Women are expected to be the majority

[RonPurewal]

in choice D, 'placing'—which is NOT preceded by a comma—is describing 'a trend'.
THAT is not the problem.

rather, the problem is the implied timeframe: '__ing' modifiers describe things that happen in the same timeframe as the main sentence.
since the main sentence is written in the present, 'a trend ... placing ...' implies that the trend is ALREADY placing women in certain positions. this is nonsense.

[RichaChampion]

Ron,

You have mentioned above that Verb+Ing Modifier takes the tense of the previous clause. Is that also true even when Verb+Ing is not in the this form
Comma+Verb+Ing?

Additionally I have lots of confusion.

I have taken a note previously from your discussion on another question for "Comma + Verb+Ing" -

This sort of modifier should actually satisfy TWO requirements:

1) It should apply most nearly to the subject of the preceding clause (as you've said); and, even more importantly,
2) It should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:
* Immediate consequence
* Simultaneous, but lower-priority, action


Now my question is when the verb+ing is present w/o a comma then is the above mentioned completely true?

[RonPurewal]

if there's no comma, it's a totally different kind of modifier—normally just describing a noun (not an action).

the part about adopting the tense of the larger sentence remains true.

[RichaChampion]

if there's no comma, it's a totally different kind of modifier—normally just describing a noun (not an action).

the part about adopting the tense of the larger sentence remains true.

Thanks Sir.

Ron my question is very subtle and I am asking something in general by taking the example of this question.

Many time it happens that preceding clause also introduced that clause within the main clause. In that situation the closest clause will be the that clause and not the main clause. So "Comma + Verb+Ing" will modify that clause, which is a closest action or the main clause.

My Next doubt - Although something has been discussed in previous threads, but I have some more subtle doubts. The same question If the main clause also carries within it a "that" clause then the Verb+Ing (without comma) will take the tense of the main clause or the subordinate clause introduced by "that".

Option D: It is expected that the majority of students entering law school this fall will be women, a trend ultimately placing

My doubt is regarding the Tense of "placing" here.

In the preceding clause that introduces a subordinate clause [that the majority of students entering law school this fall will be women] -
The Tense in that subordinate clause is in Future tense "will" So isn't that true that "placing" in this sentence will take the Future tense?

[RajanA556]

@ RICHA,


Please refer to the part which says, " THIS FALL"

.......> the main clause is explicitly situated within this fall.the modifier "placing..." suggests that these women will be placed into positions of leadership this fall. that's wrong (it will take decades for them to get there), so this choice is incorrect <.................

I think, this is already covered by Ron.

Feel free to put in your views.

Thanks,
AB.

[RonPurewal]

RichaC581, you are definitely over-analyzing this.

all you need to know, there, is that __ing modifiers have to adopt the timeframe of ... well, something in the sentence!

you are splitting hairs over something that is ultimately a non-issue, because NOTHING in that sentence is happening in the same timeframe as "placing women...".
that placement is something that won't occur until well after everything else in the sentence -- many many years after these women are students.

since the __ing modifier doesn't share a timeframe with ANYTHING in the sentence ... it's wrong!
there's no sense in trying to go through such complicated reasoning, in order to decide between a bunch of options that are all wrong anyway.

[RichaChampion]

a is wrong because of the participle 'placing', which wrongly indicates that this trend is already placing more women in leadership positions.

Ron Sir,

Please check If my understanding is correct.
Even when Verb + Ing Modifier is w/o Comma + Verb+Ing structure still it takes the tense of the preceding clause.
Is my Understanding Correct sir?

And thats the reason that in this sentence Verb+Ing "placing" takes the tense of the preceding clause and this creates a meaning error.
A. Women are expected to be the majority of students entering law school this fall, a trend ultimately placing
This Nonsensically states that at the moment when they are entering they are getting placed.

This is not the intended meaning.

Correct Intended meaning is since they are entering in majority and thus this trend will ultimately place women in majority in future.

Is my understanding correct sir?

[RonPurewal]

correct.

[solitaryreaper]

if there's no comma, it's a totally different kind of modifier—normally just describing a noun (not an action).

the part about adopting the tense of the larger sentence remains true.

Hi Ron,

I have a follow-up question on this post.

In the following OG question:
[redacted]

Option C has a similar structure.
Clause, appositive + verb_ing

I just want to confirm whether the verb_ing (occuring) would adopt the tense of the larger sentence (i.e. past tense)?

Regards,
SR

[RonPurewal]

please respect the forum rules -- no OG problems, and no links to other forums. thanks.

yes—that's what __ing modifiers do, so there's no reason why that one would be any different.
(remember, you're looking at an incorrect answer, so, correct interpretations of tenses may produce nonsense in context.)

[junl961]

the correct answer b says "The majority of students entering law school this fall are expected to be women, a trend that will ultimately place "

then , isn't it in this case, a trend is modifying "women"? Isn't it a rule that- the modifier comes after comma modifies the immediate noun?

-------------------------
i found the answer now.

if you have an appositive modifier that's an abstract noun - such as "strategy", "figure", "statistic", "findings", "situation", "change", "difference", etc. - then such an appositive may be allowed to describe the entire situation described in the previous clause.

for instance, the example i gave above with "a strategy..."

also, for further examples, see #59 and #79 in the purple verbal supplement OG book.
in #79 this modifier is part of the underline and is useful in choosing the correct answer. in #59 it's not part of the underline, so you don't have to use it, but you're exposed to it so that you can use it later.

hmm.

[RonPurewal]

don't worry about "abstract noun"... you must be looking at a really, really old post.

just know that these kinds of modifiers can describe EITHER the preceding noun OR the entire larger idea of the preceding part.
the difference should always be readily apparent to common sense... and, as long as the modifier is describing EITHER of these things, then it's fine.