Some patients who do not respond

[soulwangh]

C would be incorrect because of Parallelism as well. Note that "as" creates a comparison, which is a special case of P-ism. Here the "as" connects "having too low a dosage" with "treatment." The same is the case with E, in a way, as the example give is not an example of a "treatment."

Hi，

Sorry to bring this old post up.
I don't know why "having too low a dosage" or "being cut off a drug" does not parallel to "treatment".
Please elaborate.

IMO, C is wrong because
1) if "as" creates a comparison, it must connect a whole sentence except that it exists in idioms such as "as...as" or "the same as" etc.

Or except that it exists in a reduced clause (don't mind the term).
Eg. the chemical reaction will produce a lot of smoke, as written in the instruction.

Both the meaning and the form of Choice C do not fit into this pattern.

2) If the intent usage of "as" is to give example, we should use "such as" . Even if we use "such as", we have redundancy problem because there is "for example".

3) Even if we could have found one interpretation to justify this sentence, it lacks clarity compared with the correct choice.

Please validate my idea.
Thanks in advance.

Hi, Ron
Can you please help me with it?

[RonPurewal]

seems like a solid understanding.

in this sort of construction (sentence + "as" + noun(s)), the noun(s) normally describe the significance of whatever was described in the sentence.

e.g.,
the restaurant owner gave free meals to veterans on Veterans' Day, as a token of appreciation for their service to the country.
... so, as you said, this sentence doesn't fit.

[soulwangh]

seems like a solid understanding.

in this sort of construction (sentence + "as" + noun(s)), the noun(s) normally describe the significance of whatever was described in the sentence.

e.g.,
the restaurant owner gave free meals to veterans on Veterans' Day, as a token of appreciation for their service to the country.
... so, as you said, this sentence doesn't fit.

Hi Ron,
Thanks for replying!
in this sort of construction (sentence + "as" + noun(s)), the noun(s) normally describe the significance of whatever was described in the sentence.

I don't know whether I understand this sentence correctly.
By using "whatever was described in the sentence", did you mean that the construction can describe the significance of the subject, object or the whole pervious sentence?

eg,

Subject:
I have the obligation to pass on my knowledge to my students, as a teacher.
I think we usually see the sentence written below.
As a teacher, I have the obligation to pass on my knowledge to my students.

Object:
She gave me a box of chocolates, as an anniversary gift.
I think the construction can also be interpreted as describing the whole previous sentence.


Whole previous sentence:
The organization retrieved the trophy from the former champion, as a punishment of drug abuse.

Please confirm, thanks very much!

[RonPurewal]

you have the right idea.

[RonPurewal]

by the way, the idioms are...
... punishment for crimes/transgressions
... punishment of the people who commit those acts.

so, you'd write "punishment for drug abuse" (not "of").

this idiom is very unlikely to be tested on the exam, but, still, it's a thing.

[gmatkiller_24]

For the mistakes in choice C

as ving XXX or ving XXX is not a solid construction for a modifier,

also, there is no clear antecedent for " it" (it might poorly point to prescribed drug)

is that summary right ?

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

For the mistakes in choice C

as ving XXX or ving XXX is not a solid construction for a modifier,

the ___ing forms are irrelevant to this decision.

the point is that "as" doesn't make any sense here. (the intended meaning is along the lines of "such as", but there's no "such".)

[RonPurewal]

also, there is no clear antecedent for " it" (it might poorly point to prescribed drug)

on this test, "pronoun ambiguity" is not a thing.
don't think about it.

the problem with that part of the sentence is that it has the wrong meaning.

the intended message is that the patient may have been prescribed a dosage that is too low.

"having too low a dosage of a prescribed drug" does not suggest that the prescription is too low; rather, it suggests that the patient simply doesn't have enough of the drug in his or her possession.
that's not the intended meaning.

[mayankmalik01]

Hi Ron,

i have gone through the complete post - all the pages- but i couldn't find what i was looking for .
I have a doubt on this one. I understand that option A has the best Parallelism.

However,

Rule 1) I also understand that "Having + Past participle" shows the completed activity and, hence, is used to show the time sequence ( and there should be some relationship as well) - Takeaways from "Thursdays with Ron" and you have also mentioned on BTG . Examples :

having finished all his errands, carlos settled into bed for a nice nap.
--> this is logical; carlos can settle in for a nap because he's done with all his errands, so there's a relationship to justify the use of a modifier.

having finished all his errands, carlos called his wife to find out when she was arriving at the airport.
--> not logical, since this phone call has nothing to do with whether carlos has finished his errands.

But,

Rule 2) Comma + ING means the actions happened at the same time with NO time difference at all.
Example :
Colin was struck by a bus, dying instantaneously. - Correct - both the activities are happening at the same time
Colin was struck by a bus, dying an hour later - Incorrect - both the activities are not happening at the same time

My question - What does "having been past participle " in option A mean :
1) Is it used to show the time sequence ( RULE 1) -- ( but, this doesnt go with the meaning)
2) Is it behaving as a Comma + ing (same time) ( Rule 2) ( this goes with the logical meaning but then this contradicts rule1)

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Mayank

[RonPurewal]

nope, no contradiction.

you are thinking of #1 as though it said "finishing all his errands..."
if that's what #1 said, THEN the main sentence would have to be something in the same timeframe as carlos's errands. (in that case, neither sentence here would make sense.)

"HAVING finished his errands...", on the other hand, is something that's true AFTER carlos has finished all his errands.
the timeframe of THAT modifier is the time AFTER carlos has finished all of his errands.
so, #1 obeys the same simultaneity rule as #2.

[QianH530]

Ron,

Do you think "when" is an appropriate subordinator used in choice D and E? Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

Do you think "when" is an appropriate subordinator used in choice D and E? Thanks.

i have no idea what a "subordinator" is, so, i can't tell whether that affects your question. (remember, if you can't explain these things in words that a 9-year-old would understand ... then you don't really understand them.)

in any case, no, "when" doesn't really work, because the sentence is talking about the things that are actually examples of inappropriate treatment.
if i write X happened when Y happened, then X can't be the same thing as Y.

[NinaP494]

I ruled out A as:
I thought since the sentence is giving two examples 'having been prescribed ..' and 'having been taken off...' both should follow after 'for example'. So it should look like - "for example, having been prescribed a drug as a dosage too low to be effective or having been"

How can I make myself familiar with this kind of structure.

Is E incorrect because -
'have a drug prescription (simple present/active)' and 'have been taken off (present perfect/passive) are not parallel. Which one is a bigger deal tense or voice change?

Experts pls help

[NinaP494]

I ruled out A as:
I thought since the sentence is giving two examples 'having been prescribed ..' and 'having been taken off...' both should follow after 'for example'. So it should look like - "for example, having been prescribed a drug as a dosage too low to be effective or having been"

How can I make myself familiar with this kind of structure.

Is E incorrect because -
'have a drug prescription (simple present/active)' and 'have been taken off (present perfect/passive) are not parallel. Which one is a bigger deal tense or voice change?

Experts pls help

[RonPurewal]

I ruled out A as:
I thought since the sentence is giving two examples 'having been prescribed ..' and 'having been taken off...' both should follow after 'for example'. So it should look like - "for example, having been prescribed a drug as a dosage too low to be effective or having been"

How can I make myself familiar with this kind of structure.

don't worry about the exact placement of "for example". if it's there, it's there.

it's clearly impossible to physically attach the words "for example" to BOTH examples—so, yes, they're going to be physically stuck to just the first one.