SC:Although no proof yet exists of

[terrace.hoer]

you probably picked answer choice (a), but i'll give a brief treatment of all of them, just to be sure.

(a)
you cannot write "proof of ... fields ... posing". this kind of construction is just wrong.
sorry.
this is going to annoy a lot of people, because this sort of construction is bread and butter in spoken language,
BUT:
if the focus of the construction is the ACTION, then you must use the POSSESSIVE form for the noun/pronoun preceding the "-ing" participle. since that's fatally awkward to say in words, i'll provide an example:
everyone laughed at me accidentally walking into the girls' bathroom --> WRONG. sorry. this sentence would actually mean that everyone laughed at me as they were walking into the girls' bathroom.
everyone laughed at my accidentally walking into the girls' bathroom --> CORRECT, because it's the action (my walking into the bathroom, not really me) that they're laughing at.

so, incredibly enough, the correct version of the sentence here would actually be "the fields' posing ...".
the gmat normally considers such constructions fatally awkward, and won't include them in correct answers (i believe this has been articulated in the official guide at a couple of different points, so i'm not just making an empirical claim). therefore, you can ignore such constructions outright, and eliminate choices that contain them.

incidentally, if the focus of the construction is the NOUN (or pronoun) itself, then you don't use a possessive. for instance:
i saw him walking down the street --> correct, because it was him i saw, not his walking action. this sentence is, however, ambiguous, because either he or i may have been the one walking down the street.
i saw his walking down the street wouldn't be incorrect, but it would be a bit strange, unless i'm a modeling scout who actually analyzes the gait of random strangers as they walk down the street.

Hi, Ron!
As for your explanation above,
"everyone laughed at me accidentally walking into the girls' bathroom",
why can't i consider "walking into the girls' bathroom" a noun modifier used to modify "me"?

Similar question in another sentence, too.
"i saw him walking down the street."
Why do you say that "walking down the street" is ambiguous?
According to TOUCH RULE, they are both closet to the preceding nouns. How do the ambiguity problem come? Does this problem relate to the fact that both "me" and "him" are pronouns?

If I say, "I saw the cat walking down the street", is there still an ambiguity problem?

Thanks a lot:)!!

[jlucero]

Hi, Ron!
As for your explanation above,
"everyone laughed at me accidentally walking into the girls' bathroom",
why can't i consider "walking into the girls' bathroom" a noun modifier used to modify "me"?

1) Accidentally = adverb describing how you walked into the bathroom, so it's describing a process and not an adjective.

2) You aren't describing a property about you, you are describing what you are doing as the reason why people are laughing. Notice how you couldn't rearrange the sentence:

everyone laughed at "walking into the girls' bathroom" me

Similar question in another sentence, too.
"i saw him walking down the street."
Why do you say that "walking down the street" is ambiguous?
According to TOUCH RULE, they are both closet to the preceding nouns. How do the ambiguity problem come? Does this problem relate to the fact that both "me" and "him" are pronouns?

If I say, "I saw the cat walking down the street", is there still an ambiguity problem?

Thanks a lot:)!!

Ron can correct me here, but I'm going to quote his own posting from below those examples:

"probably not. when an "-ing" modifier is NOT preceded by a comma, it's generally taken to modify the noun that immediately precedes it.
from what we've seen, the gmat is generally in accord with this standard."

I think in both examples, "walking down the street" would refer to the noun it touches, but with a comma it would refer back earlier in the sentence.

[duyng9989]

I have the same question

Ron. Can you please clarify that point.

Why "walking in to the girl's bathroom" does not modify ME?

everyone laughed at me walking into the girl's bathroom

But in this sentence:

I saw him walking down the street:

Walking down the street modifies him?

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

I have the same question

Ron. Can you please clarify that point.

Why "walking in to the girl's bathroom" does not modify ME?

everyone laughed at me walking into the girl's bathroom

But in this sentence:

I saw him walking down the street:

Walking down the street modifies him?

Thank you

this isn't the same for pronouns as for nouns.

the gmat only tests this construction with regard to nouns, so there's no reason to articulate what happens with pronouns (like "me" here).

[yuanhongzhi0830]

Hi Ron, I am just wondering if we raplace the "for" the answer E with "of", can it be right?

BTW, really enjoy listening to your lectures=) (I was first planning to type "listen to your teaching", but it's "fatally arkward, haha)

[jlucero]

Hi Ron, I am just wondering if we raplace the "for" the answer E with "of", can it be right?

BTW, really enjoy listening to your lectures=) (I was first planning to type "listen to your teaching", but it's "fatally arkward, haha)

Nothing that's "fatally awkward", but C does a better job of defining the role of each modifier, rather than latching them all on and leaving open a possibility of ambiguity.

[JIYUS618]

other wrong choices:

(b)
"...that pose any threat to..." is a modifier, so this sentence is actually saying that there's no proof of the existence of the electromagnetic fields themselves. that's not what it's supposed to say.

(d)
according to the wording of this one, the proof itself would pose a health threat. that's obviously absurd.

(e)
"proof for" is unidiomatic; the correct idiom is "proof of".

As for me ,"posing" and "that" ,which are separately in choice A and in choice B stand for " appliances"
According to this problem,I eliminate A and B, is it right?
If not,why couldn't "posing" and "that" stand for " appliances"?
Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

As for me ,"posing" and "that" ,which are separately in choice A and in choice B stand for " appliances"

Sorry, I don't understand. Could you please try to clarify?

Thanks.

[JIYUS618]

As for me ,"posing" and "that" ,which are separately in choice A and in choice B stand for " appliances"

Sorry, I don't understand. Could you please try to clarify?

Thanks.

Sorry...

I eliminate A and B, because "posing" and "that" both modify " appliances", is it right?
If not,why couldn't "posing" and "that" modify " appliances"?
"appliances" is the closest noun
Thanks in advance.

[thanghnvn]

Although no proof yet exists of electromagnetic fields generated by household appliances posing any health threat, mounting scientific evidence has convinced many experts that there is cause for concern.
(A) of electromagnetic fields generated by household appliances posing any health threat
(B) of electromagnetic fields generated by household appliances that pose any threat to health
(C) that electromagnetic fields generated by household appliances pose any threat to health
(D) that poses any threat to health from electromagnetic fields generated by household appliances
(E) for any health threat posed by electromagnetic fields generated by household appliances

the correct answer is C but could someone please explain why?

this problem is typical of the idea that " use the meaning to go to correct answer, not use the grammar rule"

I never think that the pattern " the proof exists that" is correct. but by considering the meaning I can go to choice C. we need a clause/action to complement "proof" and only choice C do so. other choices distort the meaning. gmat want to teach us to use the meaning , not the grammar rule to solve sc problems.

am I correct?

[xiaolanjingheleaf]

i saw him walking down the street --> correct, because it was him i saw, not his walking action. this sentence is, however, ambiguous, because either he or i may have been the one walking down the street.

Hi, Ron. I thought that ving modifier can only serve as an adverbial modifier when it is separated from the preceding clause by a comma. If there is no comma, ving modifier will modify preceding noun close to it, just like the following sentece:
The cat circling the mouse is a tabby.

"circling the mouse" modifies "the cat".

And things may be a little more complicated if the noun has some other modifiers, just like the following sentence:

The cat with beautiful eyes circling the mouse is a tabby.

Both "with beautiful eyes" and "circling the mouse" are modifiers of "the cat". Since it is not possible to have both of them next to "the cat", "circling the mouse" is kind of "jumping" over "beautiful eyes" to modify "the cat".

Unfortunately, neither cases can be applied to your sentence. How could the "logical subject" of "walking down the street" is "I"? Could you please explain the general rule for this kind of use?

Thanks Ron!

[xiaolanjingheleaf]

What about "posing any health threat" in A? Is that ambiguous?

probably not. when an "-ing" modifier is NOT preceded by a comma, it's generally taken to modify the noun that immediately precedes it.
from what we've seen, the gmat is generally in accord with this standard.

Hi, Ron, I just found what you said in this post. What is the difference between the GMAT sentence and your example (which I mentioned in the closest upstairs post)?

Thanks Ron!

[RonPurewal]

gmat want to teach us to use the meaning , not the grammar rule to solve sc problems.

am I correct?

Meaning and grammar play on the same team. It's impossible to isolate them from each other.

What's impossible is to isolate particular grammatical structures and to memorize them, as though they were magically independent of context/meaning. That is what you can't do.
This has nothing to do with the GMAT in particular; it's just how language works"”every language in the whole world, not just English.
Every system of grammar in the entire world requires an intended meaning before one can decide whether the grammar is "correct". "Correct" = "expresses intended meaning accurately".

[RonPurewal]

As for me ,"posing" and "that" ,which are separately in choice A and in choice B stand for " appliances"

Sorry, I don't understand. Could you please try to clarify?

Thanks.

Sorry...

I eliminate A and B, because "posing" and "that" both modify " appliances", is it right?
If not,why couldn't "posing" and "that" modify " appliances"?
"appliances" is the closest noun
Thanks in advance.

These modifiers are not so rigidly constrained, especially "that".

"That" modifiers are allowed considerable latitude. They are placed as close as possible to the stuff they're intended to describe, but, sometimes, "as close as possible" is still pretty far away.
For instance, see #50 in the Diagnostic section of the Official Guide 11th, 12th, or 13th edition. (The Diagnostic chapter is the same in all three editions.)

So, no, you can't eliminate for this reason.

[RonPurewal]

i saw him walking down the street --> correct, because it was him i saw, not his walking action. this sentence is, however, ambiguous, because either he or i may have been the one walking down the street.

Hi, Ron. I thought that ving modifier can only serve as an adverbial modifier when it is separated from the preceding clause by a comma. If there is no comma, ving modifier will modify preceding noun close to it, just like the following sentece:
The cat circling the mouse is a tabby.

"circling the mouse" modifies "the cat".

And things may be a little more complicated if the noun has some other modifiers, just like the following sentence:

The cat with beautiful eyes circling the mouse is a tabby.

Both "with beautiful eyes" and "circling the mouse" are modifiers of "the cat". Since it is not possible to have both of them next to "the cat", "circling the mouse" is kind of "jumping" over "beautiful eyes" to modify "the cat".

Unfortunately, neither cases can be applied to your sentence. How could the "logical subject" of "walking down the street" is "I"? Could you please explain the general rule for this kind of use?

Thanks Ron!

"Walking down the street" describes "him". This sentence works in exactly the same way as your examples.