Tough SC: Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that

[soulwangh]

Yes. Nicely done.

Hi , thanks for confirming.
1/
And I also find D is not an efficient expression, though it is not definitely wrong, for Subject-Less initial modifier is not followed by the Noun it modifies.
2/
Putting an connection word will make this expression better, regardless other errors. Right？

According to what you told me， I create a sentence as follows.
Beaten by the gangsters badly and having no money，the boy uttered a cry of despair.

Please confirm. Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

1/
And I also find D is not an efficient expression, though it is not definitely wrong, for Subject-Less initial modifier is not followed by the Noun it modifies.

The initial modifier works in that choice. It describes "the act of Congress".

[RonPurewal]

According to what you told me， I create a sentence as follows.
Beaten by the gangsters badly and having no money，the boy uttered a cry of despair.

That sentence works grammatically, but it implies that "beaten by the gangsters" and "having no money" are two completely separate things. Like, the boy was already poor (and was feeling despair at those circumstances), and then he went out and got beaten up on top of that.

If you mean to say that the gangsters stole the boy's money, then this sentence does not convey that idea.

[Haibara]

the modifier comma + "making" is illogical, because it would have to modify "was approved on {date x}" -- thus implying that the act made these things happen as a result of the date on which it was ratified. that's nonsense -- these are two different facts about the act, (a) the date when it was ratified and (b) what it actually did.

Ron, in view of your comment above about choice B, I wonder whether ", which was approved April 24, 1800," could be viewed as an interloping construction, a modifier set off by commas, which could be neglected in the interpretation of the sentence, to make "making provision for... " a direct essential modifier. Thus, "making provision for... " is taken as if it followed "The act of Congress" directly.
In this way, Choice B doesn't change the original meaning of the sentence.
I find it very similar to the problem in the link post20912.html?sid=a40d8c71ff53bda702266fe5b640ba65#top
On the 6th floor of that thread, you mentioned ambiguity of modification.
Thus, I think it is problem of ambiguity (whether "making provision..." modifies "was approved ..." or "the act of congress") that makes Choice B of this thread incorrect.

Ron or experts, please comment if I am wrong with my reasoning.
Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

I find it very similar to the problem in the link post20912.html?sid=a40d8c71ff53bda702266fe5b640ba65#top
On the 6th floor of that thread, you mentioned ambiguity of modification.
Thus, I think it is problem of ambiguity (whether "making provision..." modifies "was approved ..." or "the act of congress") that makes Choice B of this thread incorrect.

Ron or experts, please comment if I am wrong with my reasoning.
Thanks.

Nope.
The discussion of what happens if you remove a modifier is, of course, irrelevant to the actual function of the modifier itself. If the modifier is there, it's there, and you can't ignore its implications.
If "the act of Congress" is followed by "which was approved...", the necessary implication is that there was only one act of Congress. Anything following the comma is descriptive, but not essential.

You can't "remove" this modifier and then suddenly pretend it wasn't there in the first place. Because, well, it's there.

In the sentence about massive planets, you're still talking about the same massive planets, even if you "remove" the modifier between commas.
Similarly, this sentence would have to describe the same "act of Congress" regardless of whether you ignore the intervening modifier. Unfortunately, in this case the meaning is not reasonable.

[krrishna.chirumamilla]

(d) is incorrect because it purports to modify "the act of congress" with nonessential modifiers (i.e., modifiers that are set off by commas). if that's the case -- i.e., if these modifiers are allowed to be nonessential -- then that means "the act of congress" can stand on its own.
that would imply that there has only been one act of congress, ever.
not good.

another example:

The course offered on Wednesdays will fit nicely into your schedule. --> in this example, "offered on wednesdays" is an essential modifier, signifying that there are also other courses (and so we need the essential modifier to narrow the possibilities to one).

Offered on Wednesdays, the course will fit nicely into your schedule. --> this time we have a nonessential modifier, indicating that "the course" can stand on its own. this doesn't make sense unless there is only one course.

Hi Ron,

I failed to understand the essense here. In your Offered on Wednesdays.... example. you said that there is a nonessential modifier which leads us to understand that there is only one course and it is is offered only on Wednesdays.

Options B and D also have nonessential modifiers. From this I understand that there is only one act of congress and it was approved on that date. Am I correct here?

I get the option B nonessential modifier ,which was approved April 24, 1800, as it is obvious from the commas and the word which. But Options A and D have same construction.

A. Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made
D. Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act

Then how it is that option D has nonessential modifier and option A has essential modifier.
Apparently, I am missing something from your explanation.

Could you please throw some more light on this.

Thank you.

[JIYUS618]

I have read all the posts,while I still have some confusion.
1. In choice B,
Subject,which...(date),making...,verb+object.
"which"modifies subject,"making" modifies"date" or "verb"?
because -ing can modifies the noun preceding it(without comma)
if "making" modified "verb", it is wrong,because it is neither the goal for the "verb" to achieve or is accompanied by the "verb".

2.In choice D,
Approved..., making...,the act of Congress also established...
"making"is preceded by a clause, is not between subject and verb,and is not after a clause.So,"making"modifies the subject or the verb(the clause)?

3.In choice E,
the act of Congress made provision ..., establishing
it is wrong because "establishing" does not modify"made".
"establishing" and "made" are two separate verb,and they have no relationship,neither cause-and-effect or contemporary.
(it seems that GMAC only tests the only two situations,cause-and-effect or contemporary)

pls,all above is rht??
Thank you in advance.

[krrishna.chirumamilla]

Hi, I think this was missed. Can someone please answer this. Sorry if I am bumping this.

Just getting this to someone's notice.

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

(d) is incorrect because it purports to modify "the act of congress" with nonessential modifiers (i.e., modifiers that are set off by commas). if that's the case -- i.e., if these modifiers are allowed to be nonessential -- then that means "the act of congress" can stand on its own.
that would imply that there has only been one act of congress, ever.
not good.

another example:

The course offered on Wednesdays will fit nicely into your schedule. --> in this example, "offered on wednesdays" is an essential modifier, signifying that there are also other courses (and so we need the essential modifier to narrow the possibilities to one).

Offered on Wednesdays, the course will fit nicely into your schedule. --> this time we have a nonessential modifier, indicating that "the course" can stand on its own. this doesn't make sense unless there is only one course.

Hi Ron,

I failed to understand the essense here. In your Offered on Wednesdays.... example. you said that there is a nonessential modifier which leads us to understand that there is only one course and it is is offered only on Wednesdays.

Options B and D also have nonessential modifiers. From this I understand that there is only one act of congress and it was approved on that date. Am I correct here?

I get the option B nonessential modifier ,which was approved April 24, 1800, as it is obvious from the commas and the word which. But Options A and D have same construction.

A. Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made
D. Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act

Then how it is that option D has nonessential modifier and option A has essential modifier.
Apparently, I am missing something from your explanation.

Could you please throw some more light on this.

Thank you.

The correct answer implies that there's only one "act of Congress that made xxxx". It doesn't imply that there was only one act of Congress.

Here are simpler examples. Provided you understand these, you can understand the original issue by making the appropriate analogies.

"- Handmade by a gifted tailor, my tuxedo is only for special occasions.
--> I only have one tuxedo. It's reserved for special occasions. (This one works like the incorrect answer in your quote.)

"- Handmade by a gifted tailor, my tuxedo for special occasions is truly a piece of art.
--> I may have many tuxedos, but I only have one that's reserved for special occasions. (This one works like the correct answer.)

[RonPurewal]

I have read all the posts,while I still have some confusion.
1. In choice B,
Subject,which...(date),making...,verb+object.
"which"modifies subject,"making" modifies"date" or "verb"?
because -ing can modifies the noun preceding it(without comma)
if "making" modified "verb", it is wrong,because it is neither the goal for the "verb" to achieve or is accompanied by the "verb".

In its standard usage, this comma + __ing modifier would describe the previous action ("...was approved..."). As you've pointed out, that is problematic.

[RonPurewal]

2.In choice D,
Approved..., making...,the act of Congress also established...
"making"is preceded by a clause, is not between subject and verb,and is not after a clause.So,"making"modifies the subject or the verb(the clause)?

If your point is that the construction is ambiguous and confusing, you're correct. Therefore, you've found another reason to eliminate that choice.

[RonPurewal]

3.In choice E,
the act of Congress made provision ..., establishing
it is wrong because "establishing" does not modify"made".
"establishing" and "made" are two separate verb,and they have no relationship,neither cause-and-effect or contemporary.
(it seems that GMAC only tests the only two situations,cause-and-effect or contemporary)

You've captured the important part here: There's no relationship.
The establishment of the Library of Congress was an entirely separate action, so that part makes no sense as a modifier of the previous part.

You shouldn't try to delineate the action of the comma + __ing modifier too precisely. As long as the modifier describes the previous action in some obvious way"”and as long as that relationship is direct and obvious from context"”the modifier is fine.

There are certainly uses that don't fall strictly into one of the two categories you've mentioned here. (E.g., in OG12 #30, "protecting" serves to explain in greater detail what is stated in the previous part.)
These uses are still descriptions of the previous part, though. So, as long as you aren't trying to be overly strict with your definitions here, you'll still recognize these sorts of usages as correct.

[lemonperb]

Hi GMAT instructors,
I wonder can I reconstruct the original sentence of A to: The act of the Congress that...was approved April 24,1800, also established...
I try to think in this way so that E is wrong because otherwise the sentence will be" The act made provision for...., was approved April 24,1800, also establishing..." It doesn't make sense.
Am I wrong?

[RonPurewal]

Hi GMAT instructors,
I wonder can I reconstruct the original sentence of A to: The act of the Congress that...was approved April 24,1800, also established...

This is the basic idea of the sentence in A.

I try to think in this way so that E is wrong because otherwise the sentence will be" The act made provision for...., was approved April 24,1800, also establishing..." It doesn't make sense.
Am I wrong?

I don't understand your first sentence here ("I try to think in this way so that E is wrong").

The biggest problem in E is the fact that "also establishing..." is written as a modifier. This part describes a completely different, second thing that the act also did. It doesn't describe anything in the previous part, so a modifier is inappropriate.

[RUOYUNL702]

there's also a rather big problem with "the act of congress, which..."
that's a non-restrictive modifier -- i.e., it can't narrow the scope of the noun that it modifies -- so it actually implies that this act was THE act of congress. in other words, this choice implies that congress has enacted exactly one act of legislation -- this one -- in the entire history of its existence.[/quote]


sorry,ron,i am confused .what's the difference between "nonessential" and "non-restrictive"
you say
"Offered on Wednesdays, the course will fit nicely into your schedule. --> this time we have a nonessential modifier, indicating that "the course" can stand on its own. this doesn't make sense unless there is only one course."

so what's the difference between"modifier+comma" and "comma+which"?a headache for me