Building on civilizations that preceded them in coastal Peru

[kiranck007]

If you think about the meaning of the sentence, it's clear that it modifies "society". So, yes, you are wrong.

In general, the principle for anything that modifies nouns is, "Put it as close to the noun as possible".
In the case of noun-modifiers that come after commas, that generally means modifying either (a) the nearest available noun or (b) the nearest available noun+short modifier (e.g., noun+prep phrase).

In the problem at hand, this is a non-issue anyway, since the use of "and" is inappropriate (these are not 2 different things).

Thanks Ron. I understand that the modifier has to be close to the noun it modifies. Also, I think you also intended to convey from your first sentence that to ascertain a statement as grammatically correct, we also have to see whether the modifier is intended to modify the nearest noun or the one that is far. So, a sentence can be grammatically correct even if the modifier which comes after a comma meaningfully modifies the subject of the preceding sentence , even though, the subject ,noun, is far off. Please correct me I am wrong.

I don't think that's Ron's point here. He was looking at the sentence and trying to see whether the modifier should be talking about the Mochica or the society in order to see whether the modifier was in the correct place. Ron's point is that it's always best to place noun modifiers as near to the noun that it is supposed to modify as you possibly can. If the sentence intended to refer to the Mochica, the modifier should be moved, not that we should try to reason our way into thinking it should refer to something further away.

Hi, Joe. I took some time to do home work before replying to your reply. I understand what Ron and you are conveying. But, my concern is if "based...", a participial phrase, is modifying the society then there shouldn't have been a comma before "based...". Don't you think so? Here is the rule I am following - A participial phrase has to be preceded by a comma only if the participial phrase conveys the meaning of result or manner of action of the preceding clause or if the phrase is modifying a far noun. Else, no comma.

[RonPurewal]

If something is in one of GMAC's correct answers, then ... it's not wrong.

[bodhisattwabiswas]

past participles function as adjectives; they ALWAYS modify nouns. it's actually impossible for a past participle to modify a whole clause.

you're thinking of the rule for "clause + , + -ING", which doesn't extend to past participles.

thanks for the wonderful clarification...
So is it like --- 'comma + VERBed' always modifies the noun preceding it, unlike the 'comma + VERBing', which modifies the subject of the preceding clause?
And, is there any difference as modifier function between 'comma + VERBed' and 'VERBed (without comma)'?

[RonPurewal]

past participles function as adjectives; they ALWAYS modify nouns. it's actually impossible for a past participle to modify a whole clause.

you're thinking of the rule for "clause + , + -ING", which doesn't extend to past participles.

thanks for the wonderful clarification...
So is it like --- 'comma + VERBed' always modifies the noun preceding it, unlike the 'comma + VERBing', which modifies the subject of the preceding clause?
And, is there any difference as modifier function between 'comma + VERBed' and 'VERBed (without comma)'?

Ha -- I had to go back and look up "past participle". (If you ever see me using grammar terms, you can be sure that I just looked them up on google.)

The __ed has to describe a noun, but it may be the subject of the sentence.
E.g.,
James collapsed onto the couch, exhausted from a long day of work.
--> This sentence is correct. "Exhausted" describes James.

If there is NO comma, then the ___ed has to describe the noun that's directly in front of it. (Same as ___ing with no comma.)

[chughbrajesh]

also note that you can solve this problem via parallelism alone.
every single answer choice except (b) lacks proper parallel structure. since the problem contains a LIST of three things (one of the most obvious parallel structures), this is a nice gift.

a) based on cultivating such crops like corn and beans, the harvesting of fish and shellfish, and exploiting

"THE harvesting" isn't parallel to "exploiting".

("such crops LIKE..." is also a flagrant error; it must be "such crops as...")

b) based on the cultivation of such crops as corn and beans, the harvesting of fish and seafood, and the exploitation of

perfect parallelism.

from right to left:
the exploitation of...
the harvesting of...
the cultivation of...

c) and basing it on the cultivation of crops like corn and beans, harvesting fish and seafood, and the exploiting of

"harvesting" isn't parallel to "THE exploiting".

(also, "...and basing" is not a properly constructed modifier)

d) and they based it on their cultivation of crops such as corn and beans, the harvest of fish and seafood, and exploiting

worst parallelism ever.
no two of "THEIR cultivation", "THE harvest", and "exploiting" are parallel.

e) and they based it on their cultivating such crops like corn and beans, their harvest of fish and shellfish, and they explited

"they exploited" isn't parallel to the other two.

How is harvesting parallel to exploitation? Isn't the right word to use exploiting?

[jlucero]

How is harvesting parallel to exploitation? Isn't the right word to use exploiting?

There's actually three things that are parallel in B:

the exploitation of...
the harvesting of...
the cultivation of...

Notice that the one that looks out of place now is harvesting- we should change that to look like the others. Except that the idiots who made up the English language decided that "harvestation" isn't actually a word. So we have to use harvesting instead. All three of these nouns tells us "the action of (verb)", so their meaning's are parallel, even if the exact letters don't look like it.

[chughbrajesh]

How is harvesting parallel to exploitation? Isn't the right word to use exploiting?

There's actually three things that are parallel in B:

the exploitation of...
the harvesting of...
the cultivation of...

Notice that the one that looks out of place now is harvesting- we should change that to look like the others. Except that the idiots who made up the English language decided that "harvestation" isn't actually a word. So we have to use harvesting instead. All three of these nouns tells us "the action of (verb)", so their meaning's are parallel, even if the exact letters don't look like it.

Thank you. This was helpful.

[chughbrajesh]

also note that you can solve this problem via parallelism alone.
every single answer choice except (b) lacks proper parallel structure. since the problem contains a LIST of three things (one of the most obvious parallel structures), this is a nice gift.

a) based on cultivating such crops like corn and beans, the harvesting of fish and shellfish, and exploiting

"THE harvesting" isn't parallel to "exploiting".

("such crops LIKE..." is also a flagrant error; it must be "such crops as...")

How is it that "THE harvesting" isn't parallel to "exploiting"?

[RonPurewal]

Parallelism is relative.
There's no need to waste your time trying to formulate some "ideal" parallelism. It's like a beauty contest"”just pick the one that's more parallel than the others.
A contest.

If you have a contest between
"the ___ing", "the ___ing", and "the ___ing"
and
"___ing", "the ___ing", and "___ing"
... it's pretty clear who wins that one.

[gbyhats]

Hi Dear Manhattan Instructors ;)

Can I rule out choice (D) and (E) base on fact that they use "and" to connect two complete sentences?
(I replicated the original question below)

Building on civilizations that preceded them in coastal Peru, the Mochica developed their own elaborate society, based on cultivating such crops like corn and beans, the harvesting of fish and shellfish, and exploiting other wild and domestic resources.

A. based on cultivating such crops like corn and beans, the harvesting of fish and shellfish, and exploiting
B. based on the cultivation of such crops as corn and beans, the harvesting of fish and seafood, and the exploitation of
C. and basing it on the cultivation of crops like corn and beans, harvesting fish and seafood, and the exploiting of
D. and they based it on their cultivation of crops such as corn and beans, the harvest of fish and seafood, and exploiting
E. and they based it on their cultivating such crops like corn and beans, their harvest of fish and shellfish, and they exploited

I mean, I never see a correct answer uses "and" to connect two complete sentence. Instead, GMAT will make all OAs as compact as possible

[Example]
If sentence are written in these way:

-->Jackson finished all the writing training and he aced all the writing test last month

-->Lily is so excited about the travel to India and she plans to host a party to celebrate.

GMAT will turn them into:

-->Finished all the writing training, Jackson aced all the writing test last month

-->Excited about the travel to India, Lily plans to host a party to celebrate.


--

P.S. I have to say Ron's approach is very sexy!

also note that you can solve this problem via parallelism alone.
every single answer choice except (b) lacks proper parallel structure. since the problem contains a LIST of three things (one of the most obvious parallel structures), this is a nice gift.

[RonPurewal]

I mean, I never see a correct answer uses "and" to connect...

OG problem #128 called me in tears; its feelings were badly hurt.

...almost as badly hurt as your feelings would be, were you to follow this "rule" here.
i.e., by blindly following the notion of "i like modifiers better than and", we'd be left with B and C, neither of which is the correct answer.

[RonPurewal]

also, three of that problem's friends--#52, #91, and #124--likewise took umbrage at your suggestion.

that construction isn't a decision point in those three problems... but it's still a thing.

[RonPurewal]

the real point is that "and" has a different meaning from that of an __ing modifier (or whatever other modifier).

the construction "x and y" implies that x and y are, essentially, different things, with no particular close relationship to one another.

if "y" is a modifier of "x", on the other hand, then "y" must actually modify (= describe/illustrate/explain/etc.) "x".

these meanings are mutually exclusive, so you should be able to eliminate one of them just by thinking about intended meaning. (in #128, the second part describes something that happened before the first part, so it's nonsense to write the second part as a modifier of the first.)

[gbyhats]

I mean, I never see a correct answer uses "and" to connect...

OG problem #128 called me in tears; its feelings were badly hurt.

...almost as badly hurt as your feelings would be, were you to follow this "rule" here.
i.e., by blindly following the notion of "i like modifiers better than and", we'd be left with B and C, neither of which is the correct answer.

Oops! I'm sorry Ron and I'm sorry OG...

if "y" is a modifier of "x", on the other hand, then "y" must actually modify (= describe/illustrate/explain/etc.) "x".

these meanings are mutually exclusive, so you should be able to eliminate one of them just by thinking about intended meaning. (in #128, the second part describes something that happened before the first part, so it's nonsense to write the second part as a modifier of the first.)

Gotcha!

[RonPurewal]

ok.