that this one is not an IC separated by FANBOYS+COMMA -
this finding has shocked most observers.

So this creates a Run on sentence? Could this be a reason why this is incorrect?

[RonPurewal]

the problem with that sentence isn't grammatical. mechanically, that sentence is perfectly fine.

the problem is that it's either illogical or redundant, depending on how you process it.
it's hard to explain explicitly, but, here's an analogy that should make sense:
Because Casey is 7 feet tall, he scares small children. —> MAKES SENSE
Casey is 7 feet tall; his height scares small children. —> MAKES SENSE
Because Casey is 7 feet tall, his height scares small children. —> REDUNDANT / ILLOGICAL

hopefully, when you look at the third sentence in comparison to the first two, you can see why it just doesn't make sense.

that might be harder for you to pick out if you just saw the third sentence all by itself, but, that's the point -- YOU WON'T EVER see the sentences all by themselves!
don't forget that this is a multiple-choice test!

pretty much ALL issues of logic/meaning/placement are MUCH easier to identify when you are comparing choices against one another.

[JustinCKN]

I m stuck between B and D.

choice (d) uses "this" as a standalone pronoun. that's pretty much never acceptable in a formal written sentence.

if you're going to use "this", you should use it as an adjective: this thing, this finding, this statistic, etc.

--

also, here's some "extra credit" knowledge:
there ARE constructions that can stand for the abstract information in an entire clause (unlike pronouns, which are limited to standing for actual nouns). chief among these are the COMMA + NOUN modifiers.
however, the presence of "because" at the beginning of choice (d) would preclude the use of those modifiers as well.

here's an example:
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked most observers.
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y; this finding has shocked most observers.
--> both correct. note that "a finding", following the comma, or "this finding", standing alone after the semicolon, stands for the entirety of the clause that comes before it; you couldn't use "which" here, because "which" would automatically refer to Y.

because studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, this finding has shocked most observers.
--> incorrect. the presence of "because" at the beginning of the first clause means you can't use "this finding" anymore.
i don't have any idea what the actual rule is here, but i do know with 100% certainty that these constructions are allowed and disallowed respectively.

Hi Ron:
Can I write: "studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, this finding that has shocked most observers."

Thanks.
SIncerely.
JustinCKN

[RonPurewal]

no.

[JustinCKN]

Hi Ron:
Can I write: "studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, this finding that has shocked most observers."
no.

The reason that the sentence above is incorrect is whether "this finding" can not refer to a noun in the same clause ?

Thanks .
Sincerely
JustinCKN.

[RonPurewal]

that kind of modifier can't start with anything other than a/an/the (or a plural noun).

[JustinCKN]

Hi Ron:
Sorry to open the old post again.

I find out an example from your other thread :
a couple of decades ago most college football teams played a very defensive game, with the purpose of running down the clock, but this strategy has become obsolete in today's fast-paced, more offensively oriented game. - correct

But "studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, this finding that has shocked most observers." -incorrect.

What is the difference between the two sentence for usage of "this"?
Thanks .
JustinCKN.

[RonPurewal]

that former example is 2 different complete sentences, linked with "but".

as i mentioned in the post directly above, that kind of modifier can't start with anything other than a/an/the (or a plural noun).

why would you compare those 2 structures to each other? they're totally different -- one is 2 complete sentences connected by "but", while the other is just 1 sentence followed by a modifier.

[JustinCKN]

that former example is 2 different complete sentences, linked with "but".

as i mentioned in the post directly above, that kind of modifier can't start with anything other than a/an/the (or a plural noun).

why would you compare those 2 structures to each other? they're totally different -- one is 2 complete sentences connected by "but", while the other is just 1 sentence followed by a modifier.

Thanks for your detailed ,crystal, and BEAUTIFUL explanation.
JustinCKN.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[ZoeZ42]

here's an example:
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked most observers.
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y; this finding has shocked most observers.
--> both correct. note that "a finding", following the comma, or "this finding", standing alone after the semicolon, stands for the entirety of the clause that comes before it; you couldn't use "which" here, because "which" would automatically refer to Y.

Hi RON,
i have a doubt that whether "a finding...." can modify "Y",
when i read the example at first glance, my first thought is "a finding" modifies "Y", because "a finding" is a noun which modifies the immediately preceding noun Y, obviously,
i have no idea why the sentence that studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked most observers. is correct
it will be a great appreciate if you explain further and give me more examples.

thanks a lot.

have a nice day.
>_~

[ZoeZ42]

In the comma + __ing structure, the subject should be, among all possible nouns, the one most directly responsible for the "__ing" result.
However, the relation will usually still be indirect. (If the noun directly performs the action, then a normal subject+verb construction will almost always make more sense.)

E.g.,
Crime has decreased in our neighborhood, leading to an increase in property values.
—> The __ing makes sense with the action, but not with the subject.
Aggressive police patrols have decreased crime in our neighborhood, leading to an increase in property values.
—> This makes sense.
The police patrols didn't directly increase the property values—but they did so indirectly, by reducing crime.

Hi RON
I am confused.

according MANHATTAN PREP, sentence correcting, chapter 4, edition 6, Page 67

wrong: Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, WHICH had led to rise in property values.
Right: The recent decrease in crime in our neighborhood has led to a rise in property values.
Right: Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values. ---- > this one is correct , while it is not acceptable as your explanation.

please help...
thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~