Difference bw +ing modifier & +ed modifier or verb+ed

[vivekkapoor73]

By 1960, the pilot Rolph held sixteen official international speed records, and he earned them at a time when aviation was still so new for many of the planes he flew to be of dangerously experimental design.

A and he earned them at a time when avation was still so new for many of the planes she flew to be
B earning them at a time that aviation was still so new for many of the planes he flew were
C earning these at a time where aviation was still so new that many of the planes he flew were
D earned at a time in which aviation was still so new such that many of the planes he flew were
E earned at a time when aviation was still so new that many of the planes he flew were

Hi RON,
Same type of question is in OG it is not as same as OG question.
Please correct my understanding.
Refer Option B & E,
I have question for the use of "earning & earned". "Earning" looks me better because earning seems to modify whole clause. Moreover, I thought earned refer here as a verb so verb can't refer to ROLPH as "held" is already present. If earned acted as a modifier then how to differentiate between verb & past participle modifier.
My thought process :I tried to check whether earned is modifier or verb as Rolph held....(complete sentence) & Rolph earned at a time(lacking something). Hence, it should be modifier. Use of "earned" in this sentence as a verb will be incorrect as held refers to rolph(in the same way My cousin is a sales manager, lives in texas.)

[RonPurewal]

I have question for the use of "earning & earned". "Earning" looks me better because earning seems to modify whole clause.

Ironically, that's the reason why "earning" is wrong.

The previous clause says that the pilot held 16 records -- a statement that's only possible if he had already finished "earning" them. So, it's logically impossible for "earning" to describe that clause.

[RonPurewal]

Moreover, I thought earned refer here as a verb so verb can't refer to ROLPH as "held" is already present.

It can't be a verb. If it were a verb, the whole sentence wouldn't be a sentence anymore. (You'd end up with something like "My brother is a sales manager, lives in Texas." Not a sentence.)

If earned acted as a modifier then how to differentiate between verb & past participle modifier.

It's not possible for both of them to work. If the sentence is a legitimate sentence with "__ed" as a verb, then it won't be a sentence with "__ed" as a modifier.
It's fairly easy to test, actually. Modifiers can be removed from a sentence without affecting the surrounding grammar. If you can successfully remove the construction from the sentence, then it's a modifier.
You can remove it here -- you'll just get the part before the comma, which is already a complete sentence. So it's a modifier.

Contrast this example with the following sentence:
Ralph, who was one of the most famous pilots in American military history, earned more than 40 awards in his career.
Try taking out "earned more than 40 awards in his career" here. You can't, because this time it's the main verb in the sentence.

My thought process :I tried to check whether earned is modifier or verb as Rolph held....(complete sentence) & Rolph earned at a time(lacking something). Hence, it should be modifier. Use of "earned" in this sentence as a verb will be incorrect as held refers to rolph(in the same way My cousin is a sales manager, lives in texas.)

Sounds right to me.

[sharmakapil67]

Hi Instructors,

1. My question is regarding "earned" as earned is +ed modifier. to whom it refers. Is this referring to Rolph( Who earned records) or records( what earned). Kindly suggest.

2. The eg. posted in earlier post is "My brother is a sales manager, lives in texas." seems ok to me grammatically but not meaningfully. As far as I know it will be fragment if it is written without comma. Please correct my understanding.

[thanghnvn]

By 1960, the pilot Rolph held sixteen official international speed records, and he earned them at a time when aviation was still so new for many of the planes he flew to be of dangerously experimental design.

A and he earned them at a time when avation was still so new for many of the planes she flew to be
B earning them at a time that aviation was still so new for many of the planes he flew were
C earning these at a time where aviation was still so new that many of the planes he flew were
D earned at a time in which aviation was still so new such that many of the planes he flew were
E earned at a time when aviation was still so new that many of the planes he flew were

Hi RON,
Same type of question is in OG it is not as same as OG question.
Please correct my understanding.
Refer Option B & E,
I have question for the use of "earning & earned". "Earning" looks me better because earning seems to modify whole clause. Moreover, I thought earned refer here as a verb so verb can't refer to ROLPH as "held" is already present. If earned acted as a modifier then how to differentiate between verb & past participle modifier.
My thought process :I tried to check whether earned is modifier or verb as Rolph held....(complete sentence) & Rolph earned at a time(lacking something). Hence, it should be modifier. Use of "earned" in this sentence as a verb will be incorrect as held refers to rolph(in the same way My cousin is a sales manager, lives in texas.)

a hard sc problem. oa is e.
"something is new for sb to do something" is an idiom. This make b wrong.
"where" make c wrong
"such that" makes d wrong. not idiomatic

on sc we normally face a choice which is grammartical but not logic. the game is logic.
A is grammartical at fist sight but it is not logic. in a, the pattern "it is new for sb to do st" is not used to show an effect.
in e, we need to show an effect. e is correct.

[thanghnvn]

do-ed modifer is adjectival, which must refer to only noun. gmat prefer the noun touching the do-ed. but, it is possibly correct that the noun modified by do-ed is far from the do -ed even if between noun modified and the do-ed is not a noun phrase modifying the noun modified by do-ed. i can not remembe an example for this point. normally between noun modified and do-ed is a noun which modifies the fisrt noun.

the takeaway is that some grammar rules are flexible and we should use logicness/meaning to just answer choices. that is the reason why meaning is focus of sc.

"earned ..." in e can logicaly modifies "records."

[RonPurewal]

do-ed modifer is adjectival, which must refer to only noun. gmat prefer the noun touching the do-ed. but, it is possibly correct that the noun modified by do-ed is far from the do -ed even if between noun modified and the do-ed is not a noun phrase modifying the noun modified by do-ed. i can not remembe an example for this point. normally between noun modified and do-ed is a noun which modifies the fisrt noun.

the takeaway is that some grammar rules are flexible and we should use logicness/meaning to just answer choices. that is the reason why meaning is focus of sc.

"earned ..." in e can logicaly modifies "records."

Are you asking a question? I can't tell.

[GeorgiaF924]

Ironically, that's the reason why "earning" is wrong.

The previous clause says that the pilot held 16 records -- a statement that's only possible if he had already finished "earning" them. So, it's logically impossible for "earning" to describe that clause.

Hi Ron,

Why "held" rather than "has held" is used here? I think in most situations "by + time" means "until this time" and requires a present perfect tense.

Besides, if we ignore the time-frame issue, is verb-ed preferable to verb-ing here? i.e, is there any other reason (like the subject of the modifier or the meaning of the sentence) suggest that verb-ed is preferred here?

[RonPurewal]

Why "held" rather than "has held" is used here? I think in most situations "by + time" means "until this time" and requires a present perfect tense.

in no circumstance could you use "has held" to describe what obtained at a PAST point. you'd use either "held" or "had held" (= what you meant to type here, perhaps).

--

first, read this:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p58397

--

now that you've read that ^^, you should understand why "had held" isn't appropriate here-- because "held" is a steady state, rather than something JC had completed.
(compare: By 1940, Thomas had held meetings with almost everyone in Congress --> here we need "had held" because the completion of these meetings is the point.)

in the JC sentence, "had held" would imply -- ironically -- that she HAD (at one point) held the records, but that they had since been broken!

[RonPurewal]

Besides, if we ignore the time-frame issue, is verb-ed preferable to verb-ing here?

hmm.
"if we ignore exactly the thing on which the decision is based, does the decision change?"

honestly, i have no idea how to answer this question.

analogy:
"if we ignore a person's sex, how do we choose whether to refer to that person as 'he' or as 'she'?"
you see the problem here.