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

[RonPurewal]

sorry,ron,i am confused .what's the difference between "nonessential" and "non-restrictive"

No difference. They're exactly the same.

[RonPurewal]

More importantly, "modifier with comma vs. modifier without comma" is not tested on this exam.
If you know exactly how it works, then you may get a few eliminations out of it-- but you won't need it.

For example, you can also eliminate choice B because the "comma + __ing" modifier (making...) doesn't make sense. (The date of approval has nothing to do with the provisions of the act.)

[JhanasC520]

I agree that A is best. I will eliminate b.

but, pls help

why B is wrong. I am uneasy with "was approved " and "making" but do not know why.

"was approved" is not problematic. the use of the passive here is exactly equivalent to the modifier "approved" that appears in the correct answer.

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.

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.

Dear Ron,

As you mentioned in this quote,""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. "

then Why in this question: ( I guess this is a prep question...)
Because of a law passed in 1933 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold in the form of bullion or coins.........

The above sentence is the correct sentence, why in this sentence, making will not modify the date 1933 as you mentioned above.

Thanks for your reply!

[momo32]

Dear Ron,

I still cannot understand why the choice D is wrong?
And I do not understand what is the meaning of

"the act of congress" can stand on its own.
that would imply that there has only been one act of congress, ever.
not good.

Sitting on the floor (modifies dog), anxiously waiting for its owner (modifies dog), the dog wagged its tail.

This sentence is also wrong?

This sentence means that all the dog wagged its tail？
what is the difference from the sentence above and Sitting on the floor (modifies dog), the dog wagged its tail.

Sitting on the floor (modifies dog), the dog wagged its tail.

I think this sentence is meaningful.

Please correect me
THX

[RonPurewal]

Your example works in the same way as this rearrangement:

The dog sat on the floor, anxiously waiting for its owner.

This is a standard use of "comma + __ing". Specifically, comma + __ing must relate closely to the main action, regardless of where it's placed.
Here, anxiously waiting... describes the whole previous sentence/action--i.e., it tells HOW the dog sat on the floor.

Try doing this to choice D:
The act was approved on [date], making provision for ...
This is nonsense; the provisions of the act have nothing to do with the date of its ratification.

[RonPurewal]

Dear Ron,

I still cannot understand why the choice D is wrong?
And I do not understand what is the meaning of

"the act of congress" can stand on its own.
that would imply that there has only been one act of congress, ever.
not good.

"The act of Congress" is not followed by any modifiers. The implication is that there is only one "act of Congress".

Since there has definitely been more than one act in Congressional history, "the act of Congress", alone, is nonsense.
It must be qualified with a modifier that says which act we're discussing. (Note the presence of such a modifier in the correct choice.)

[momo32]

Dear Ron，

Thx for your kind reply.

When I consider the choice D , i think modifier(modify subject) , modifier (modify subject), subject.. is wrong. It should be modifier(modify subject) and modifier (modify subject), subject..

The dog sat on the floor, anxiously waiting for its owner.

I am confused.
In the above example, the dog dose also not have modifier. It means there just only one dog??



please correct me

[RonPurewal]

Presumably, "the dog" has already been specified earlier.

Example sentences shouldn't give a complete context for everything. If they did, they'd be really long. Good example sentences are short.

[RonPurewal]

Dear Ron，

Thx for your kind reply.

When I consider the choice D , i think modifier(modify subject) , modifier (modify subject), subject.. is wrong. It should be modifier(modify subject) and modifier (modify subject), subject..

These "formulas" make my head spin...

Generalizations like this one aren't going to work, because you're neglecting context.
DO NOT try to memorize entire sentence structures independently of context!

E.g., connecting two modifiers with "and" makes sense only if the modifiers actually represent separate observations. If they don't, then "and" is illogical (and thus wrong) even if it's mechanically OK.

The dog sat on the floor, anxiously waiting for its owner.

I am confused.
In the above example, the dog dose also not have modifier. It means there just only one dog??



please correct me[/quote]

[JhanasC520]

I agree that A is best. I will eliminate b.

but, pls help

why B is wrong. I am uneasy with "was approved " and "making" but do not know why.

"was approved" is not problematic. the use of the passive here is exactly equivalent to the modifier "approved" that appears in the correct answer.

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.

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.

Dear Ron,

As you mentioned in this quote,""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. "

then Why in this question: ( I guess this is a prep question...)
Because of a law passed in 1933 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold in the form of bullion or coins.........

The above sentence is the correct sentence, why in this sentence, making will not modify the date 1933 as you mentioned above.

Thanks for your reply!

Dear Ron,

It seems that you ignore my question posed above so I posted it again and look forward to your reply:

Dear Ron,

As you mentioned in this quote,""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. "

then Why in this question: ( I guess this is a prep question...)
Because of a law passed in 1933 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold in the form of bullion or coins.........

The above sentence is the correct sentence, why in this sentence, making will not modify the date 1933 as you mentioned above.

what I understand is that Making without comma here is a noun modifier and it modifies the closest noun.

[jnelson0612]

Very occasionally the "ing" modifier without the comma modifies not the noun immediately in front but the noun phrase right in front. In this case, "making" is modifying "law passed in 1933". The "passed in 1933" is an essential modifier describing "law"; it's telling us which law. When we see this setup the noun modifier may be modifying the entire noun phrase, but this only happens when there is an intervening essential modifier. You can read more about this exception to the "touch" rule here: usage-of-which-t746-15.html

[Crisc419]

JP-

I think you're missing Ron's point on the error in D. Although it can get ugly, you can have multiple warmup modifiers at the beginning of the sentence that each modify the subject of the sentence:

Sitting on the floor (modifies dog), anxiously waiting for its owner (modifies dog), the dog wagged its tail.

The error in (D) is that the main clause of the sentence is illogical:

the act of Congress also established the Library of Congress.

As Ron said:

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.

Hi, Ron and Jlucero, i understand what Ron said, and A chioce is the best.

Jlucero wrote :

Sitting on the floor (modifies dog), anxiously waiting for its owner (modifies dog), the dog wagged its tail.

my question is : this sentence you wrote is wrong? because we know nothing about the dog you are talking about. The sentence, with just two nonessential modifiers, would mean that the dog is the only one in the world.

and so if we need very essential modifier for every noun, how we could express our meaning in a sentence. we need very very long paper to talk with others?

thanks

Cris

[Crisc419]

My question is how to distinguish NOUN modifer from ADVERBIAL modifer:

for instance:

In the past several years, astronomers have detected more than 80 massive planets, most of them at least as large as Jupiter, circling other stars.

the comma+v-ing "circling other stars" is interpreted as an noun modifier, modifying"planets";

why here "making provision for " in choice B and D is interpreted as adverbial modifier modifying verb? \

b)The act of Congress, which was approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D .C ., also established

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 of Congress also established

Please clarify.

Many thanks.

Cris

[Crisc419]

My question is how to distinguish NOUN modifer from ADVERBIAL modifer:

for instance:

In the past several years, astronomers have detected more than 80 massive planets, most of them at least as large as Jupiter, circling other stars.

the comma+v-ing "circling other stars" is interpreted as an noun modifier, modifying"planets";

why here "making provision for " in choice B and D is interpreted as adverbial modifier modifying verb? \

b)The act of Congress, which was approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D .C ., also established

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 of Congress also established

Please clarify.

Many thanks.

Cris

[RonPurewal]

even if you think those modifiers can be assigned to the noun instead, they are still objectively worse than choice A—in which that modifier is DIRECTLY NEXT TO the noun.

__

for issues of modifier placement, like this one—
• figure out what the modifier should describe (context + common sense)
• eliminate choices that place the modifier unnecessarily far from that thing
• keep choices that put the modifier closer to it.

here, these two ideas are BOTH describing an act of congress:
— it was approved on 4/24/1800
— it made provision for the removal of the government to Washington, DC
choice A puts BOTH of these DIRECTLY NEXT TO "the act of Congress". those other choices don't. so, you can eliminate those other choices and keep choice A.

don't forget that this is a multiple-choice test!