CAT -2 SC - To prevent businesses from moving,

[agautamdai]

To prevent businesses from moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks, described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development but denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens the national economy.

(A) businesses from moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks, described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development but denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens
(B) the moving of businesses, local governments award them annual tax breaks, which supporters describe as vital tools for encouraging economic development but are denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens
(C) businesses moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks each year; supporters describe those breaks as vital tools to encourage economic development, but they are denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" for weakening
(D) businesses from moving, local governments award annual tax breaks each year; they are described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development, but critics denounce them as "corporate welfare" weakening
(E) the moving of businesses, local governments award annual tax breaks, whose supporters describe as vital tools to encourage economic development but whose critics denounce as "corporate welfare" that weakens

what I dont understand in A is that how described by supporters ( participle modifier) can describe the tax breaks - it should be modifying the first noun in the clause which is local governments

[agautamdai]

I would be thankful if an expert can respond

[jp.jprasanna]

I would be thankful if an expert can respond

hey - don't do this. Instructors answer post from oldest to newest, the more follow ups you write you are pushing the question to the last.

[jp.jprasanna]

To prevent businesses from moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks, described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development but denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens the national economy.

businesses from moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks, described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development but denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens
the moving of businesses, local governments award them annual tax breaks, which supporters describe as vital tools for encouraging economic development but are denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens
businesses moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks each year; supporters describe those breaks as vital tools to encourage economic development, but they are denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" for weakening
businesses from moving, local governments award annual tax breaks each year; they are described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development, but critics denounce them as "corporate welfare" weakening
the moving of businesses, local governments award annual tax breaks, whose supporters describe as vital tools to encourage economic development but whose critics denounce as "corporate welfare" that weakens

what I dont understand in A is that how described by supporters ( participle modifier) can describe the tax breaks - it should be modifying the first noun in the clause which is local governments

In answer choice A "described" used as an adjective to modify " tax breaks"

For example : The painting described by the Michelangelo is worth million of pounds.

here described by the Michelangelo is used as an adjective to modify the noun "The painting". If you remove the bold part, which just an adjective, you will still have a valid sentence.

The painting is worth million of pounds. They have used "described" in similar fashion in option A.

Also remember COMMA+VERBED modify the noun right before the comma in this case "tax breaks"

Please feel free to correct me.

[jp.jprasanna]

My doubts

1/What's wrong with Option E.

the moving of businesses, local governments award annual tax breaks, whose supporters describe as vital tools to encourage economic development but whose critics denounce as "corporate welfare" that weakens

Apart from the modifier error, Im not able to completely understand the explantion given in the CAT.

Do they mean to say describe needs to have tax breaks as the objects i.e. supporters describe "tax breaks" as vital tools to encourage economic development but whose critics denounce "tax breaks" as "corporate welfare" that weakens

As the 2 bold part is missing hence E is wrong?

the verbs "describe" and "denounce" lack objects; these verbs must have objects -- in other words, a subject must "describe" or "denounce" something, not just "describe" or "denounce".


2/ Also I was wondering whether we can knock out option E based on parallelisim.

Option A (that and that in the bold part - GOOD?)
described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development but denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens

Option E ( to encourage and that weakens - NOT GOOD?)
whose supporters describe as vital tools to encourage economic development but whose critics denounce as "corporate welfare" that weakens

If there a rule that governs these kinds of stuff or is it mere coincidental?

[agautamdai]

I dont agree with the statement that comma + verb-ed modifies the noun before the comma. Please sight me the source ...as far as I am concerned the PM ( past participle modifier should describe the subject of the clause which it is modifying)

RON could you plz shed some light...

[vijay19839]

Option E:- In addition, the verbs "describe" and "denounce" lack objects; these verbs must have objects -- in other words, a subject must "describe" or "denounce" something, not just "describe" or "denounce"

In option E, we have 'whose' as relative pronoun and it should act as object for describe and denounce.

Examples:- the ball which I hit (-> Here it means I hit the ball)

Can someone explain why 'the moving of businesses' is Incorrect in Choice E? Govt want to prevent the Moving of business which seems correct to me.

Thanks
Vijay

[jnelson0612]

Option E:- In addition, the verbs "describe" and "denounce" lack objects; these verbs must have objects -- in other words, a subject must "describe" or "denounce" something, not just "describe" or "denounce"

In option E, we have 'whose' as relative pronoun and it should act as object for describe and denounce.

Examples:- the ball which I hit (-> Here it means I hit the ball)

Can someone explain why 'the moving of businesses' is Incorrect in Choice E? Govt want to prevent the Moving of business which seems correct to me.

Thanks
Vijay

The passive wording in "the moving of businesses" changes the meaning. The wording makes it sound as if businesses are moved by some other outside force rather than by the actual business owner.

[jnelson0612]

To prevent businesses from moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks, described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development but denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens the national economy.

businesses from moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks, described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development but denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens
the moving of businesses, local governments award them annual tax breaks, which supporters describe as vital tools for encouraging economic development but are denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens
businesses moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks each year; supporters describe those breaks as vital tools to encourage economic development, but they are denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" for weakening
businesses from moving, local governments award annual tax breaks each year; they are described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development, but critics denounce them as "corporate welfare" weakening
the moving of businesses, local governments award annual tax breaks, whose supporters describe as vital tools to encourage economic development but whose critics denounce as "corporate welfare" that weakens

what I dont understand in A is that how described by supporters ( participle modifier) can describe the tax breaks - it should be modifying the first noun in the clause which is local governments

No, this is not correct. "described by supporters as vital tools . . ." is a noun modifier. Noun modifiers modify the nouns immediately before them. In this case that noun is "tax breaks" and is correctly modified by "described by supporters . . . ".

If you have any doubt whether "described by supporters" is a noun modifier, consider these examples:

"The politician, described by supporters as the best person for the congressional seat, won the election." CORRECT

"The politician won the election, described by supporters as the best person for the congressional seat." INCORRECT We can see that this sentence makes no sense because of the placement of the "described . . . " modifier. If the modifier has to sit next to what it is modifying it is a noun modifier.

[jeremystaub28]

Hey everyone,


I seem to be having lots of difficulties with paralellism. I do not fully grasp what is going on here in option B concerning the paralellism:

the moving of businesses, local governments award them annual tax breaks, which supporters describe as vital tools for encouraging economic development but are denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens

Can someone please elaborate a bit what is wrong here? Would we have to repeat the "Which" to make it correct ? Thanks a lot.

[tim]

that should fix things as far as parallelism is concerned..

[jeremystaub28]

so it's not possible to omit the relative pronoun in the second element ? I thought the relative pronoun which could stand for both of them:

Which 1. clause but 2. clause


Also is the fact that the first one is in active voice and the second in passive voice an issue? thank you

[tim]

if you include the relative pronoun, then both parallel elements start with a relative pronoun: parallel! but without the "which", the remaining elements are different enough that they wouldn't be considered parallel..

[mcmebk]

To prevent businesses from moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks, described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development but denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens the national economy.

businesses from moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks, described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development but denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens
the moving of businesses, local governments award them annual tax breaks, which supporters describe as vital tools for encouraging economic development but are denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" that weakens
businesses moving, local governments award them annual tax breaks each year; supporters describe those breaks as vital tools to encourage economic development, but they are denounced by critics as "corporate welfare" for weakening
businesses from moving, local governments award annual tax breaks each year; they are described by supporters as vital tools that encourage economic development, but critics denounce them as "corporate welfare" weakening
the moving of businesses, local governments award annual tax breaks, whose supporters describe as vital tools to encourage economic development but whose critics denounce as "corporate welfare" that weakens

what I dont understand in A is that how described by supporters ( participle modifier) can describe the tax breaks - it should be modifying the first noun in the clause which is local governments

No, this is not correct. "described by supporters as vital tools . . ." is a noun modifier. Noun modifiers modify the nouns immediately before them. In this case that noun is "tax breaks" and is correctly modified by "described by supporters . . . ".

If you have any doubt whether "described by supporters" is a noun modifier, consider these examples:

"The politician, described by supporters as the best person for the congressional seat, won the election." CORRECT

"The politician won the election, described by supporters as the best person for the congressional seat." INCORRECT We can see that this sentence makes no sense because of the placement of the "described . . . " modifier. If the modifier has to sit next to what it is modifying it is a noun modifier.

Hi Jamie

It is a long-time myth about what is the object modified in a structure "Comma+Verb-ed".

I do understand, according to Manhattan GMAT guidebook, past participle is a noun modifier and should modify the noun it immediately follows. But Ron made a contradictory statement:

Quote from Ron:

if you have a comma in front of that participle, then it will usually modify the subject of the clause, not the closest noun.for instance:* Tanya collapsed onto the couch, exhausted from a 14-hour work shift (here, "exhausted" modifies the subject "Tanya")if you want to modify the closest noun, then you are normally going to ditch the comma:[i]in the attic, i found an old box inlaid with precious stones.[/](here, "inlaid" modifies "box")

I am truly confused, which principle should I take? Or is it possible to rephrase it as "in a comma+verb-ed structure, we should determine the modified noun with logic thinking"?

Hope to hear from you soon Jamie as this truly bothered me for a long time.

Thanks.

[jlucero]

Hi Jamie

It is a long-time myth about what is the object modified in a structure "Comma+Verb-ed".

I do understand, according to Manhattan GMAT guidebook, past participle is a noun modifier and should modify the noun it immediately follows. But Ron made a contradictory statement:

Quote from Ron:

if you have a comma in front of that participle, then it will usually modify the subject of the clause, not the closest noun.for instance:* Tanya collapsed onto the couch, exhausted from a 14-hour work shift (here, "exhausted" modifies the subject "Tanya")if you want to modify the closest noun, then you are normally going to ditch the comma:[i]in the attic, i found an old box inlaid with precious stones.[/](here, "inlaid" modifies "box")

I am truly confused, which principle should I take? Or is it possible to rephrase it as "in a comma+verb-ed structure, we should determine the modified noun with logic thinking"?

Hope to hear from you soon Jamie as this truly bothered me for a long time.

Thanks.

There is absolutely an element of clear, unambiguous meaning that has to be made before you go applying grammatical rules. For instance, Ron's sentence wouldn't work quite as well if it said: Tanya collapsed on John, exhausted from work. In this case, clarifying who was exhausted would be preferred to any sort of rules you can come up with.

Ultimately, if the -ed modifier is clearly modifying the noun in front of it AND is a non-essential, secondary modifier. That is, local govts award tax breaks that ALSO are described as vital tools. They don't award only the types of tax breaks that are described as vital tools, but don't award the types of tax breaks that aren't so vital. In other instances, you can use an -ed modifier to modify the subject or even the entire clause, but again, one clear meaning is more important than any one overriding rule here.