One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal : GMAT Sentence Correction (SC) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 19:20

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 277
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 09:14
dwivedys, I pretty much concur with you.

bmwhype. can you please let me know ur train of thoughts when you mentioned bouncing modifies the automobile and not the tunnel???

Lets per say change the same sentence....as in..replace Tunnel..with hmmm A tornado, bouncing first off one....

Now from this change, we really can't say what bouncing modifies..rather it does modify the tornado......

Thus to apply a general rule, we can't say bouncing modifies the automobile in the original sentence right????

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 09:34
Ashwin_Mohan wrote:
dwivedys, I pretty much concur with you.

bmwhype. can you please let me know ur train of thoughts when you mentioned bouncing modifies the automobile and not the tunnel???

Lets per say change the same sentence....as in..replace Tunnel..with hmmm A tornado, bouncing first off one....

Now from this change, we really can't say what bouncing modifies..rather it does modify the tornado......

Thus to apply a general rule, we can't say bouncing modifies the automobile in the original sentence right????

We've got to be careful with generalizations. Terminal Participles (such as bouncing in our example) do modify the subject (Which in our case is Automobile AND NOT THE TUNNEL - because tunnel is part of the prepositional phrase which is parenthetical (as in non-restrictive)

Let's summarize -

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an

automobile

racing through a tunnel,

bouncing first off one wall, then the other

: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process

Notice here that - racing through a tunnel AND bouncing first off one wall, then the other

ARE both participial phrases modifying the Automobile.

I really truly don't understand this COMPLETELY -- but I still feel i'll get there someday!!!
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 277
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 11:25
dwivedys, then in this example

.... a boy running with his dog, eating biscuits.....etc etc.....

According to you....

a boy

running with his dog,

eating biscuits....etc etc.....

eating biscuits somehow refers to the boy clearly??? and not the dog???

well the hi-fi jargons makes me cry...but I always try to draw instances to get a better understanding.....

[code][/code]
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 11:34
Ashwin_Mohan wrote:
dwivedys, then in this example

.... a boy running with his dog, eating biscuits.....etc etc.....

According to you....

a boy

running with his dog,

eating biscuits....etc etc.....

eating biscuits somehow refers to the boy clearly??? and not the dog???

well the hi-fi jargons makes me cry...but I always try to draw instances to get a better understanding.....

[code][/code]

Well - it's in our imagination that the dog must be eating biscuits.

A boy running with his dog eating biscuits --- modifies dog

A boy running with his dog, eating biscuits --- modifies boy

That's my understanding.
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 277
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 15:02
That takes me back to the rule, the Modifier must be placed closest to the subject it is modifying.....hence shouldn't it be the Dog in either cases......

I am really trying hard to get to the bottom of this!!!!
VP
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 1381
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 18:03
dwivedys wrote:
Ashwin_Mohan wrote:
dwivedys, I pretty much concur with you.

bmwhype. can you please let me know ur train of thoughts when you mentioned bouncing modifies the automobile and not the tunnel???

Lets per say change the same sentence....as in..replace Tunnel..with hmmm A tornado, bouncing first off one....

Now from this change, we really can't say what bouncing modifies..rather it does modify the tornado......

Thus to apply a general rule, we can't say bouncing modifies the automobile in the original sentence right????

We've got to be careful with generalizations. Terminal Participles (such as bouncing in our example) do modify the subject (Which in our case is Automobile AND NOT THE TUNNEL - because tunnel is part of the prepositional phrase which is parenthetical (as in non-restrictive)

Let's summarize -

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an

automobile

racing through a tunnel,

bouncing first off one wall, then the other

: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process

Notice here that - racing through a tunnel AND bouncing first off one wall, then the other

ARE both participial phrases modifying the Automobile.

I really truly don't understand this COMPLETELY -- but I still feel i'll get there someday!!!

Absolutely

Lets take option D

compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing

The above bolded RED are prepostional phrases (Noun phrases to be precise) but racing is left behind and so it is a wrong way of analysis.

Lets rewrite it again

compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing whatever

The above sentence now has participle phrases modifying the noun closest to it which is the "automobile". But since there are more than 1 participle phrase and the infringement of a few more nouns we are having a misplaced modifier situation.

Dwivedy's : Longtime since I am doing these stuff. Correct me if I am wrong
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 462
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 21:29
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.

Why doesn't bouncing modify the tunnel?

just realized it is a is participial phrase...

Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing off one wall, then the other.

Hi BMW...ok you might be wondering why i am persisting with this. I perfectly understand boucning modifies the car. I wanted to understand if the comma immediately after TUNNEL has any role to play.

Let me explain what I am asking.

What happens if instead of the CAR itself, I wanted to say something about the TUNNEL in this sentence? Let's say

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel [i]without any lights[/i]
Now - does the phrase WITHOUT ANY LIGHTS modify Automobile or Tunnel?

Sample another variant - Now I'll put a comma after Tunnel and use the same phrase

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights

Do you see what's happening and do you have an explanation.

To be honest, this confuses the hell out of me.

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights
hmm. i do not think you can connect an independent to a dependent clause with a preposition.

i can think of two ways to modify tunnel
has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel without any lights

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, which was without any lights

Is there a rule that says which would always refer to the noun before the comma? If not, "which" could still refer to either the automobile or the tunnel, right?
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 281
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 22:33
Almost always in GMAT but not always

For example "Show me which is bigger."
_________________

AimHigher

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2007, 06:20
trivikram wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
Ashwin_Mohan wrote:
dwivedys, I pretty much concur with you.

bmwhype. can you please let me know ur train of thoughts when you mentioned bouncing modifies the automobile and not the tunnel???

Lets per say change the same sentence....as in..replace Tunnel..with hmmm A tornado, bouncing first off one....

Now from this change, we really can't say what bouncing modifies..rather it does modify the tornado......

Thus to apply a general rule, we can't say bouncing modifies the automobile in the original sentence right????

We've got to be careful with generalizations. Terminal Participles (such as bouncing in our example) do modify the subject (Which in our case is Automobile AND NOT THE TUNNEL - because tunnel is part of the prepositional phrase which is parenthetical (as in non-restrictive)

Let's summarize -

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an

automobile

racing through a tunnel,

bouncing first off one wall, then the other

: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process

Notice here that - racing through a tunnel AND bouncing first off one wall, then the other

ARE both participial phrases modifying the Automobile.

I really truly don't understand this COMPLETELY -- but I still feel i'll get there someday!!!

Absolutely

Lets take option D

compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing

The above bolded RED are prepostional phrases (Noun phrases to be precise) but racing is left behind and so it is a wrong way of analysis.

Lets rewrite it again

compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing whatever

The above sentence now has participle phrases modifying the noun closest to it which is the "automobile". But since there are more than 1 participle phrase and the infringement of a few more nouns we are having a misplaced modifier situation.

Dwivedy's : Longtime since I am doing these stuff. Correct me if I am wrong

Hi vikram - welcome back buddy.. how you doing? Been a long time for me as well. .. i just keep coming back once in a while to see how much of this strange language I can still comprehend ..
CEO
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2756
Location: New York City
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 854 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2007, 20:02
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.

Why doesn't bouncing modify the tunnel?

just realized it is a is participial phrase...

Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing off one wall, then the other.

figured it out...
participles do not modify object of prepositional phrases.

"bouncing off one wall, then the other" is a participial phrase modifying the closest noun

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to
an automobile racing (through a tunnel), bouncing off one wall, then the other.
Re: SC : FRB   [#permalink] 08 Sep 2007, 20:02

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 30 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal 6 31 Oct 2008, 20:59
One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal 0 06 Aug 2013, 05:18
One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal 2 04 Jan 2008, 08:58
One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal 2 13 Feb 2007, 14:41
One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal 0 06 Aug 2013, 05:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by