SC:- 10 nov 2013 since birds were overcome by pollution

[gauravtyagigmat]

In the mid-1970’s, since birds were overcome by pollution, and routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, this prompted officials in California to devise a plan that reduced automobile emissions.
A. since birds were overcome by pollution, and routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, this prompted officials in California to devise a plan that reduced
B. since birds that had been overcome by pollution were routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, it prompted officials in California to devise a plan that would reduce
C. birds had been overcome by pollution and routinely fell from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, prompting officials in California to devise a plan that reduced
D. birds overcome by pollution routinely fell from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, prompting officials in California to devise a plan to reduce
E. birds overcome by pollution and routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways were prompting officials in California to devise a plan to reduce

OA : D

Question 1.Please correct me if I my understanding is incorect

A. improper parallelism: overcome by pollution, and routinely falling

B subject verb agreement birds doesn't agree with had been

c.subject verb agreement birds doesn't agree with had been

D.Correct

E.improper parallelism: overcome by pollution, and routinely falling

Question 2. is usage of "since" in option A and B correct
I felt usage of "since" is incorrect.
because we generaly say
since 1947
since mid 80's but we never say In the mid-1970’s, since

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

A. improper parallelism: overcome by pollution, and routinely falling

You can interpret "overcome..." and "falling..." as parallel modifiers.
Birds were overcome by pollution
Birds were falling from the sky
There's a problem somewhere in the OG (I think around #40 or so) with parallel modifiers almost exactly like this. "Spawned" and then "stretching", or something like that, describing a giant mushroom on the floor of a forest.

So, no, those would be ok in context.

Some things that are not ok with choice (a):
* "Birds" isn't qualified/modified/narrowed down in any way, thus suggesting that birds in general were falling out of the sky. I.e., basically all birds were dying from pollution. (If you say Americans are paying less for gas then they did last year, that means all Americans -- at least the vast majority of them -- or Americans in general.)
* "This" is used as a pronoun.
* "Since" + "prompted" = redundant.
* The tense of "reduced" doesn't make sense, because the reduction hadn't happened yet.

[RonPurewal]

B subject verb agreement birds doesn't agree with had been

c.subject verb agreement birds doesn't agree with had been

I don't understand what you are saying here; "had been" agrees with absolutely any subject in the whole world.

(In fact, "subject/verb agreement" exists only with present tense verbs. Was/were is the only exception.)

Choices (b) and (c) contain errors already described for choice (a) above. In addition, "it" in choice (b) doesn't refer to anything.

[RonPurewal]

E.improper parallelism: overcome by pollution, and routinely falling

"Overcome" and "falling" can be parallel. (See above.)

The biggest problem here is that the core of the sentence is "birds ... were prompting". According to that sentence, the birds themselves were "prompting" political action, during the timeframe of the sentence. I.e., while they were falling out of the sky, cold and dead, they whipped out their telephones and called California politicians.

[RonPurewal]

Question 2. is usage of "since" in option A and B correct
I felt usage of "since" is incorrect.
because we generaly say
since 1947
since mid 80's but we never say In the mid-1970’s, since

Thanks

"Since" can also mean "because".
Since you were sick last night, I didn't want to bring small children to visit you.

[gauravtyagigmat]

A. improper parallelism: overcome by pollution, and routinely falling

You can interpret "overcome..." and "falling..." as parallel modifiers.
Birds were overcome by pollution
Birds were falling from the sky
There's a problem somewhere in the OG (I think around #40 or so) with parallel modifiers almost exactly like this. "Spawned" and then "stretching", or something like that, describing a giant mushroom on the floor of a forest.

So, no, those would be ok in context.

Some things that are not ok with choice (a):
* "Birds" isn't qualified/modified/narrowed down in any way, thus suggesting that birds in general were falling out of the sky. I.e., basically all birds were dying from pollution. (If you say Americans are paying less for gas then they did last year, that means all Americans -- at least the vast majority of them -- or Americans in general.)
* "This" is used as a pronoun.
* "Since" + "prompted" = redundant.
* The tense of "reduced" doesn't make sense, because the reduction hadn't happened yet.

thanks for reply
now i got it.I didn't knew overcome is participle.I thought overcome is just working verb.I know that participles can only be parallel with participles and adjectives (sentence correction guide manhattan)

as per my understanding after your explaination
had been can be used with both singular and plural

I didnt get your point about
* "Since" + "prompted" = redundant.
since means "the time under consideration or because(mentioned by you)"
prompted means "To move to act"
how using these two together creates redundacy can you please elaborate?

[RonPurewal]

"X prompted Y" means that Y happened because of X. So, if "since" is used to mean "because", you can't also use "prompted".

Since John was hungry, he ate the hamburger.
Hunger prompted John to eat the hamburger.

[thanghnvn]

A. improper parallelism: overcome by pollution, and routinely falling

You can interpret "overcome..." and "falling..." as parallel modifiers.
Birds were overcome by pollution
Birds were falling from the sky
There's a problem somewhere in the OG (I think around #40 or so) with parallel modifiers almost exactly like this. "Spawned" and then "stretching", or something like that, describing a giant mushroom on the floor of a forest.

So, no, those would be ok in context.

Some things that are not ok with choice (a):
* "Birds" isn't qualified/modified/narrowed down in any way, thus suggesting that birds in general were falling out of the sky. I.e., basically all birds were dying from pollution. (If you say Americans are paying less for gas then they did last year, that means all Americans -- at least the vast majority of them -- or Americans in general.)
* "This" is used as a pronoun.
* "Since" + "prompted" = redundant.
* The tense of "reduced" doesn't make sense, because the reduction hadn't happened yet.

the only error in C is that
"had been" can not go with "in mid..."

time adverb must agree with tense.

I do not see other errors in C. pls, help

[RonPurewal]

the only error in C is that
"had been" can not go with "in mid..."

time adverb must agree with tense.

I do not see other errors in C. pls, help

Also in that choice:

* "And" doesn't make sense as a connector; it fails to convey the relationship between "being overcome by pollution" and "falling out of the sky".

* "That reduced" doesn't work, for two different reasons.
First, it's in the same timeframe as the rest of the sentence, illogically suggesting simultaneity. (To use the same past tense for things that are not sequential or simultaneous, you'd ordinarily use additional time markers, e.g., In 1955 Harry met Linda, who later became his wife. Without "later", the impression is that the two met and got married almost instantly.)
Second, a plan doesn't reduce emissions. You can make a plan to reduce emissions, but the actual reduction comes from the actions outlined in the plan. Not from the plan itself.

[RomanN658]

Hi Ron,

I was reading a post from you. In 2009, you concluded, "it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause". I agree with the first half of the sentence, but I do not think the second half (and it applies...that clause) is accurate. In this problem, birds themselves cannot perform the action of "prompting". If birds do the action of "prompting", it will be nonsense. As you said, birds fell from the sky could not prompt officials, only the entire preceding clause could prompt officials.

Therefore, I think when "comma+ing" demonstrates a "direct and immediate consequence of the main action" the DOer of the "ing" can be the entire preceding clause.

[thanghnvn]

regarding C.

I know C is wrong because "prompting" can not take the time of "had been" . this is not logic

but I have another question.

can "in+time" go with "had done" ?
in grammar book "by+time" can go with "had done".

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

I was reading a post from you. In 2009, you concluded, "it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause". I agree with the first half of the sentence, but I do not think the second half (and it applies...that clause) is accurate. In this problem, birds themselves cannot perform the action of "prompting". If birds do the action of "prompting", it will be nonsense. As you said, birds fell from the sky could not prompt officials, only the entire preceding clause could prompt officials.

Therefore, I think when "comma+ing" demonstrates a "direct and immediate consequence of the main action" the DOer of the "ing" can be the entire preceding clause.

Roman, you're exactly correct. In fact, you're more than just correct——this is the main reason why the "comma + __ing" construction exists.

Note that I hedged a bit with the language. I didn't say that the subject PERFORMS the action, nor did I say that the subject is DIRECTLY responsible.
If that were true, a normal subject+verb pattern would probably be a better way to write the sentence.

Instead, the subject's action is responsible——usually indirectly——for the consequence described in the "__ing" part.
The "comma + __ing" modifier exists to make this indirect relationship clear (as opposed to subject+verb constructions, which imply direct action/responsibility).

That's what I meant to convey from the start, by using hedging/indirect language ("applies to", rather than "the subject performs..."). Apologies if that was unclear.

[RonPurewal]

can "in+time" go with "had done" ?
in grammar book "by+time" can go with "had done".

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

As is always the case with verb-tense decisions, it's impossible to say without context.

[thanghnvn]

[quote="gauravtyagigmat"]In the mid-1970’s, since birds were overcome by pollution, and routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, this prompted officials in California to devise a plan that reduced automobile emissions.
A. since birds were overcome by pollution, and routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, this prompted officials in California to devise a plan that reduced
B. since birds that had been overcome by pollution were routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, it prompted officials in California to devise a plan that would reduce
C. birds had been overcome by pollution and routinely fell from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, prompting officials in California to devise a plan that reduced
D. birds overcome by pollution routinely fell from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, prompting officials in California to devise a plan to reduce
E. birds overcome by pollution and routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways were prompting officials in California to devise a plan to reduce

I wish to discuss "had been" and "fell" in choice C.

this pattern is not logic because "prompting" can not accept the tense of both "had been " and "fell".

is my thinking correct.