On account of a law passed in 1993, making it a crime punish

[eveH982]

those three examples are "with + noun + __ING...", which works differently.
that construction describes a circumstance that contributes to the entire situation described in the following clause, not just the subject.

1/ the bidders' actions made the art unaffordable for everyone else.
2/ the consumers' actions pushed sales to a new record.
3/ some aspect of the situation at this foreign college (e.g., financial aid is unavailable) is creating the problems.


in the problem at hand, the construction is not "with + noun + __ing". it's effectively just "with + noun (+ other modifiers)", which can be assigned to the following subject.

Hi Ron, I'm also confused after reading several of your posts about the "with+ noun+_ing" issue. And it seems that I still can't figure it out after thinking for many days.
#1. In one of your posts you said: If "with ___" comes BEFORE the main sentence, it describes some sort of precipitating circumstance (which falls under the category of 'reason')
With a few bidders pushing up the price into the hundreds of thousands, the art quickly became unaffordable for all but the richest people at the auction.
--> With (precipitating circumstance), (main sentence = result).

I understand your explanation totally. BUT

#2. In choice B, With a law passed in 1933 that makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment that a United States citizen hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them.

You said 'with' in choice b is also bad: it seems to imply that immigrants arrived with the law in their hands. In this sentence, "with a law..." doesn't describe the immigrants, nor does it describe anything that the immigrants did. So it can't describe either the subject or the sentence.

Isn't that the same issue in #1? the law passed in 1933 can be the precipitating circumstance of the main sentence-->

The passed law makes the immigrants find that they have to surrender... From my point of view, it does make sense with your explanation in# 1.

besides, from your explanation in #2 (it reads like the immigrants arrived with the law in their hands), doesn't that also indicate that in #1, the art became unaffordable with a few bidders in their hands? (This is a silly question i know - -)

#3. with a reduced risk of heart disease linked in a 1991 report with moderate alcohol consumption, in particular red wine, they (wines sales)began growing again

you said that the "with..." modifier suggests that wine sales themselves have experienced a reduced risk of heart disease.

But isn't the reduced risk of heart disease something that cause the wine sales to begin growing again? Just as your explanation goes in #1-> With (precipitating circumstance), (main sentence = result).

#2 and #3 are wrong choices. But i can't tell why they are wrong, since sentence in #1 is right. Do I misunderstand the relation between the "with" clause and the main clause because it's not the same with that relation in #1 ---- the relation between the "with" part and the main clause is direct causal relation in #1 BUT the one in #2 and #3 indirect?


Thanks sooooooo much...

[RonPurewal]

well, sure -- think about the most literal reading of those modifiers.

"With a few bidders..."
--> who/what had "bidders"?
the art did.
so, the best following subject is the art. this is well constructed.

contrast that example with these ones:

"With a law passed..."
--> who/what had a law?" (not the immigrants)

"With a reduced risk of heart disease..."
--> who/what had a reduced risk? (not wine sales)

--

in any case, don't forget -- if you're ever thinking about these kinds of subtleties, YOU'RE BEING DISTRACTED FROM EASIER THINGS.

do not EVER forget this! really, rather than thinking about subtleties, LOOK FOR SOMETHING LESS SUBTLE.

in the case of your two examples #2 and #3:
#2: the present tense "makes" is nonsense (we're talking about the effect of a law in 1933).
#3: "red wine" is not a type of alcohol CONSUMPTION.
these are pretty black-and-white errors -- especially in contrast with the other answer choices -- so, you can just look at them instead.

[aflaamM589]

Hello Ron, we know that Ved can be made parallell to Ving as long as both describe a same thing.
Here in D,both passed and making are modifying law.
Because of a law
passed in 1933
making it a crime punishable...
then why is there no and sepearting the two modifiers, even when in official material there exists precedents for this kind of a construction.
D, as it stands now make making it a crime look as though it modifies 1933.
Can you help me understand what's going on as it is the correct answer choice.
Thanks in advance

[eveH982]

so ron, as you said, because of something +V.ing makes sense only if V.ing serves as a modifier of "something" .

I wonder can we say "because of doing something" if the causal agent is "doing";

if the answer is yes, should the subject of the independent clause that "because of doing" attaches to also be the the subject of "doing" ?

i.e.: because of going to school, he can meet many new friends.

thanx

[RonPurewal]

i'll just tell you this much—i've been a writer and editor for more than 20 years, and i can't come up with a single example of a formal sentence in which "because of verbING" is acceptable.

you are safe eliminating this sort of thing if you see it.

[JustinCKN]

Hi Ron:
Choice A: On account of a law passed in 1933, making it a crime punishable by imprisonment that..., immigrants found that on arrival in the United States...

Is my understanding below correct?

Choice A has two mistakes regarding "comma making it a crime punishable by imprisonment that ..."

1. Making it a crime punishable Modify the previous action . It mean that the action of the law being passed makes a crime punishable by imprisonment...
Actually, it is the Law that makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment... therefore A is wrong.

2. the construction "comma making a crime punishable by imprisonment..." should modify the previous CLAUSE. but in the choice A, preceding the comma is not a clause but a preposition phrase. Therefore, comma making a crime...can not modify the Preposition phrase.

Especially I care about whether my explanation 2 is correct?

Thanks.
Sincerely.
JustinCKN.

[Crisc419]

The following sentence is the right answer of one question from the prep.

After analyzing data gathered by weather satellites, scientists report that the Earth's northern latitudes have become about ten percent greener since 1980, due to more vigorous plant growth associated with warmer temperatures and higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

I thought "due to " in this sentence cannot be replaced by "caused by", but it is still a right sentence.

so i still feel confused about the usage of "due to".

please clarify.

thanks.

Cris

[RonPurewal]

did you actually SEE that problem in GMAT PREP, with your own eyes? ...or was it in a second-hand archive that you got from the internet?

if that problem is actually from GMAT PREP, then, i will literally bet $10,000 that "due to" is in the non-underlined part of the sentence -- meaning that it probably just wasn't edited as carefully as the parts that are actually relevant to solving the problem.

[Crisc419]

did you actually SEE that problem in GMAT PREP, with your own eyes? ...or was it in a second-hand archive that you got from the internet?

if that problem is actually from GMAT PREP, then, i will literally bet $10,000 that "due to" is in the non-underlined part of the sentence -- meaning that it probably just wasn't edited as carefully as the parts that are actually relevant to solving the problem.

sorry, Ron, i check the source, the problem is not from GMAT PREP.

and also it is true that the part"due to" is in the non-underlined part of the sentence

i am so sorry, next time i will be more careful.

thanks.

[RonPurewal]

ok.

[NicoleT643]

This post is looong, worth the time to go over every single thread of it, I have learned a lot!

However I still have a question to A

as you mentioned in the previous post 'There's still a problem with comma + "making". Remember that, when comma+ing follows an action, it describes that action (not just a noun).'

A law passed in 1993, passed is an adjective and modifies 'a law', 'comma + making' in this choice needs to modify the precedent clause, however passed itself is not a verb but a modifier, there is no action precede 'comma+making', therefore, comma+ making can not modify 'a law passed in 1993', am I correct? Thanks

[RonPurewal]

no, that's not correct.

comma+__ing modifiers can describe the preceding ACTION... regardless of whether that action is actually represented by a verb or by a modifier.

e.g., both of the following sentences are correct:

I dropped the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.
My friend saw me dropping the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.

in the second one, the modifier is describing the action of "dropping the bags onto the floor"—which is technically another modifier, but, the sentence works in the same way as the first one.

[NicoleT643]

no, that's not correct.

comma+__ing modifiers can describe the preceding ACTION... regardless of whether that action is actually represented by a verb or by a modifier.

e.g., both of the following sentences are correct:

I dropped the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.
My friend saw me dropping the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.

in the second one, the modifier is describing the action of "dropping the bags onto the floor"—which is technically another modifier, but, the sentence works in the same way as the first one.

Ron, your explanation is super helpful, thanks a lot!

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[WenshanW541]

A, B should be eliminated, "United States Citizen hold" is in subjunctive mood. There is no prediction or uncertainity here.

Hi Ron, someone posted the topic "subjunctive mood" here to eliminate answers A and B. I don't understand why "hold" indicates "subjunctive mood". I think the subjunctive mood is usually used as "I wish I had a car." So, if A/B has a subjunctive mood, should the answer use "held"?

I think A and B are wrong mainly because of the Subject-Verb Agreement issue: a United States citizen holds, NOT hold. Please advise. Thanks in advance!