thirteen colonies

[cshen02]

Just encountered the sentence below.
The honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes

The usage of "with" indicates that the stinger itself possess certain result? Doesn't really make sense...

This is from a prop question and is discussed, but I can't post reply there...

[RonPurewal]

Just encountered the sentence below.
The honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes

The usage of "with" indicates that the stinger itself possess certain result? Doesn't really make sense...

This is from a prop question and is discussed, but I can't post reply there...

"With the result" describes the entire preceding action (the stinger ... stays where it is inserted).

[RonPurewal]

You might be thinking of an altogether different construction"”e.g., James was injured badly in the accident, with three bones broken badly enough to require surgery.

In this kind of construction"”with + noun + verbED/verbING"”the noun should be some component of the previous thing. I.e., here, the bones are part of James.

[sunxran]

Dear Ron Please tell me which is correct -

" a written charter that set forth"

or

"a written charter that sets forth"

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Dear Ron Please tell me which is correct -

" a written charter that set forth"

or

"a written charter that sets forth"

Thanks!

Either could work, depending on context.

If the charter no longer exists, then you need the past tense (first one).

If the charter still exists (in its physical form), then the distinction depends on the author's emphasis.
- If the message is "Here's how things worked back then"”but that's history, and things work differently now", then the author will use the past tense (set).
- If the message as "Even though this document is no longer in force, you can go to the National Archives and look at it"”and here's what it says", then the author will use the present tense (sets).

[RonPurewal]

Here, it's pretty clear that the context is "This is how stuff worked back then". So, regardless of whether the documents still physically exist, the past tense delivers that message better.

More importantly, "set" is in the correct answer. In fact, it's in the non-underlined part, so it's not even at issue.

The correct answers are not wrong.

There is no point in asking whether the sentence should actually work some other way. Why waste your time? It's better just to think about why the correct answer does work.

[lindaliu9273]

Hi Ron,
I eliminate ADE at the very beginning because I see "that set forth" as non-underlied part. So, I think the noun before this part should be plural or else it should be "sets".

Would you be so kind to tell me why I'm wrong? I can't figure out.

Thank you so much!

[RonPurewal]

The past tense of "set" is also "set".

[eggpain24]

Hi, I got a confusion about my POE, please clarify

I think "some XXX, others XXX" should present as parallel as possible because these two constructions are meant to give some extra infos about the "the thirteen colonies" (they should be parallel because of same modifying purpose)

construction in A is better than rest of the choice

Can this one be an effective split?

Ron, thanks!

[mybecker]

Ron, could you, please, clarify the structure of the sentence:

The thirteen original British colonies in North America, some formed as commercial ventures, others as religious havens, each had a written charter that set forth its form of government and the rights of the colonists.

Noun clause, modifiers, Pronoun + Verb ....

How come it is a complete sentence? What wrong in my statement?

What is the subject of the following sentence:
They each are great tennis players

"They" or "They each"

[JaneC643]

Hi, Ron,
I totally agree that the skeleton of the correct answer is "The thirteen original British(in North America) each had a written character".
1. Does the comma before "some formed" and the comma after "religious havens" all disappear after we take off the modifiers?
2. Some people say "each had.." is "absolute phrase", but I do not think so. On one hand, the skeleton clearly shows it is not. On the other hand, if it is an absolute phrase, we have no principal verb in the sentence, because the "had" cannot be a verb if it is an absolute phrase. Am I right?
3. And you said the usage of "each" in the example of #40 og is the same to the usage of this problem. But i don't think so. The skeleton of #40 problem is "....number of antibodies, each targeted at...", I notice that "each" is separated from "antibodies" by comma, and I also see such structure: "... plural nouns, each verb...", so I think this structure is a little bit different from the structure in this prep problem.
By the way, in the og #40 problem, if we use the "each of antibodies targeted at...", it would be wrong, because it becomes a run-on sentence? What if we use "each of which targeted at..." , is it correct?

Sorry for asking a lot questions, I'm so confused.
Thank you for you help!

[RonPurewal]

1/
yes.

just to confirm--do you mean "both" rather than "all"? it seems you're asking about just 2 commas; i want to make sure i'm not misunderstanding you.

2/
i don't know any of these terms, so i can't address that aspect of your question.
however, you're clearly correct that "each xxxx" is NOT a modifier. if you try to eliminate it, you get a non-sentence (consisting of only a subject, with no verb).

[RonPurewal]

3/
#40 isn't like this one, since "targeted" is a modifier rather than a verb.
would you be so kind as to link to that post? or, if it's in this thread, just tell me which page it's on? if i wrote that, then it's wrong and needs to be edited.
thanks.

[benjamindian]

Just encountered the sentence below.
The honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes

The usage of "with" indicates that the stinger itself possess certain result? Doesn't really make sense...

This is from a prop question and is discussed, but I can't post reply there...

"With the result" describes the entire preceding action (the stinger ... stays where it is inserted).

I just read a similar sentence from The Economist

Environmental groups have filed a mass of lawsuits against the government’s inaction, with the result that the Supreme Court plays a larger role in environmental protection than its equivalent does in any other big country - an odd way to set policy.

Following Ron's advice, I try to collect some correct examples of "comma,with" instead of summarizing the rules.

[RonPurewal]

that's a great idea.

by "collecting" that sentence, you should be able to understand, quite easily, the construction of the correct answer here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 840f96592a

so, yes, "collecting" examples will definitely pay off!