* Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge..

[rx_11]

Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.

(A) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are
(B) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are
(C) Neuroscientists amassing a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are
(D) Neuroscientists have amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood,
(E) Neuroscientists have amassed, over the past twenty years, a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood




OA is A

This is an OG question and also a question on prep. I have searched the forum and no one has asked this question before.

Experts, could you please explain why D & E are wrong?

[mehtamaulikd]

(D) Neuroscientists have amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, ....(this part of the sentence is followed by now drawing on solid conclusions...must be connected by and or some connector, the first part is a clause you cannot connect a fragment to a clause by using a comma...u need a connector like but yet and etc......because here the modifier is also not clear)
(E) Neuroscientists have amassed, over the past twenty years, a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood (same expln as D)

[tim]

in D and E, "now drawing..." is being used as a modifier, which is not acceptable in this context because it looks like the phrase is modifying "adulthood". in the correct answer, "now drawing" is correctly used as a verb. this is a good example of why it is so important to identify the main subject/verb/direct object in each sentence so you can see how all the elements of the sentence fit together..

[rx_11]

Hi, dear instructors,

I am confused Because you've said in other posts that the "comma+participle" can modify the subject of the previous main clause, that is, the "drawing" should modifier the neuroscientists, rather than adulthood. Could you clarify that?

Thanks very much!

[RonPurewal]

Hi, dear instructors,

I am confused Because you've said in other posts that the "comma+participle" can modify the subject of the previous main clause, that is, the "drawing" should modifier the neuroscientists, rather than adulthood. Could you clarify that?

Thanks very much!

you're right -- here's a complete discussion:
post46255.html#p46255

this sort of modifier should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
1) it should apply most nearly to the subject of the preceding clause (as you've said); and, even more importantly,
2) it should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:
* immediate consequence
* simultaneous, but lower-priority, action
here, this modifier doesn't have either of these 2 relationships to the main clause, so it's used inappropriately.

[tak2pratik]

Hi, dear instructors,

I am confused Because you've said in other posts that the "comma+participle" can modify the subject of the previous main clause, that is, the "drawing" should modifier the neuroscientists, rather than adulthood. Could you clarify that?

Thanks very much!

you're right -- here's a complete discussion:
post46255.html#p46255

this sort of modifier should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
1) it should apply most nearly to the subject of the preceding clause (as you've said); and, even more importantly,
2) it should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:
* immediate consequence
* simultaneous, but lower-priority, action
here, this modifier doesn't have either of these 2 relationships to the main clause, so it's used inappropriately.

Hello Ron,

Can you please explain what do you men by "immediate consequence" ?

According to what I can understand:
"drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language"
is the immediate consequence that follows from,
"having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood".
The neuroscientists have gathered a lot of knowledge about brain development over the past 20 years and they are drawing conclusions based on the knowledge gained.

Isn't the conclusion an immediate consequence of the main action ?
Please let me know if there is a flaw in my understanding.
Many thanks,
Pratik.

[RonPurewal]

According to what I can understand:
"drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language"
is the immediate consequence that follows from,
"having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood".
The neuroscientists have gathered a lot of knowledge about brain development over the past 20 years and they are drawing conclusions based on the knowledge gained.

Isn't the conclusion an immediate consequence of the main action ?
Please let me know if there is a flaw in my understanding.
Many thanks,
Pratik.

that's not an "immediate consequence" -- when we say "immediate consequence, we mean a consequence that is proximate, immediate, and produced as an essentially unavoidable result of the main action.

for instance:

the bullet entered Smith's brain, killing him instantly --> this is an immediate and automatic consequence; if the bullet does this, then smith will be killed.

john scored 90 on the most recent test, raising his overall average by two points --> again, an immediate and automatic consequence; if john gets this score, there will automatically be the stated consequence for his average.

in the problem at hand, drawing new conclusions is not an automatic and essentially unavoidable consequence of amassing the knowledge in question; the researchers must actively go beyond just amassing the knowledge to draw those conclusions.

[tak2pratik]

that's not an "immediate consequence" -- when we say "immediate consequence, we mean a consequence that is proximate, immediate, and produced as an essentially unavoidable result of the main action.

for instance:

the bullet entered Smith's brain, killing him instantly --> this is an immediate and automatic consequence; if the bullet does this, then smith will be killed.

john scored 90 on the most recent test, raising his overall average by two points --> again, an immediate and automatic consequence; if john gets this score, there will automatically be the stated consequence for his average.

in the problem at hand, drawing new conclusions is not an automatic and essentially unavoidable consequence of amassing the knowledge in question; the researchers must actively go beyond just amassing the knowledge to draw those conclusions.

SUPER STUFF RON!!!
THANKS

[tim]

as always!

[prashant.panghal]

good explanation

[jnelson0612]

Yes indeed! Thanks Ron. :-)

[sadhyasharma]

Ron,

OG Q30 -
For members of the seventeenth century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, a method to protect warriors against enemy arrows.

A. a method to protect
B. as a method protecting
C. protecting
D. as a protection of
E. to protect

OA is C.
Could you help me understand how either of these requirements is satisfied in this question?
As per Stacey's explanation, the protecting modifies why the animal hide shields are essential items.

http://www.beatthegmat.com/ing-modifier ... 38943.html

Hi, dear instructors,

I am confused Because you've said in other posts that the "comma+participle" can modify the subject of the previous main clause, that is, the "drawing" should modifier the neuroscientists, rather than adulthood. Could you clarify that?

Thanks very much!

you're right -- here's a complete discussion:
post46255.html#p46255

this sort of modifier should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
1) it should apply most nearly to the subject of the preceding clause (as you've said); and, even more importantly,
2) it should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:
* immediate consequence
* simultaneous, but lower-priority, action
here, this modifier doesn't have either of these 2 relationships to the main clause, so it's used inappropriately.

[messi10]

Hi Sadhya,

Unfortunately, this is an OG problem and cannot be discussed on these forums. This has been requested by GMAC.

However, if you search the forums/internet for participial modifiers, you will find the answer to your question.

Regards

Sunil

[sadhyasharma]

Varun,

Thanks for informing me about the restrictions. However, I was not able to find the answer to my question on the forum/internet. It would be great if you could point me to some resource on the internet.

In the meanwhile, I tried to understand the answer to this question and figured that if the participle modifier does not satisfy the requirements as stated by Ron, it will act as a noun modifier modifying the noun preceeding the comma. And thus, in this case - the 'protecting' acts as a noun modifier which modifies the 'items of military equipment'.

[messi10]

Hey,

I cannot answer your question directly because its an OG question. But read Ron's posts here and you will be able to understand:

post30766.html#p30766-

Regards

Sunil