MGMAT STAFF Please elaborate on this modifier/pronoun issue

[PashaG]

The following sentence is the the OG's right answer for the question 93 in sentence correction section.

[deleted by moderator]

This sentence has a structure that seems contrary to the rules that OG or this forum mentions. Here is my reasons:

1- "enabling it to ...." is a participle phrase. Participle phrases usually modify the whole previous phrase or the subject of the previous phrase, otherwise there would be an ambiguity. Here is an ambiguity in what the participle "enabling" is modifying. It can both modify "powers" and "supreme court". In similar situations OG says such a usage leads to an ambiguous sentence and is incorrect. Why in this case such a usage is not incorrect? (If here, it is obvious that what the participle "enabling" is modifying, in many other cases, considered wrong by the OG, it is also obvious what the participles are referring to. so probably this is not the right justification).

2- The second issue is why there isn't a comma before the participle phrase "enabling it to ...". OG says that participle modifiers should be separated from the previous clause by a comma(for example in question 101). why this rule is not obeyed in this sentence. Is there a general rule on when to use or not to use a comma before a participle phrase?

3- The second issue is about the pronoun "it" that can both refer to "CIA" and "Supreme Court". I know that it can be justified that here is not an ambiguity. But in many other similar cases that is obvious what the pronouns are refering to, OG says there is an ambiguity and such pronoun usages are incorrect. Again why in this case such a pronoun usage is not incorrect?

Thanks in advance,

[esledge]

PashaG, sorry to be a stickler for the rules, but I had to delete the text of the OG question (OG is a banned source on this forum). But your questions are good: just this once, I will provide a similar example from scratch so I can answer.

Example: The board of directors gave the advertising agency broad discretionary powers enabling it to control the brand message throughout the life of the product.

#1/#2 Participles can be used two ways, and the explanation will answer both of your questions:
When -ing words follow a comma, "enabling it to" is an adverbial phrase that modifies, as you note, the verb "gave" or the subject "board of directors." In such a case, there would actually not be ambiguity about the other noun "advertising agency," as the agency is the object of the verb "gave."

When -ing words follow a noun without a comma, they are adjectives that modify the preceding noun. That is the case here, meaning that "enabling it to control" tells us what/which powers were given to the ad agency.

#3- "It" is not ambiguous here because if the antecedent were intended to be "board of directors," we would use a reflexive pronoun:

The board of directors gave the advertising agency broad discretionary powers enabling itself to control the brand message throughout the life of the product.