SC: Fossils of the arm

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

I have a question about the modifier "making the sloth...", I know it modify the previous clause, but I don't understand which type of comma+ING modifier it is: does it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause or it is CONSEQUENCE of the main action? if the former be correct then the modifier should apply TO THE SUBJECT of that clause, then the sentence would mean something like "Fossils made the sloth earliest known mammal". how can fossils make the sloth something?
kindly please elaborate how this modifier works.

Thanks a lot.

the problem with this question is that it disregards the entire purpose of having modifiers that describe entire actions in the first place.
the point of those modifiers is to describe actions that are not directly performed by a specific person or thing, but instead result from some action, event, or situation.
from what you've written here, it seems to me that you think the subject of the preceding clause has to make sense as the literal subject of the -ing action. that's not so. first, if that were the case, we'd have no need for this kind of modifier in the first place, as there are already other, more fundamental constructions (= subjects and verbs) with that purpose. second, if you think in that way, then it's actually impossible to express the idea that an action or a situation (rather than a person or thing directly) might be responsible for some other thing that transpires.

as another (correct) example,
i dropped the groceries onto the floor, scaring the baby.
this is another "modifying the entire action" type of modifier.
what scared the baby? well, my dropping the groceries onto the floor did.
did *i* directly scare the baby? no.

the idea you're expressing here is somewhat true, in the sense that the subject of the preceding clause should be the person or thing that is closest in the chain of causation. for instance, in the preceding example, i didn't directly scare the baby, but if you had to point a finger at someone, you would point it at me.
the same is true with the fossils/sloth example. the fossils don't directly make the sloth really old, but, if you had to point a finger at someone or something, you would point your finger at the fossils.

[ghazal.62]

Hi,

Thanks a lot for clarifying explanation. Yea, considering one of your old posts I had been thinking that when "comma + ing" modifier modify the entire previous clause it must APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause. so this is not a MUST, but in some cases it may happen right?

the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged

In this case, the adverbial clause refers to the moon or the earth?
and what is the general rule for such cases

the "comma + ing" modifier should only be used when:

(A)
it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause;

AND

(B)
one of the following is true:
(1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action;
- i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly
(2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action.
- i got a 100 on the most recent exam, bringing my average up to 91

--

since COMMA + -ING clauses are automatically attributed to the SUBJECT of the preceding clause, this modifies the moon.
as it clearly should, in context.

also note that it applies not only to that subject, but to the entire action of that clause (this is what makes it "adverbial").

[jlucero]

Correct. It can modify the subject or the clause as a whole.

[ericyuan0811]

Vane,

I don't know where you read not to split a sentence into its core and modifier parts, but I recommend you keep doing what you stated above as it will help you find a lot of common errors in the core of the sentence. Excellent explanation.

Mayur,

To answer your question, in general, when modifiers can be used with or without a comma in front of them, no comma will be used to modify a noun directly in front of the modifier while a comma will allow you to modify something further away in the sentence:

Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991... (modifies sloth)

Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991... (modifies fossils)

We obviously didn't find a sloth in Puerto Rico, so a comma makes sense here.

hi Joe

I don't quite understand the above sentences here.
In the first sentence "Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991... " can we regard it as
"Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991... "
so both colored parts are modifiers and modify the subject "Fossils"?

and in the second sentence can "comma+found" modify sloth?
I find an example in OG12#56(A), which"comma+Verbed" modify the closet Noun"Empire"

thank you !

[jlucero]

Vane,

I don't know where you read not to split a sentence into its core and modifier parts, but I recommend you keep doing what you stated above as it will help you find a lot of common errors in the core of the sentence. Excellent explanation.

Mayur,

To answer your question, in general, when modifiers can be used with or without a comma in front of them, no comma will be used to modify a noun directly in front of the modifier while a comma will allow you to modify something further away in the sentence:

Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991... (modifies sloth)

Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991... (modifies fossils)

We obviously didn't find a sloth in Puerto Rico, so a comma makes sense here.

hi Joe

I don't quite understand the above sentences here.
In the first sentence "Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991... " can we regard it as
"Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991... "
so both colored parts are modifiers and modify the subject "Fossils"?

and in the second sentence can "comma+found" modify sloth?
I find an example in OG12#56(A), which"comma+Verbed" modify the closet Noun"Empire"

thank you !

I think there's a big difference between a noun phrase + comma + modifier (in this example), and a clause + subordinate clause + comma + -ed modifier in the question you bring up. Ultimately, the biggest rule with modifiers is to place them where they can make logical sense. #56 (12th) is a long sentence, and placing an -ed modifier at the end of that long sentence to refer back to a noun that's far away from the modifier gives you a lot of room to make a mistake in your understanding of that modifier. My point was that you get a little more leeway, not that it can refer to a noun far away from the modifier.

When a modifier is after a single noun phrase, adding a comma just helps to clarify that you are talking about that entire phrase.

The box of books found in 1991... (books found in 1991)
The box of books, found in 1991, ... (box found in 1991)
The box of books were discovered by Alex in his closet, found in 1991. (here, found is too far away from the subject and would be talking about a much closer noun- closet)

[visitdhiraj]

Hi Ron,

Two questions.

1. In choice A, is the word "it" correct? I believe that it is correct. because the work mammal after the word "it" clears ambiguity.

2. can we eliminate the choices based the last word in each choice?
for e.g. of the greater...islands vs on the greater.. islands.

I think the correct choice should be "on the greater..."

Pls clarify. thnx

Dhiraj

[jlucero]

Hi Ron,

Two questions.

1. In choice A, is the word "it" correct? I believe that it is correct. because the work mammal after the word "it" clears ambiguity.

2. can we eliminate the choices based the last word in each choice?
for e.g. of the greater...islands vs on the greater.. islands.

I think the correct choice should be "on the greater..."

Pls clarify. thnx

Dhiraj

1. No. The subject of the sentence is "fossils of the arm of a sloth", so you can't go and cherry pick the object of the object of the prepositional phrase. Given the option, D is much clearer.

2. Possibly, but I wouldn't risk my answer on that split. As an idiom, it does sound more natural to say "the earliest mammal on island X", but there are other times when "of" is used properly in a similar idiom, i.e. "the dominant species of the Jurassic era". I realize that's a split between place and time, but if others have more examples, feel free to share below.

[ericyuan0811]

hi instructors

I think there are some other errors in (A)&(E). Can you help check my thought?Thanks!

(A).Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991, and dated at 34 million years old, made it the earliest known mammal of the Greater Antilles islands.

the comma preceded "and" should be omitted.

(E).Fossils of the arm of a sloth which, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, was dated at 34 million years old, made the sloth the earliest known mammal of the Greater Antilles islands.

this is a run-on sentence.

[RonPurewal]

(A).Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991, and dated at 34 million years old, made it the earliest known mammal of the Greater Antilles islands.

the comma preceded "and" should be omitted.

Not really. But the GMAT doesn't test punctuation, so there isn't much sense in worrying about this.

(E).Fossils of the arm of a sloth which, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, was dated at 34 million years old, made the sloth the earliest known mammal of the Greater Antilles islands.

this is a run-on sentence.

Not so much.

These are legitimate sentences:
The dinosaurs influenced the planet's ecology in ways that affect us even now.
The dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 65 million years ago influenced the planet's ecology in ways that affect us even now.
The dinosaurs, which were obliterated by a meteorite landing, influenced the planet's ecology in ways that affect us even now.

If you take out the modifier in commas, you get a sentence structured like the second or third one. It has issues, as described earlier in this thread, but "run-on" is not one of them.

[chetan86]

Hi, instructors

I have a few concerns:
1. choice B: is "sloth, that..." equal to "sloth that..."?
2. choice C: I eliminated C because of the usage of "this" , am I right?
3. choice E: is "sloth which, ..." equal to "sloth, which..."?

please clarify! thanks!

B&E are both wrong for the reasons I mentioned above.

C is incorrect because this would more logically refer to the subject of the sentence- fossils.

Hi,

I have gone through post but still have some doubts.

Most of the times I eliminate the answer choices based on the position of COMMA.
If answer choice have 'COMMA+that' or 'No COMMA+which', then I mark it as wrong.

So I just want to know whether it is the right approach to eliminate the answer choices?

Thanks,
Chetan

[RonPurewal]

Most of the times I eliminate the answer choices based on the position of COMMA.
If answer choice have 'COMMA+that' or 'No COMMA+which', then I mark it as wrong.

So I just want to know whether it is the right approach to eliminate the answer choices?

Thanks,
Chetan

In terms of base structures, yes. However:

* You may have modifiers intervening between a noun and "that".
E.g., both of the following are correct:

A person's mood depends on neurotransmitters that are present in different amounts at different times of day.

A person's mood depends on neurotransmitters, such as dopamine and serotonin, that are present in different amounts at different times of day.

* "In which", "on which", etc. don't have a comma in front of "which", but are not incorrect.

[chetan86]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your reply.
Your answer is very much helpful.

Regards,
Chetan

[Haibara]

Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991, and dated at 34 million years old, made it the earliest known mammal of the Greater Antilles islands.

A. sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991, and dated at 34 million years old, made it the earliest known mammal of

Ron, grammatically, can the highlighted "it" refer back to "a sloth" only? I recall once you said that "it" or "they" has to refer to the entirety of the antecedent, including surrounding modifiers. So, grammatically speaking, does "it" here has to refer to the full noun phrase "fossils of the arm of a sloth found in ..." ? Such a nuisance, considering how long the entire phrase is.

Please help to clarify, thanks a lot, Ron.

[RonPurewal]

Nope. If the meaning is clear, it's clear.

Here's the deal with that. If there are modifiers ATTACHED TO the noun you're describing, THEN those must be included. E.g., if a sentence contains cathedrals in Italy, then "they" cannot refer to cathedrals in general. It can only refer to cathedrals in Italy.

On the other hand, if the context is clear, then a pronoun can very much do what you're asking about here.
E.g., Many paintings of cathedrals in Italy were painted by artists who had never actually seen them.
--> Here, "them" = cathedrals in Italy. The context is perfectly clear; we are obviously not saying that the artists had never seen their own paintings.

[keenys]

Nope. If the meaning is clear, it's clear.

Here's the deal with that. If there are modifiers ATTACHED TO the noun you're describing, THEN those must be included. E.g., if a sentence contains cathedrals in Italy, then "they" cannot refer to cathedrals in general. It can only refer to cathedrals in Italy.

On the other hand, if the context is clear, then a pronoun can very much do what you're asking about here.
E.g., Many paintings of cathedrals in Italy were painted by artists who had never actually seen them.
--> Here, "them" = cathedrals in Italy. The context is perfectly clear; we are obviously not saying that the artists had never seen their own paintings.

Ron,

By this same very logic as illustrated by you in the example above, why would not "it" in option A not refer to sloth. From a meaning perspective, its clear that "it" should refer to sloth since it is logical to assume that the earliest known mammal is sloth and not fossils.

Also in option A, found in modifier could refer to fossils, arm or sloth.Is this reference ambiguous? If yes, Is this ambiguity enough to eliminate option A?

Could you please help explain? Thanks in advance.