Confusion in - SC Question BANK-Q 7

[ivy]

Either of the structures you propose in your second post are acceptable if they make sense and are in an appropriate context..

Hello,

I am still a bit confused with this question.

1. Though X and Y
or
2. Though now X and Y

If the modifier is considered as stated in option 1 above, in other words 'Though X=<now eaten in large quantities around the world> and Y=<harmless>,', then this modifier is flawless because 1. X='now eaten in large quantities around the world' and Y='harmless' are adjectives and, in turn, parallel to each other 2. the structure is logical too because 'now' is not common to X and Y any more. Am going right? Is the modifier grammatically correct?

Thank you very much for the guidance! :)

[tim]

Not sure what you're asking here. You seem to be repeating my assertion that they are both acceptable depending on the context. If you're asking whether I agree that I was right, I do! :) If I've missed a subtler question here, please let me know so I can help you with it..

[jp.jprasanna]

Tim - From pure grammer point of view

Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless - both the parts are adjective right?

[tim]

ignoring the parallelism and meaning issues here, yes, you are right. from a purely grammatical standpoint, both of those are adjectives..

[SC312]

Ron,
I have two questions regarding this problem.

1. In the study hall of 25th Oct-2012, you mentioned that though ,like although, should always be followed by a complete sentence.

For instance: Though Sentence X , Sentence Y.

Sentence X should be a complete sentence.

But here in the correct choice D, we see that though is followed by a modifier "now eaten in large quantities around the world and known to be harmless" which modifies the noun "tomato". Please explain whether this usage of "though" is correct.

2. Can "-ING" modifier ("including belladona") be used to modify the noun preceding the COMMA ?
We have earlier seen in correct answers of GMAT PREP questions to have such construction.

Thanks
Sudipto

[tim]

1. In a battle between Ron and whomever wrote this question initially, I'd put my money on Ron. Stacey has already pointed out some issues with this one, so I'd say it's probably best to ignore this one as far as any takeaways go. Trust what Ron says..

2. Do you have examples to back up your claim?

[SC312]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your update.

Here is the GMAT Prep question where VERB-ING doesn't seem to modify the preceding clause before COMMA :-

A study by the ocean wildlife campaign urged states to undertake a number of remedies to reverse a decline in the shark population, which includes the establishment of size limits for shark catches, closing state waters for shark fishing during pupping season, and requiring commercial fishers to have federal shark permits.

A. which includes the establishment of size limits for shark catches, closing
B. which includes establishing limits to the size of sharks that can be caught, closing
C.which include the establishment of size limits for shark catches, the closing of
D. including establishing size limits for shark catches, closing
E. including the establishment of limits to the size of sharks that are caught, the closing of

D is the correct option.


Also , I just found from one of Ron' update in an existing forum links that "INCLUDING" is an EXCEPTION to the otherwise robust rules for comma+ing modifiers. http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/the-32-species-that-make-up-the-dolphin-family-t6878.html

[jnelson0612]

Good, it appears that you found the answer here--"including" is an exception to this rule.

Thank you for posting!

[SC312]

Hi Ron,

I have just encountered another problem where the COMMA + VERB-ing is not referring to the clause before it. Here is the post what-appears-and-appear-t14140.html.

The correct option :-
Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what it appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

As explained by you the word "stunning" is an adjective (i.e a present participle). My question is can a COMMA+ VERB-ing (except for INCLUDING) act as an adjective qualifying the noun before the COMMA ? I thought a present participle can only modify a noun if there is no COMMA between the present participle and the noun.

Please help me understand the correct usage of VERB-ing when used as an adjective.

Thanks
Sudipto

[tim]

you've brought up an example that is not relevant. in this case, "stunning evidence" is not used to describe something that is stunning the evidence; it basically says that the evidence itself is stunning. this is a completely different situation from what we're talking about in this thread..

[SC312]

Thanks Tim. Now I get the point.

[tim]

good! i was wondering if i sufficiently distinguished these cases.. :)

[SC312]

Tim,

My understanding of the problem after you clarified is as follows

1. "stunning" is not a valid adverbial modifier(used to modify the entire clause preceding the COMMA) here.

2. While "stunning" is used as an adjective to modify "evidence" which itself is a noun modifier (appositive) modifying the noun "lakeshore hunting ground".

Let me know if my understanding is correct.

Thanks
Sudipto

[RonPurewal]

Tim,

My understanding of the problem after you clarified is as follows

1. "stunning" is not a valid adverbial modifier(used to modify the entire clause preceding the COMMA) here.

2. While "stunning" is used as an adjective to modify "evidence" which itself is a noun modifier (appositive) modifying the noun "lakeshore hunting ground".

Let me know if my understanding is correct.

Thanks
Sudipto

this all looks correct.

[SC312]

Thanks Ron