SC sound

[tim]

What do you think? I'm guessing if you're honest with yourself you'll probably realize that you absolutely know what "its" is referring to here. Most cases where students claim some sort of pronoun ambiguity are just examples of them refusing to admit to themselves that they really do know which antecedent is correct.

[divineacclivity]

Question1:
Ron, if I may please ask which one of the following two are correct or atleast better & why?

C. its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by
C.1 its acoustic energy prevented from dissipation by

Question 2:
"E. preventing its acoustic energy from dissipating by" - sounds like sound prevents its acoustic energy from dissipation but I can't see why that's wrong. Would it mean: sound travels long distances and at the same time prevents energy. Pls help me understand this one.

thanks in advance.

[jlucero]

Question1:
Ron, if I may please ask which one of the following two are correct or atleast better & why?

C. its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by
C.1 its acoustic energy prevented from dissipation by

The first is better:
You are prevented from DOING SOMETHING
not
You are prevented from SOMETHING

Question 2:
"E. preventing its acoustic energy from dissipating by" - sounds like sound prevents its acoustic energy from dissipation but I can't see why that's wrong. Would it mean: sound travels long distances and at the same time prevents energy. Pls help me understand this one.

thanks in advance.

Bingo. Let's compare the core of our options:

(C) Sound can travel long distances, its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean.

(E) Sound can travel long distances, preventing its acoustic energy from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean.

In (C), you'd rephrase the modifier as a passive "energy is prevented from X", while in (E) Sound is actively preventing its energy from dissipating.

[adt29]

I eliminated choices (A) and (B) based on this:

'prevented from...' suggests that the sound itself is being prevented from something. However, its the acoustic energy that is prevented from dissipating.

Is this reasoning right?

All the talk of auxillary verbs, absolute phrases and other things that I haven't really come across (at least in chapters 1 through 10) of the SC guide seem highly complex.

I'm also a fan of the video explanations under OG archer and don't hear the instructors talking about these terms...I'd prefer to avoid learning all the technical terms if possible but will if absolutely necessary.

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

I eliminated choices (A) and (B) based on this:

'prevented from...' suggests that the sound itself is being prevented from something. However, its the acoustic energy that is prevented from dissipating.

yes, that's legitimate reasoning. nicely done.

All the talk of auxillary verbs, absolute phrases and other things that I haven't really come across (at least in chapters 1 through 10) of the SC guide seem highly complex.

I'm also a fan of the video explanations under OG archer and don't hear the instructors talking about these terms...I'd prefer to avoid learning all the technical terms if possible but will if absolutely necessary.

the terminology is definitely not necessary. in fact, i don't have clue #1 what "auxiliary verbs" and "absolute phrases" are.
the only grammar terms i know are the super-basics (noun, verb, adjective, etc.) the other names are irrelevant; all that matters is knowing how to use them.
(if you ever see me using those terms in forum posts, that means i just googled them five seconds before writing the post.)

there is exactly one good reason to know this terminology: it can help you google examples.
for instance, if you type "absolute phrase" (or whatever) into google, you'll get loads and loads of EXAMPLES of that type of construction. that might be valuable.
but, as soon as you've internalized how the construction works, forget all about the name.

[divineacclivity]

Why is D wrong?
C. its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by
D. its acoustic energy prevented from being dissipated as a result of

I chose D over C because I thought in C "dissipating by" - means dissipating "near/from" the boundaries whereas the intended meaning is that the dissipation is prevented because of the "boundaries created by water layers" and hence "as a result of" makes more sense as it is in option D whereas it ("dissipation is prevented because of") is not clearly stated in C, so I left C choice alone.
Please help me understand why D is wrong. Thank you very much.

[RonPurewal]

Please read the thread.
post71578.html#p71578

"By" = "next to" is informal usage. In formal written English, this use of "by" is not acceptable; an alternative would be needed (e.g., beside).

[Tadashi]

Hi Ron
glad to know that it's not from a banned source, so i can ask some questions. (btw, i just wonder why some forums can discuss problem sets from banned source but MGMAT can't ...)

my question .

why e is wrong?
eh....actually while doing that problem, i thought e was perfect.

c(oa).sound can travel through water for enormous distance, its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean.

e.sound can travel through water for enormous distance, preventing its acoustic energy from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean.


", preventing xxx" works as a adv. modifier modifies the preceding sentence.

&( the subject ) sound prevents its acoustic energy from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean. (a means or method)


everything looks perfect right?

i just need some expert to tell me why i am wrong.

ARIGATO
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

&( the subject ) sound prevents its acoustic energy from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean. (a means or method)


everything looks perfect right?

i just need some expert to tell me why i am wrong.

ARIGATO
Tadashi.

"Boundaries" are not a method or way to do something.

[Tadashi]

BUT now I have a new question. why we can say that i went to work by bus yesterday. or please send me your name card by Email
Actually, bus/email is a method? Boundaries are not a method?
when one noun can be a method?
Confused.

Need you shed more light.
In addition to the "method" issue, any other errors to kill the option?
Thanks,
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

BUT now I have a new question. why we can say that i went to work by bus yesterday. or please send me your name card by Email
Actually, bus/email is a method? Boundaries are not a method?
when one noun can be a method?
Confused.

Need you shed more light.
In addition to the "method" issue, any other errors to kill the option?
Thanks,
Tadashi.

Email is most definitely a method. It's a method of communication.

You'll also see "by" with nouns that represent tools used for specific purposes:
"by bus" (the point of a bus is to provide a method of transportation)
"by telephone" (the point of a telephone is to provide a method of communication)
etc.
Boundaries are not a tool, nor are they associated with any clear, inherent purpose.

[Tadashi]

Ok I understand now.
Thanks for your time, Ron
Tadashi

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

hey i chose B for this question..
want to understand whats wrong with "having".
Thanks

well, that's sort of a ... weird construction, but that's not the kind of thing that gmac is testing.

the real issue with (b) is that it can be read as "...dissipated by boundaries".
in other words, choice (b) seems to suggest that the boundaries themselves can dissipate the acoustic energy; this is the opposite of the intended meaning.

Hi Ron,

I see the point that you're making in b - the choice illogically implies that sound is preventing it's acoustic energy from being dissipated by boundaries. It could also mean that it's preventing the dissipation by having the boundaries present. Hence the ambiguity. Is that the correct analysis?

IF B has the above implication, how does C avoid it? Let me clarify -- I understand that the modifier error is no longer there, but how does "energy prevented from dissipating by boundaries" not have the same implication as "energy dissipated by boundaries"?

I'm assuming it's the internal modifier -- "prevented from" therefore it would read -- energy, prevented from dissipating, by boundaries. Is that correct?

[RonPurewal]

"__ed by someone/something" is a passive form. Someone/something is ___ed by someone/something else.

"verbING" is an active modifier form. I.e., when "verbING" is used as modifier, it always means that someone/something "verbs", and never means that someone/something "is verbed".
"verbING" thus cannot be used with the "by someone/something" construction.