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

[Crisc419]

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!

Actually, i know how to get the right choice. Maybe i do not need to think and know too much.

Thanks, Ron.

[RonPurewal]

Maybe i do not need to think and know too much.

this little sentence ^^ sums up the entire philosophy behind SC very nicely.

[wun866]

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

A. Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established
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
C. The act of Congress approved April 24, 1800, which made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., and 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
E. Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also establishing


I chose E, the supposed OA is A.

A = the act of Congress that made ...., also established <--- not an indepednet claushe, WRONG!!

anyone?

that is, indeed, an independent clause. the problem is that it's a very long independent clause - the 'middleman' itself is longer than most actual sentences. that's a doozy.

remember that you should either condense or eliminate these interloping constructions (modifiers, prepositional phrases, and the like) so that you can better understand the structure of the sentence. if you do that here, you get the following:
the act that did X ... also did Y
that's an independent clause.

--

the big problem with choice e is that it strips 'the act of congress' of a necessary modifier - so that, instead of saying 'the act of congress that did blah blah blah', it just says 'the act of congress' - as if congress has only ever performed one act in its history. that's an unacceptable (and absurd) change in meaning.

Hi Ron,

Sorry for asking this old problem, it is really confusing me.
The OA "the act of Congress that made….also established"
I cannot catch the main clause. Is the main verb "established"?
I thought that because of the usage of "also", the two action "made" and "established" are juxtaposed in meaning, but in the structure, made is in the that clause and establish is the main verb.
If the main verb is established, how the word also using? Could you explain it for me please?

Another question is about your explaination of choice e, you said it convey just one act, but I think the OA is emphasis the action of "establish" too. Can you explain it more in detail?

Thanks for advance.

[RonPurewal]

If the main verb is established, how the word also using? Could you explain it for me please?

the use of "also" has nothing to do with grammar.

[RonPurewal]

Another question is about your explaination of choice e, you said it convey just one act, but I think the OA is emphasis the action of "establish" too. Can you explain it more in detail?

Thanks for advance.

i don't understand what you are trying to ask here, but you can eliminate choice E pretty easily by seeing that the comma + __ing modifier at the end is misused.
the sentence is describing TWO DIFFERENT THINGS that this act of Congress did:
• moved the seat of government
• established the Library of Congress
using a comma + __ing modifier is nonsense, because neither of these things describes the other in any meaningful way.

[BennyC728]

Hi Ron,

I still have a question about the structure of the OA sentence here.
If " that made...., also established.... " is a restrictive attributive clause that modifies "the act " what is the predicate verb for the main clause ?
Is it "Approved"?

[BennyC728]

If the main verb is established, how the word also using? Could you explain it for me please?

the use of "also" has nothing to do with grammar.

Hi Ron,

I still have a question about the structure of the OA sentence here.
If " that made...., also established.... " is a restrictive attributive clause that modifies "the act " what is the predicate verb for the main clause ?
Is it "Approved"?

[RonPurewal]

i'm sorry, but i have no idea what any of those terms mean.

[JustinCKN]

Hi Ron,

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 the Library of Congress.

Except the nonessential modifier reason, D is also wrong for "making provision for the removal of the government" has no relation with the verb in the following clause--established the Library of Congress.

Right?

I make this judgement depending on what you said in this post: http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/minivans-carry-as-many-as-seven-passengers-t6094-30.html?sid=81f8952e6493254baa8b21cb2051401b

John, running to catch the bus, slipped on the icy pavement and fell.
--> It would be nonsense to take away the commas, because "John" -- who is just one person -- is impossible to narrow down.
--> "Running to catch the bus" describes John.
--> Importantly, "running to catch the bus" is related to the action of the sentence. (John was running when he slipped and fell.)

--

If this kind of relationship doesn't exist, the __ing modifier is inappropriate.

*Jesse, standing almost eight inches taller than me, is my brother.
--> Nonsense, because a height difference has no relationship to the fact that we are brothers.

--

"Which"/"who"/"whom"/"whose" implies no such relationship.

Jesse, who stands almost eight inches taller than me, is my brother.
--> This sentence is fine.


Looking at the examples above -- especially the first two -- you should be able to tell what's wrong with "carrying...". The biggest problem is the complete lack of any relationship between this capacity and the other ideas that follow (gas mileage, smooth ride, etc.)

Please confirm my line of reasoning.
Thanks in advance！

Dear Ron:
In my opinion,Choice D is NOT wrong for "making provision for the removal of the government" has no relation with the verb in the following clause--established the Library of Congress.
My analysis is that: because Before "comma making provision for the removal..." is "Approved April 24,1800" ,AND "Approve April 24,1800" is an "ACTION".

I draw the conclusion from another posts.Sorry I can not find it out. The conclusion is " comma VERBing phrase should modify the PRECEDING "ACTION" ,If only the "action" exists.

Therefore "comma making provision for the removal..." should modify the Preceding Action (Approve April 24,1800) rather than modify the main verb (establish the library of Congress).

Because there is no logical relationship between "making provision for the removal" and "Approve April 24,1800" , this is the real mistake with "comma Making... in choice D .

So I think there is no mistake with "making provision for the removal of the government" has no relation with the verb in the following clause--established the Library of Congress.

Is my analysis correct?

Thanks
Sincerely
Have a nice day!
JustinCKN.

[RonPurewal]

no. "approved..." -- like other modifiers of the form "__ed" -- can just describe nouns, even when it's separated by a comma.

my analysis is correct.

[JustinCKN]

no. "approved..." -- like other modifiers of the form "__ed" -- can just describe nouns, even when it's separated by a comma.

my analysis is correct.

Dear Ron:
I am sorry , I don't express my question clearly.
Choice 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 the Library of Congress.

My question is "comma making provision for the removal ..." should ONLY modify the preceding "action" Approved April 24,1800.
The relationship is illogical ,so choice D is incorrect.

Because Before "comma making provision for the removal ..." is an ACTION "Approved April 24,1800" , "comma making provision for the removal ..." should Modify Preceding Action and will not have any bearing on latter action "the act of Congress also established the Library of Congress."

Therefore any discuss regarding relationship between " "comma making provision for the removal ..." and " "the act of Congress also established the Library of Congress." is irrelevant.

Sorry maybe I still can not express my question clearly.

Thanks.
Sincerely
JustinCKN.

[RonPurewal]

the __ing modifier COULD also describe the following sentence, though. i'm not sure why you're being so insistent that it couldn't.

in other words, it's POSSIBLE to write a sentence like this...
Standing almost seven feet tall, Derek is one of the school's most promising basketball players.
...and then to add a modifier to the beginning of it.

the point, though, is that BOTH interpretations of this sentence are nonsense. so, it doesn't work.

[chengkeh798]

Hi, Ron, I remember a rule that you have mentioned as " no two initial modifiers for the same thing"
ex
Coming home from school, riding my bike, I was knocked down by the wind.----incorrect, wrong

I suppose i can use this rule to eliminate D Approved 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, the act of Congress also established-----incorrect because of two initial modifies for act of Congress

Also, i found it is allowed to use the structure like "following modifiers"
ex
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-----that's correct even we have two modifiers indicate to colonies (although i think it is better to use and to connect these two noun modifiers)

i want to ask, for adverbial modifiers, if i use two following adverbial modifiers that indicate to the same action, would that be correct?
ex
I get a 100 score in my math test, improving my average score, winning a scholarship
I know it is better to use and, but is this structure correct?
Thanks a lot

[RonPurewal]

Hi, Ron, I remember a rule that you have mentioned as " no two initial modifiers for the same thing"
ex
Coming home from school, riding my bike, I was knocked down by the wind.----incorrect, wrong

can you post a link to where i wrote this? thanks.

[RonPurewal]

i want to ask, for adverbial modifiers, if i use two following adverbial modifiers that indicate to the same action, would that be correct?
ex
I get a 100 score in my math test, improving my average score, winning a scholarship
I know it is better to use and, but is this structure correct?
Thanks a lot

^^ please do not try to "invent" structures. remember, this exam tests only a tiny fraction of the potential issues with english sentences -- so, any structure you "invent" will almost certainly be irrelevant to the exam.

if you've actually seen this sort of thing in an official problem, then, please cite the problem in which it appears.