lwlordw Wrote:Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle - excluder devices be on shrimps nets protect adult sea turtles
A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimps nets protect
B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect
D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting
E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
Dear Stacey/Ron:
According to MG SC Guide, when we use require we are talking about an uncertainty. Require must be followed by one of this constructions: require that xy, require of x to do y, require x to y. However none of this is used in the correct answer.
Analizing the sentence key points: Subject: Local Shrimpers Verb:held Direct object: conferece Adverbial modifier: saying Relative clause: compliance with law Noun Modifier: requiring
Many tks in advance for your magistral explanation.
I have a very generic question here -
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle,
sayingHere saying is a Verb+Ing modifier, Right?
Here is what we know about Verb+Ing modifier -
When you use a COMMA -ING modifier after a clause**, you should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
1. the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause, as you have stated;
2. The subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.
This sort of modifier should additionally 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
VERB + Ing Modifiers also take the tense of the Preceding clause.
held and saying are not in the same tenses.
Mr. Purewal, i am not doubting the Official question, but the issue that i have highlighted here I have seen in couple of more official questions. here the part is non underlined, but there in other questions there was a split in underlined part -
Earning vs earned, but the earning was not in the same tense as that of the preceding clause.
is this not always True -
VERB + Ing Modifiers also take the tense of the Preceding clause.
Or I have some understanding Gap.
The Other Problem that i am quoting is OG13 Q35.
Please do not discuss that question, neither I am asking diplomatically to cite that question any way. I gave the question just for your reference. You even do not need to discuss that question, but my doubt is valid and pestering me from 2 months. Thanks!
