thirteen colonies

[thanghnvn]

You're precisely right. The rule you cite--also cited on page 41 of our SC guide--is one violated here in the OA.

I won't say that I've never seen that rule breached by an expert user, but I am surprised to see it breached on the GMAT. I'll forward this to our curriculum committee.

Thanks for the sharp eye.

you mean the OA contains error? I agree

[jlucero]

Nope. All of our Strategy Guides are written to complement the rules from the OA, so we sometimes adjust our rules based on what GMAC considers to be acceptable.

As Ron frequently says, there's no point in arguing with the OA. GMAC makes the rules, we just learn and abide by them.

[lzw77_2009]

in (A), what kind of modifier is it? (some formed as commercial ventures, others as religious havens). If it is appositive, why is there a VERB(formed)? It looks like a complete sentence. Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

in (A), what kind of modifier is it? (some formed as commercial ventures, others as religious havens). If it is appositive, why is there a VERB(formed)? It looks like a complete sentence. Thanks.

"formed" is not a verb there; it's a modifier. (Some of these things were formed as commercial ventures, etc.)

[ilyana777]

I want to summarize some points that can be gathered from this problem as I understood them.

First of all, there can be two non-essential appositive modifiers in a row. It's a surprise, but it is apparently possible on the GMAT.

Second, regarding this "each"-rule from page 46 SC Guide: it is still true, but we can come away with some additional point from this problem.
They each are great tennis players. - the sentence is ok.
They each have his own style. - this is my example, and if there is no mistake in the official problem, it must be ok too. "Each" following the subject has no bearing on the verb form. However, there can be a singular pronoun referring to "each" in the sentence - his.

[ilyana777]

I've found this page:
noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca/bien-well/fra-eng/grammaire-grammar/absolu-absolute-eng.html

Now I think that those were not appositive modifiers, but absolute phrases. They correlate with example given at the site mentioned above:

The audience filed out, some to return home, others to gather at the pub.

[RonPurewal]

They each are great tennis players. - the sentence is ok.
They each have his own style. - this is my example, and if there is no mistake in the official problem, it must be ok too. "Each" following the subject has no bearing on the verb form. However, there can be a singular pronoun referring to "each" in the sentence - his.

As a professional writer and editor of the English language, I can tell you without hesitation that "They each have his own style" is wrong.

I'm also troubled by the use of "its" in the original, but, it's the official answer, so that's that.
If GMAC considers this construction acceptable, then the indirectness of the pronoun -- i.e., the fact that it appears in a modifier and not in the main part of the sentence -- must be what's responsible. I.e., The thirteen colonies each had its own charter would be wrong.

The best advice I can give you is "Ignore this issue here". It won't be a factor on your official exam, and may even complicate your consideration of other pronoun issues.

[ilyana777]

Thanks!
I'm terribly sorry for the following question, but can't "its" refer to "a charter"?
... had a written charter that set forth its form of government.
Or is it a complete nonsense?

[RonPurewal]

Thanks!
I'm terribly sorry for the following question, but can't "its" refer to "a charter"?
... had a written charter that set forth its form of government.
Or is it a complete nonsense?

The colonies were the things that had "forms of government", so that interpretation doesn't make sense.

[calm.jing]

Dear experts,

I chose (a), but I am confused why there is no conjunction between the two modifiers ("some..." and "others...")?
Also, does "some... others..." require some kind of parallelism?

Thanks very much!

[tim]

Parallelism is definitely an issue here, but the way this sentence is structured does not require a conjunction.

[cshen02]

(e) is wrong for a couple of reasons.
* first of all, "with" wrongly suggests that "some" refers not to the colonies themselves but to something that the colonies came with. to suggest that you're referring to the colonies themselves (which you are), you need modifiers of the type used in the correct answer (a).
* "while" MUST be used with a clause or __ing phrase. it can't be used with a construction that doesn't contain any sort of verb form (such as this one, which is just noun + prepositional phrase).

Usually, I see "with" clause modifies the subject of the preceding clause by adding something to it. For instance, I prepared for GMAT with your help.
Can "with" modifies the preceding clause (and the subject) with something belongs to the subject? For instance, she fell asleep with her hair wet. here, hair belongs to the subject. I read it perfectly fine...
"With" modifier is a trick for me...if anyone summarizes its usage, I will appreciate the help.

[RonPurewal]

Usually, I see "with" clause modifies the subject of the preceding clause by adding something to it. For instance, I prepared for GMAT with your help.
Can "with" modifies the preceding clause (and the subject) with something belongs to the subject? For instance, she fell asleep with her hair wet. here, hair belongs to the subject. I read it perfectly fine...

Yes. Those are good examples.

Note the relationship, in each case, between the subject and the stuff that follows "with".
* You had my help.
* She had wet hair.

What you can't do is this:
Emily and Nora fell asleep, with Emily still having wet hair.
This doesn't work, because Emily is not a sub-component of Emily.

Hope that helps.

[cshen02]

Yes. Those are good examples.

Note the relationship, in each case, between the subject and the stuff that follows "with".
* You had my help.
* She had wet hair.

What you can't do is this:
Emily and Nora fell asleep, with Emily still having wet hair.
This doesn't work, because Emily is not a sub-component of Emily.

Hope that helps.

It does help as always :)
Now I think one can't say the 13 colonies have some colonies? But the difference between the legit usage of "with" between this faulty usage is still some what vague to me...

[RonPurewal]

It's vague by nature.

Language needs to be capable of expressing every thought or relationship that anyone might ever want to express. If everything were prescribed too specifically, this just wouldn't be possible.

This is especially true in the case of modifiers, because modifiers describe relationships. Lots of relationships are hard to put a finger on"”so the roles of many modifiers will be hard to put a finger on, too.