Scientists have found signs that moving water changed

[aflaamM589]

[/quote]
Hi Ron,

Can you please give some examples when can we use " Comma + Concluding" structure...???

Thanks[/quote]


I think concluding can never be written as comma ing (, concluding) because it can never be immediate and inevitable consequence , instead will always require some deliberation and thus the shift in time frame
(valid 3/2 split in this problem)
Am i right Ron?

[RonPurewal]

sure, that could be possible.

e.g., The jurors judged the case in light of the new evidence, concluding that the suspect could not possibly have committed the crime.
here, comma+concluding... is just a further/more detailed description of the jurors' judgment.

[RonPurewal]

more importantly—
why would you ever possibly want to try to make 'rules' about this sort of thing, anyway?
there is zero possible benefit, even if you do find a valid rule/generalization. (if you could say that X construction was impossible, and you understood the logic behind why, then you would also understand the same logic within the context of a specific sentence.)

don't waste your time. just understand how the constructions work, and then judge them within the individual context of each sentence.

[garimag807]

just a thought

was previously thought.. is this correct?

[RonPurewal]

that's fine, yes. it works either with or without the "was".

[ZoeZ42]

dear instructors,
i realized a redundant issue in A and B, but i am not sure whether my approaching is right, please help clarify, thanks in advance.

(A) eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was
(B) eras, therefore concluding that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water or more as was

one use of "comma + ING" can indicate the result of the preceding action. such as:
John worked so hard, graduating in advance.

while, the word "therefore" indicates result as well,

so , IMO, "herefore" + "concluding" is redundant

Is my approaching right? please confirm.

thanks a lot

have a nice day

>_~

[RonPurewal]

that modifier is wrong entirely, since "...concluding..." is a SEPARATE, LATER action. it's inappropriate to use comma + __ing unless we're talking about another aspect of the same thing.

more on that here:
post108571.html#p108571

since that modifier is nonsense in the first place, there's no sense in dissecting it any further.

[ZoeZ42]

that modifier is wrong entirely, since "...concluding..." is a SEPARATE, LATER action. it's inappropriate to use comma + __ing unless we're talking about another aspect of the same thing.

more on that here:
post108571.html#p108571

since that modifier is nonsense in the first place, there's no sense in dissecting it any further.

thanks RON,

can i thinnk of the combination "comma + ING" and "therefore" as a redundance ? except others' issues in the question.

thanks a lot

have a nice day
>_~

[RonPurewal]

not necessarily, since comma + __ing doesn't ALWAYS mean cause and effect.

[aflaamM589]

Hello Ron,
Isnt ,Ving incorrect also because it applies to water and not to scientists?

Thanks in advance
God bless you

[RonPurewal]

that modifier follows a sentence starting with "scientists have found..." -- which is clearly the subject+action to which it's intended to refer -- so, that's the only subject+action worth thinking about.

...but, even for THAT subject+action, it's still wrong!
so, i'm not sure what you're trying to do here... you're taking an answer that's already wrong, and looking for OTHER wrong interpretations for it? sorry, i don't understand.

[AnnL260]

Hi Ron, I have a question regarding the use of "As".
To my understanding, "AS" must be followed by a prep phrase or clause, so why "as previously thought" is correct? Shouldn't it be 'as scientists previously thought' ?

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron, I have a question regarding the use of "As".
To my understanding, "AS" must be followed by a prep phrase or clause, so why "as previously thought" is correct? Shouldn't it be 'as scientists previously thought' ?

Thank you!

DO NOT question the correct answers!

here's a handy FAQ:

Q: Is the correct answer correct?
A: Yes.

Q: Is the correct answer wrong?
A: No.

Q: I disagree with the correct answer. Who's wrong, me or GMAC?
A: You.

Q: I wrote this other version. Is it better than the correct answer?
A: No.

__

in this problem, all 5 answer choices contain either "...previously thought" or "...was previously thought" there.

so...

...1/ this is a non-issue here. don't invent "problems" that do not exist;

and

...2/ this problem should just make it clear that you have to update your own sense of how these types of constructions are used.

[YIJUNGL428]

hi Instructors,
I didn't identified the comma,_ing, I ruled out (B) because of "or more".
(B) eras, therefore concluding that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water or more as was

Is that valid?

Thanks

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

That's a great way to eliminate answer B - clearly 'up to 3 times ... or more' doesn't make sense. Good work!