Is "perfect participle" a correct modifier?

[rx_11]

Dear MGMAT instructors,

I have a question about the so-called "perfect participle", that is "having + done". The ManhattanGMAT SC 4th book does not contain such knowledge, but I am very confused about it and present participle and past participle. Could you plz help to check which of the following sentense is correct?

1) This company had a new machine having produced a lot of products.

2) This company had a new machine produced a lot of products.

3) This company had a new machine producing a lot of products.

I am quite confused about the three sentense especially the difference between "perfect participle" and "past participle". Could you check these three sentenses? Thanks a lot!!!

Regards.

Rx.

[tim]

all three of these sentences are incorrect. the third one could be made correct if you turn everything into the present tense. i think the reason this construction does not appear in the book is because it is pretty much never used in a correct SC answer..
[edit: see updates below]

[rx_11]

all three of these sentences are incorrect. the third one could be made correct if you turn everything into the present tense. i think the reason this construction does not appear in the book is because it is pretty much never used in a correct SC answer..

Hi, tim

Thanks for your explanation. But, to be honest, I think the third one is correct. For example, I find other sentenses using "present participle" on the dictionary.

The dictionary explains:

1. People who wish/wished to visit the caves = people wishing to visit the caves

2. a map that marks/marked political boundaries=a map marking political boundaries.

I am confused about your explanations because I think "producing..." acts as a "present participle" modifying the "machine" like these sentenses, and that the "present participle" modifier can be used in the sentenses of any tenses. From your opinion, do you mean that we cannot use a participle as a noun modifier in a past-tense sentense???

Would you plz clarify that?

Regards.

Rx

[tim]

Quick lesson on GMAT SC: just because you find a grammar rule in a dictionary, or you hear it from your English teacher, or Congress passes a law saying this is correct grammar, doesn't mean it's correct on the GMAT. the ONLY authoritative source for what constitutes correct GMAT grammar is the GMAT itself, and the GMAT marches to a different drummer. we do our best to sort through the data and distill the available information into rules for you, but this is definitively NOT on your dictionary's radar, so don't rely on your dictionary for insight into GMAT SC..

Let me know if you find an OG problem that uses the construction you describe..

[RonPurewal]

rx_11 is right on this one -- and quite so; this construction is strewn all over the correct answers in the og12. from a few minutes' worth of flipping through og12, here are several problems in which that construction is found:
(the asterisk represents problems in which this construction is actually part of a split, i.e., in which you have to pick it over other choices. in the other two, it's in the non-underlined part, but still worth noticing.)

#26* (a period beginning ... and ending ...)
#32 (a ship moving ...)
#42* (the infamous "filigree" problem, with extending...)
#95 (the air flowing...)
#103* (society consisting...)
#133* (laws requiring...)

so, yeah.

---- NOTE: you will almost certainly not have to know any of the information below this line ---

there are subtle differences between the usages of the -ing and relative-clause modifiers, mostly having to do with the suggested permanence or impermanence of changing conditions or desires. for instance, the wording people making over $100,000 per year suggests that those figures are temporary, and that those people may or may not continue to make that sort of money; the wording people who make over $100,000 per year, on the other hand, suggests that these people belong more or less permanently to that category.
in situations that don't directly involve people or changing conditions -- such as a period beginning in 1987 and ending in 1998 vs. a period that began in 1987 and ended in 1998 -- there is generally no difference at all; these two wordings have exactly the same meaning.

[tim]

Hi everyone,

Sorry if i created some confusion earlier with my reference to the construction that doesn't show up on the GMAT. i was answering the OP's question, which very clearly asked about the "having done x" construction and why we don't discuss it in our SC guide. i thought it was clear that i was answering that question, but as i read my post again, i see the my use of the phrase "this construction" may have obfuscated things. i maintain that "having done x" - or in general "having [past participle]" - is pretty much never used in a correct SC answer, and leave it to you all to point out any exceptions if there are any..

Thanks to Ron for his examples about the present participle. Most of his examples support my point that when the GMAT uses a present participle it tends to do so with a present tense verb or at least to indicate something that is in fact still ongoing. Admittedly, numbers 26 and 133 provide some support for rx_11's assertion that it is okay to use a present participle with a past tense verb to modify an action or process that has ended. So yes, rx_11, you are correct to say that present participle can sometimes be used as a modifier with other tenses. However, you still need to avoid getting your rules from the dictionary or other non-GMAT specific sources, because they may not agree with the GMAT.. :)

[RonPurewal]

i know one gprep problem off the top of my head on which a "having" modifier is correct; this is it (i couldn't find it on this forum). the correct answer is the original choice (a), which, in fact, contains not one but two "having" modifiers, in parallel to each other.

Some patients who do not respond to therapies for depression may simply have received inadequate treatment, having, for example, been prescribed a drug at a dosage too low to be effective or having been taken off a drug too soon.

A. having, for example, been prescribed a drug at a dosage too low to be effective or having been
B. having, for example, a drug prescription that was ineffective because the dosage was too low, or being
C. as, for example, having too low of a dosage of a prescribed drug for it to be effective, or being
D. when they have, for example, been prescribed too low a drug dosage to be effective, or were
E. for example, when they have a drug prescription with a dosage too low to be effective, or been

(i know this is an official problem, too, because i've seen it in gprep with my own eyes -- it's not from one of the many secondhand docs floating around out there.)

granted, this is a different type of modifier -- it's a modifier of the form COMMA + -ING (an adverbial modifier), rather than the adjectival type posted by the OP, but it is still worth considering as a counterexample of sorts.

[tim]

i knew if there was an example of "having [past participle]" Ron would find it. Thanks for the example; now i'm glad i qualified my statement with the words "pretty much". :) Again, this construction doesn't happen often, and one takeaway here is to note that it is almost always true that a correct usage of "having [past participle]" will include a comma in front of the "having"..

[saxenankit]

Dear Ron,

Could you please elaborate why ", having been.." is an adverbial modifier and not an adjectival.

[jnelson0612]

Dear Ron,

Could you please elaborate why ", having been.." is an adverbial modifier and not an adjectival.

In my opinion it has to do with the idea that an adverbial modifier modifies a verb or a clause. In this case, the "having been prescribed at a dose too low to be effective . . ." is helping explain WHY the people do not respond to treatment for depression. It doesn't just modify the people themselves (adjectival modifier) but explains how the situation exists even though the people are receiving treatment (adverbial modifier).

[divineacclivity]

i know one gprep problem off the top of my head on which a "having" modifier is correct; this is it (i couldn't find it on this forum). the correct answer is the original choice (a), which, in fact, contains not one but two "having" modifiers, in parallel to each other.

Some patients who do not respond to therapies for depression may simply have received inadequate treatment, having, for example, been prescribed a drug at a dosage too low to be effective or having been taken off a drug too soon.

A. having, for example, been prescribed a drug at a dosage too low to be effective or having been
B. having, for example, a drug prescription that was ineffective because the dosage was too low, or being
C. as, for example, having too low of a dosage of a prescribed drug for it to be effective, or being
D. when they have, for example, been prescribed too low a drug dosage to be effective, or were
E. for example, when they have a drug prescription with a dosage too low to be effective, or been

(i know this is an official problem, too, because i've seen it in gprep with my own eyes -- it's not from one of the many secondhand docs floating around out there.)

granted, this is a different type of modifier -- it's a modifier of the form COMMA + -ING (an adverbial modifier), rather than the adjectival type posted by the OP, but it is still worth considering as a counterexample of sorts.

I have always eaten slow, having been told that eating slow helps improve digestion. - Is "having .." also an adverbial modifier and is it a correct sentence?

I've heard some people using "having" the follow way. Is that correct?
The company shares are doing exceptionally well and having said so/that, I'd invite you and your families to the company sponsored holiday for a week in Paris.

thanks in advance

[RonPurewal]

I have always eaten slow, having been told that eating slow helps improve digestion. - Is "having .." also an adverbial modifier and is it a correct sentence?

all good, except for one thing: you'd need "slowly" in both places where you currently have "slow".

I've heard some people using "having" the follow way. Is that correct?
The company shares are doing exceptionally well and having said so/that, I'd invite you and your families to the company sponsored holiday for a week in Paris.

spoken english and written english are 2 different languages; don't mix them.