Industrialization and modern methods Usage of while and but

[lpraat]

whats wrong with a??

[RonPurewal]

whats wrong with a??

read the thread, please
post41378.html?sid=27d46d56a462591d5020cd912391bcd3#p41378

[amit1234]

Tutors,

Sorry about this very long post. However, this question resembles another GMATPrep question. I got both wrong because of my understanding of modifiers, pronouns, etc. Are any common patterns present that can be learnt to ensure such problems are not an issue during the actual GMAT test? Thanks!

GMAT Prep Question 1
Industrialization and modern methods of insect control have improved the standard of living around the globe while at the same time they have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants, having gone virtually unregulated since they were developed more than 50 years ago.
A. while at the same time they have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants, having ---> I selected this choice
B. while at the same time introducing some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants that have ---> correct choice
C. while they have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants at the same time, which have
D. but introducing some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants at the same time that have
E. but at the same time introducing some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutant, having

GMAT Prep Question 2
Diesel engines burn as much as 30% less fuel than gasoline engines of comparable size, as well as emitting far less carbon dioxide gas and far fewer of the other gasses that have been implicated in global warming.
A of comparable size , as well as emitting far less carbon dioxide gas and far fewer of the other gasses that have --> correct choice
B of comparable size, as well as emit far less carbon dioxide gas and far fewer of the other gasses having --> I selected this choice
C of comparable size, and also they emit far fewer carbon dioxide and other gasses that have
D that have a comparable size, and also they emit far fewer of the other gasses having
E that have a comparable size, as well as emitting far fewer of the other gasses having

Thanks!

i think you may be on to something here.
1) i'm quite sure that "having" cannot be properly used in a COMMA -ING modifier.
2) i'm also fairly sure -- although not 100% sure this time -- that "having" shouldn't be used to start a modifier at all, since the corresponding form with "that/who/which have" is better.
for instance, students having finished the exam early is inferior to students who have finished the exam early.

i certainly can't think of any counterexamples at the moment, so i believe that this should be a reliable rule. nice analysis!

Hi Ron,
here is the example that uses 'having' in comma + ING modifier

Some scientists suggest the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged perhaps by a meteor.

[jlucero]

Hi Ron,
here is the example that uses 'having' in comma + ING modifier

Some scientists suggest the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged perhaps by a meteor.

You're actually referring to a GMAT problem that is an incorrect answer choice. Double check your source.

[amit1234]

Ohh yea, i am extremely sorry.

Hi Ron,
here is the example that uses 'having' in comma + ING modifier

Some scientists suggest the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged perhaps by a meteor.

You're actually referring to a GMAT problem that is an incorrect answer choice. Double check your source.

[gmatwork]

""if you are going to use 'but', you need either a completely new clause ('...but they have also introduced), or another verb that is parallel to the verb already used ('...but have also introduced').""

In reference to the above explanation posted by Ron (second post on this thread by Ron)

I have a couple questions -

Does 'but' need to always be followed by a clause??

"but" is a parallel marker (if we are going to use but in a sentence we need to look out for parallelism if the meaning of the sentence justifies parallelism), "while" is NOT a parallel marker , we won't need to care about parallelism if we are using "while" as a connector;

" while" does not need to be followed by a clause??

Please point out all that is incorrect in the above mentioned.

[RonPurewal]

Does 'but' need to always be followed by a clause??

no. as you said, it's a marker of parallelism in general.

you should be careful to interpret any quote from this thread in terms of the context of this thread.

" while" does not need to be followed by a clause??

no. for instance, one very common usage of "while" is to follow it with a "verbING" form: i often listen to classical music while lifting weights.

the other kind of "while" -- the kind that means "on the other hand" -- can also be used without a whole clause: Trent, while somewhat short, is still taller than most of his friends.

[MeghaV725]

If the "they" in " since they were developed more than 50 years ago." refers to the "Industrialization and modern methods of insect control ",isn't it a little bit weird to choose B? The use of the "that" clause to modify chemical pollutants makes me feel that the "they" here goes to modify the pollutants rather than the methods. That's why I choose E. I think that it's the methods that went unregulated, and that the whole phrase"having..." is extended to explain "but at the same time introduce some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants"

Hi Ron,
I have same query as the one mentioned above.Please guide

[RonPurewal]

"They" = the pollutants.

It's clearly not "industrialization and xxxx", since industrialization is hundreds of years old already.

[chandni170]

Hi,

I picked option A for this question, and although I've read the thread/explanations for why A is wrong, I have a doubt:

While I know that COMMA + verb-ing modifiers must perform either of the two functions:
- Describe the previous clause
- Express the consequence of the previous clause

I also thought that 'having' can be used in either of the following ways without altering the meaning of the sentence. i.e. the following two sentences would express the same meaning :

1.) They have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants, having gone virtually unregulated

2.) Having gone virtually unregulated, they have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants

In both the cases, 'having....' modifier modifies the subject of the clause= they.

Kindly let me know if my understanding is correct?

If it is, I am still having a tough time eliminating option A on any other ground.
If it's not, I shall jot it down as a rule. :)

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

yes, that's a correct interpretation of the modifier.

the problem is that both of those meanings are nonsense.
"they" is "industrialization and xxxxx". as mentioned above, industrialization is not just 50 years old, so "they" cannot possibly be the things "that have gone unregulated since xxxxx 50 years ago".

[chandni170]

Oh yea, that makes perfect sense.

Thank you, Ron. :)

[RonPurewal]

sure.

note: if you're doing STEP 1 properly, you should already have figured that out BEFORE you encountered the pronoun issue.

remember!,
STEP 1 = read the sentence as though you're reading a book or magazine. DO NOT think about grammar, and DO NOT "hunt" for errors. (if an error jumps out and hits you in the face, then, sure, you should notice it.)

if you were to encounter this sentence in the course of normal reading, you would definitely know that the pollutants "have gone unregulated".

[RonPurewal]

more generally:

when you encounter a meaning-based split...
if you have to go back to the original to tease out the intended meaning, then you've done an inadequate job of STEP 1.

when you encounter meaning-based issues, you should already understand what meaning is intended.

this way, you don't have to figure out 2 things (the intended meaning and the mechanics) simultaneously. with the intended meaning in hand, you can think solely about the constructions in that particular split (and about whether they convey the right meaning).

[HarendraS120]

Hi Ron,
here is the example that uses 'having' in comma + ING modifier

Some scientists suggest the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged perhaps by a meteor.

You're actually referring to a GMAT problem that is an incorrect answer choice. Double check your source.

Sorry To pop up an older post. But I have a tough time in understanding one of the concept explained by Ron.
i'm quite sure that "having" cannot be properly used in a COMMA -ING modifier.

What I understand from this concept is -

"Main clause" + , + having clause => incorrect ---- However ----- Having +, +Main clause => correct

If my understanding is not correct, please explain. Thanks a lot in advance.
I read all the discussion but, more I read, more I got confused. In one of the other discussion, some other expert mentioned that this concept needs to be qualified.(Sorry, I could not post the link for the reference)

If my understanding is correct then why are both of the below sentences correct in one of his later post of this discussion.

Student :

also thought that 'having' can be used in either of the following ways without altering the meaning of the sentence. i.e. the following two sentences would express the same meaning :

1.) They have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants, having gone virtually unregulated

2.) Having gone virtually unregulated, they have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants

In both the cases, 'having....' modifier modifies the subject of the clause= they.

Kindly let me know if my understanding is correct?

If it is, I am still having a tough time eliminating option A on any other ground.
If it's not, I shall jot it down as a rule.

Ron:

yes, that's a correct interpretation of the modifier.

the problem is that both of those meanings are nonsense.
"they" is "industrialization and xxxxx". as mentioned above, industrialization is not just 50 years old, so "they" cannot possibly be the things "that have gone unregulated since xxxxx 50 years ago".

---------------------------------

However, Ron did not explicitly mentioned that both of these sentence are correct.