Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were

[agarwalmanoj2000]

this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in any way whatsoever, a "(direct/indirect) result" of the time period over which the letters were written. these are tw completely independent and unrelated observations about the letters, and so they can't be placed into the sort of construction that appears in choice (a). this is thus not a grammatical problem so much as a problem of clarity, but it's still a problem.

Referring to the above quote from Ron's posts about choice a -

Why is there no logical connection between outnumbering and period.....doesn't a longer period mean more letters written and hence resulting in outnumbering...??

Also, ing modifier is a verb modifier , It should be modifying verb or whole clause ...why do you say its modifying the noun - 'period'?

1) There may or may not be a logical connection between outnumbering and long period.

Letters were written over a long period of time, but it does not mean that several letters were written. It is also possible that only 1 letter was written each year, so we cannot conclude several letters were written in the long period.

I agree this is confusing.

2) ing modifier can modify the whole preceding clause or only the subject of the preceding clause.

In option A, outnumbering is modifying the whole preceding clause.

[RonPurewal]

nice job, manoj.

[roshin.nair]

Thanks for your wisdom Ron. I like reading you posts. They are very detail oriented.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks for your wisdom Ron. I like reading you posts. They are very detail oriented.

do you think so?

i find this statement ironic, because, in my opinion, the primary value of my posts is that they are NOT detail-oriented -- instead, their primary value is that they focus on big-picture concepts, such as the intended message of the sentence.
the biggest problem that most students have with sentence correction (well, at least most students who post on this forum) have, in fact, is that they are far too detail-oriented, often completely missing any of the larger issues at work in these sentences.

[idannybfl]

So being that *choice E "...,which were written..." is a modifier to the preceding phrase. We should just eliminate the whole modifier and read it as "ED letters to SHD outnumber her letters to anyone else."

I guess where I got lost was thinking that 'outnumber' actually modified 1886. It never occurred to me that the last word will actually be a continuation of the first phrase.

Is this covered somewhere in the strat guides? My understanding is that more often than not, whatever is after the comma modifies the word before it.

[gmatwork]

thanks for the post, Manoj. It helped.

[RonPurewal]

So being that *choice E "...,which were written..." is a modifier to the preceding phrase. We should just eliminate the whole modifier and read it as "ED letters to SHD outnumber her letters to anyone else."

I guess where I got lost was thinking that 'outnumber' actually modified 1886. It never occurred to me that the last word will actually be a continuation of the first phrase.

Is this covered somewhere in the strat guides? My understanding is that more often than not, whatever is after the comma modifies the word before it.

hmm?

"outnumber" is a VERB. in fact, it's the main verb of the sentence.

verbs are not modifiers, so it's illogical to say that this word "modifies" anything.
you can find the subject of a verb, but verbs don't "modify" anything.

[mcmebk]

Regarding the part you quoted from "hmgmat", what about the 'passive voice' part? i.e. your answer seems to stress that the original is wrong because the 'outnumbering...' is NOT a direct result. Is it true that in the case an "-ing" modifier modifies a direct result, but a result from a PASSIVE VOICE, can that kind of whole sentence be correct?

if a grammatical construction can be correct with an active-voice verb, it can also be correct with a passive-voice verb. there is no grammatical difference between the uses of active and passive verbs; the difference between active and passive is strictly an issue of meaning.

so, yes, such sentences can quite easily be correct.
e.g.
john was thrown from the car, sustaining multiple injuries.
that's a correct sentence in which you have a comma -ing modifier modifying a passive-voice clause.

Second, can an "-ing" modifier be used as an accompanying adverbial other than a 'direct result'? Can we interpret the original sentence as the acoompanying type, and in that case the original will make sense?

i'm not quite sure what you mean by "accompanying adverbial".

in general, there are two correct uses of "comma -ing" after a clause:
(1) to describe a direct and immediate consequence of the action in the clause;
ray scored a perfect 100 on his most recent exam, bringing his average for the semester up to 93.
OR
(2) to describe an action that is simultaneous with and subordinate to the action in the preceding clause.
ray ran down the sidewalk, flailing his arms.

so, if by "accompanying adverbial" you're asking about possibility #2 here, then, yes.
if you're asking whether you can use this sort of modifier to introduce something that is basically irrelevant to the action in the preceding clause, then no.

Third, in "X of Y that ..." where "that" cannot stand for Y but X, and "X of Y, which..." where "which cannnot stand for Y but X, does one form have higher priority than the other?

Thanks!

i'm not sure that i understand the question -- are you asking whether one of them is better than the other?
if so, that's not a legitimate question; they aren't alternatives. one of them is an essential (restrictive) modifier, used to introduce a fundamental restriction on the noun; the other is a nonessential modifier, which doesn't narrow the noun at all but just gives more descriptive information.

i.e.,
the meeting is in the third room, which has a brown door
--> this means that the meeting is in the third room, period. the modifier tells us that the third room happens to have a brown door, but, even without this modifier, we know that the meeting is in the third (overall) room.

the meeting is in the third room that has a brown door
--> this means that, if you count only rooms that have brown doors, that the meeting will be in the third such room. you may have to walk past eighty other doors to get that room, but, once you've seen three brown doors, you've got the right room.

i know this is not an example with "X of Y", but the idea is the same.

fortunately, you will not have to choose between these forms in an instance when both of them are valid.
there has NEVER been an official problem, as far as we're aware, that has required the student to decide between essential and nonessential modifiers to get the answer, so we don't expect to see such a problem anytime soon.

Hi Ron, If I may comment, in this problem


Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established the Library of Congress.

A. Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established
B. The act of Congress, which was approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established
C. The act of Congress approved April 24, 1800, which made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., and established
D. Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act of Congress also established
E. Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also establishing

you said D was wrong because "making provision..." is a non-essential modifier, while it should be a essential one.

[krishnan.anju1987]

Regarding the part you quoted from "hmgmat", what about the 'passive voice' part? i.e. your answer seems to stress that the original is wrong because the 'outnumbering...' is NOT a direct result. Is it true that in the case an "-ing" modifier modifies a direct result, but a result from a PASSIVE VOICE, can that kind of whole sentence be correct?

if a grammatical construction can be correct with an active-voice verb, it can also be correct with a passive-voice verb. there is no grammatical difference between the uses of active and passive verbs; the difference between active and passive is strictly an issue of meaning.

so, yes, such sentences can quite easily be correct.
e.g.
john was thrown from the car, sustaining multiple injuries.
that's a correct sentence in which you have a comma -ing modifier modifying a passive-voice clause.

Second, can an "-ing" modifier be used as an accompanying adverbial other than a 'direct result'? Can we interpret the original sentence as the acoompanying type, and in that case the original will make sense?

i'm not quite sure what you mean by "accompanying adverbial".

in general, there are two correct uses of "comma -ing" after a clause:
(1) to describe a direct and immediate consequence of the action in the clause;
ray scored a perfect 100 on his most recent exam, bringing his average for the semester up to 93.
OR
(2) to describe an action that is simultaneous with and subordinate to the action in the preceding clause.
ray ran down the sidewalk, flailing his arms.

so, if by "accompanying adverbial" you're asking about possibility #2 here, then, yes.
if you're asking whether you can use this sort of modifier to introduce something that is basically irrelevant to the action in the preceding clause, then no.

Third, in "X of Y that ..." where "that" cannot stand for Y but X, and "X of Y, which..." where "which cannnot stand for Y but X, does one form have higher priority than the other?

Thanks!

i'm not sure that i understand the question -- are you asking whether one of them is better than the other?
if so, that's not a legitimate question; they aren't alternatives. one of them is an essential (restrictive) modifier, used to introduce a fundamental restriction on the noun; the other is a nonessential modifier, which doesn't narrow the noun at all but just gives more descriptive information.

i.e.,
the meeting is in the third room, which has a brown door
--> this means that the meeting is in the third room, period. the modifier tells us that the third room happens to have a brown door, but, even without this modifier, we know that the meeting is in the third (overall) room.

the meeting is in the third room that has a brown door
--> this means that, if you count only rooms that have brown doors, that the meeting will be in the third such room. you may have to walk past eighty other doors to get that room, but, once you've seen three brown doors, you've got the right room.

i know this is not an example with "X of Y", but the idea is the same.

fortunately, you will not have to choose between these forms in an instance when both of them are valid.
there has NEVER been an official problem, as far as we're aware, that has required the student to decide between essential and nonessential modifiers to get the answer, so we don't expect to see such a problem anytime soon.

Hi Ron, If I may comment, in this problem


Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established the Library of Congress.

A. Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established
B. The act of Congress, which was approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established
C. The act of Congress approved April 24, 1800, which made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., and established
D. Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act of Congress also established
E. Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also establishing

you said D was wrong because "making provision..." is a non-essential modifier, while it should be a essential one.

Hi,

Here are my two cents on that comment.
IMO the reason for the making provision to be essential modifier is that the particular act that made provision for the removal of the government of the United states to the new federal city, Washington DC also established... . No other act did it. The importance of the first act is hardly maintained and it should be maintained based on the meaning of original sentence given in the question. In the original sentence, stress is laid on the fact that the particular act that made provision for the removal of government to US to a new place also established Library of congress while based on option D. This meaning is not clear in option D.

[RonPurewal]

krishnan, yeah.

basically, choice (d) is written as though there has only been one "act" in the entire history of the united states congress. (if you see "the act of congress" -- without any essential modifiers -- that's the implication.)

[thanghnvn]

your post here is sort of like the riddle of the sphinx: the answer is actually hidden inside your own writing.

let me show you: (the blue highlight is mine)

Some people say that using a present participle phrase to express the (direct/indirect) result of the preceding clause is not allowed when the preceding clause is in a passive voice.

this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in any way whatsoever, a "(direct/indirect) result" of the time period over which the letters were written. these are tw completely independent and unrelated observations about the letters, and so they can't be placed into the sort of construction that appears in choice (a). this is thus not a grammatical problem so much as a problem of clarity, but it's still a problem.

examples:
my brother, who ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduated in 1994. --> correct; his eating bagel bites had no impact on his graduation date.
my brother ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduating in 1994. --> incorrect; these are two unrelated observations, but this construction erroneously implies some sort of relationship.

Thank you Ron. great explanation.

but

I think choice A means:

the letters were writen over the period, outnumberring ...

"outnumbering" refers to " were writen..." and , I see, is not ilogic.

when "comma+doing" follows 2 clauses, one of them main clause and the other dependent clause, "comma+doing" can modify the main clause-the further clause- or modify the dependent clause-the nearer clause. However, that case is not here.

this point makes me uneasy, pls help.

[RonPurewal]

"outnumbering" refers to " were writen..." and , I see, is not ilogic.

there is no immediate relationship between (a) the time period over which these letters were written and (b) the fact that she wrote more letters to this particular recipient than to any other person.

[thanghnvn]

X of Y, which

if Y is eligible, which modify Y

if Y is not eligible, which modify X of Y

in the question 48 og13, Y is not eligible and "which" modifies X of Y, "greatest lake on Earth" . Why choice A and B is considered wrong?

pls explain.

[tim]

what makes you think Y is not eligible? the problem says "... Earth, which ...", and "Earth" is totally the type of noun a "which" can modify..

[thanghnvn]

what makes you think Y is not eligible? the problem says "... Earth, which ...", and "Earth" is totally the type of noun a "which" can modify..

thank you, Tim, I understand the problem

because in question 48 og 13, "earth" is eligible to be modified by "which" A and B are wrong.

can I summarize as following

if we have
X of Y, which

if Y is eligible to be modified by "which", "which" modifies Y
if Y is not eligible and if Y modies X and can not be placed elsewhere, "which" modifies X

if Y is not eligible and dose not modifies X, we have pattern wrong on gmat. for example:

I learn English in a good method, which is a beautiful language.

is not acceptable on gmat.

pls, confirm