Sentence without main verb in the OA

[tomasmosquerablanco]

Hi a was wondering was the main verb of the following question(attached bellow) i found in MGMAT CAT. The OA here is C though i think is a fragment and not a sentence since there is no main verb since allowing them to explore in option C is an -ing modifier and not a verb.

THanks in advance,

Tom

Sentence:

Many of today’s mathematicians use computers to test cases that are either too time-consuming or involve too many variables to test manually, allowing the exploration of theoretical issues that were impossible to test a generation ago.


a)are either too time-consuming or involve too many variables to test manually, allowing the exploration of

b)either take too much time or involve too many variables to be tested manually; allowing the mathematicians to explore

c)would either take too much time or involve too many variables to test manually, allowing them to explore

d)would either be too time-consuming or would involve too many variables to test manually; this capability allows the mathematicians to explore

e)take too much time or variables to test manually; this capability allows the mathematicians to explore

[RonPurewal]

As you pointed out, the "-ing" construction is a modifier.

The whole point of modifiers is that they're NOT complete sentences!
That's why they are "modifiers": They are not whole sentences by themselves, and so they have to stick to ("modify") something in a complete sentence. If they could stand alone, then they wouldn't be modifiers.

In the core of the sentence, the verb is "use".

[manhhiep2509]

In the answer choice C, the modifier "allowing them to explore" modifies its preceding clause but it seems not make sense because such modifier does not logically match with the subject, "many of today’s mathematicians". The answer choice appears as though "many of today’s mathematician allow them to explore theoretical issues". It is clear that "computers", not "mathematicians" allow them to explore theoretical issues.

I am not sure whether my interpretation in this case is right. Please explain for me.

[jlucero]

In the answer choice C, the modifier "allowing them to explore" modifies its preceding clause but it seems not make sense because such modifier does not logically match with the subject, "many of today’s mathematicians". The answer choice appears as though "many of today’s mathematician allow them to explore theoretical issues". It is clear that "computers", not "mathematicians" allow them to explore theoretical issues.

I am not sure whether my interpretation in this case is right. Please explain for me.

Note that these comma+ing modifiers may modify the subject of the sentence, but they will often do so by explaining why or how the subject is doing something:

Many of today’s mathematicians use computers, allowing them to explore theoretical issues.

Why do mathematicians use computers? To allow them to explore theoretical issues.

[manhhiep2509]

In the answer choice C, the modifier "allowing them to explore" modifies its preceding clause but it seems not make sense because such modifier does not logically match with the subject, "many of today’s mathematicians". The answer choice appears as though "many of today’s mathematician allow them to explore theoretical issues". It is clear that "computers", not "mathematicians" allow them to explore theoretical issues.

I am not sure whether my interpretation in this case is right. Please explain for me.

Note that these comma+ing modifiers may modify the subject of the sentence, but they will often do so by explaining why or how the subject is doing something:

Many of today’s mathematicians use computers, allowing them to explore theoretical issues.

Why do mathematicians use computers? To allow them to explore theoretical issues.

Can you explain the different between 2 clause below?

1. Many of today’s mathematicians use computers, allowing them to explore theoretical issues (with comma)
2. Many of today’s mathematicians use computers allowing them to explore theoretical issues (without comma)


Since "allowing" do not match with the subject of its preceding clause, I find the meanings of the two sentences similar.

[jnelson0612]

In the answer choice C, the modifier "allowing them to explore" modifies its preceding clause but it seems not make sense because such modifier does not logically match with the subject, "many of today’s mathematicians". The answer choice appears as though "many of today’s mathematician allow them to explore theoretical issues". It is clear that "computers", not "mathematicians" allow them to explore theoretical issues.

I am not sure whether my interpretation in this case is right. Please explain for me.

Note that these comma+ing modifiers may modify the subject of the sentence, but they will often do so by explaining why or how the subject is doing something:

Many of today’s mathematicians use computers, allowing them to explore theoretical issues.

Why do mathematicians use computers? To allow them to explore theoretical issues.

Can you explain the different between 2 clause below?

1. Many of today’s mathematicians use computers, allowing them to explore theoretical issues (with comma)
2. Many of today’s mathematicians use computers allowing them to explore theoretical issues (without comma)


Since "allowing" do not match with the subject of its preceding clause, I find the meanings of the two sentences similar.

Good question! There is more information on that very issue in this thread: ing-form-without-a-comma-t14029.html Let us know if you need more help once you read the thread.

[ShobhitK282]

Hi experts,

I feel there is pronoun ambiguity with them in the OA. Can you please explain how can we rule that out while selecting the choice?

[arushigupta712]

Yeah!I felt the same too. 'Them' in OA seems ambiguous.

[RonPurewal]

There is no ambiguity.
Them = (many of today's) mathematicians.

There are other plural nouns, but, if any of the other nouns is substituted for "them", the result is complete nonsense.

[TimY975]

There is no ambiguity.
Them = (many of today's) mathematicians.

There are other plural nouns, but, if any of the other nouns is substituted for "them", the result is complete nonsense.

Hi RON, why not use "themselves" here to indicate that the “mathematicians allow themselves to...”
Are them and themselves both OK?

[Meerak869]

The explanation in the cat said
(C) CORRECT. Take too much time and involve too many variables are properly parallel. The change to the hypothetical form would is acceptable because the sentence indicates that these cases would not be tested if they had to be tested manually. The pronoun them is also acceptable, as it points back to the subject of the first half of the sentence (many of today's mathematicians use computers, allowing them to explore...).

Can u explain the meaning of the bolded sentence?
Also justify the use of would in this sentence.

[ShriramC110]

Hi Ron,

I am still not able to get how is allowing right there.
According to your post,
To use the comma + VERB-ing modifier:
1)the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause;
AND
2) the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.

Here the condition 1 is satisfying but condition 2, the subject is "Many of today’s mathematicians" doesn't make sense as the agent of the -ING action(allowing).
Is my interpretation right???

Thanks.

[RAHULS852]

Hi Sage/ Manhattan expert,

Apart from all other errors in A, B & E, we can eliminate all these choices on basis of "would"
"would" imply a hypothetical case when tested manually but all these choices represent a present tense scenario.

Kindly review my understanding.

Regards,
Rahul Singh

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I'm not so certain. That's quite a nuance of meaning, and some of the answers capture the meaning of possibility without using the word 'would'. Let me try to make some (correct) examples:
1. This rock is too heavy to move easily.
2. This rock would be difficult to move because it's so heavy.
In my opinion, these sentences basically have the same meaning, even though only one uses 'would'.

A more important issue to pay attention to is the parallel structure 'either X or Y'. That's a real knock out for answers A and D.

[RAHULS852]

I'm not so certain. That's quite a nuance of meaning, and some of the answers capture the meaning of possibility without using the word 'would'. Let me try to make some (correct) examples:
1. This rock is too heavy to move easily.
2. This rock would be difficult to move because it's so heavy.
In my opinion, these sentences basically have the same meaning, even though only one uses 'would'.

A more important issue to pay attention to is the parallel structure 'either X or Y'. That's a real knock out for answers A and D.

Oh yes these sentences convey the same meaning. Parallelism is a black and white issue.
I should not pay attention on nuance. Thanks for suggestion.

It would be very difficult to get food in late hours of night.

It is very difficult to get food in late hours of night.

I tried to make few sentences. Kindly review my understanding.

Regards,
Rahul Singh