Past participle as a verb modifer?

Hi Ray,
My two cents on the examples you had provided.

1. The stocks of XYZ Corporation plummeted yesterday, caused by the falling price of gold.
As said by Mike, caused is an -ed modifier (to be more specific past participle modifier). It states that the falling prices of gold led to a plummeting of stocks

2. The stocks of XYZ Corporation plummeted yesterday, causing panic..
Here, 'causing panic' is a participle phrase
It means that plummeting led to panic.

A modified verison - 3. The stocks of XYZ Corporation plummeted yesterday, causing the prices of gold to fall..
Here, the causative effect is reversed (compared to ex. 1)

Another example.
4. The stocks of XYZ Corporation plummeted yesterday, and caused the gold's price to fall .
Here, caused is a plain verb, and it describes the action of 'stocks'.

Coming back to two other examples provided by you,

5. The stocks of XYZ Corporation plummeted yesterday;it was caused by the falling price of gold.
What was caused by the falling price? plummeting of stocks. But "it" cannot refer to 'plummeting of stocks'. So, this option is wrong.

6. The stocks of XYZ Corporation plummeted yesterday, a phenomenon caused by the falling price of gold.
This looks fine.

Another example.
7. The stock of XYZ Corporation that plummeted yesterday is causing panic..
'causing panic' is a gerund phrase- the subject complement of "is"

I hope I am clear.

Dear Ray & Siva,
I have some disagreements with what Siva said in response to Ray:

1. The stocks of XYZ Corporation plummeted yesterday, caused by the falling price of gold.
Perfectly correct. Past participle modifies the action of the clause.

2. The stocks of XYZ Corporation plummeted yesterday, causing panic..
Perfectly correct. Present participle modifies the action of the clause.

3. The stocks of XYZ Corporation plummeted yesterday, causing the prices of gold to fall..
This changes the meaning by reversing the order of causality. It's grammatically correct, but it says something entirely different. Be very careful with this --- the GMAT SC loves to give grammatical correct alternatives that change the meaning.

4. The stocks of XYZ Corporation plummeted yesterday, and caused the gold's price to fall .
This is not correct. It is not the stocks themselves that caused the price to fall --- not the noun, but the action of the sentence, the plummeting itself, that cause the price to fall.

Here, Siva is perfectly correct. The pronoun can refer to an action. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-pronoun-traps/

6. The stocks of XYZ Corporation plummeted yesterday, a phenomenon caused by the falling price of gold.
I agree with Siva. This is fine. This uses the strategy I discuss here:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-sente ... te-a-word/

7. The stock of XYZ Corporation that plummeted yesterday is causing panic..
This is the same problem as #4. The cause is not the stocks themselves, but the action of plummeting. We could phrase this as:
7b. The plummeting of the stock of XYZ Corporation yesterday is causing panic.
This version is logically and grammatically correct, but rhetorically it's awkward and indirect. This would never be correct on the GMAT SC. Version #2 is much stronger, much more powerful.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks a ton for the wonderful discussion, Mike.

I was only checking the grammatical correctness of the sentences (and not the meanings - as the question stem is unavailable) - discussing various ways of forming grammatically correct question, irrespective of the meaning.

Though, will appreciate your time and suggestions, very much.

What a great discussion! Thank you both, guys. Though I am still new to the GMAT, I kinda got a feeling that meaning seems to be the KEY in SC.

Anyway, thanks a lot and Happy New Year.

Reviving a really post here. Probably a really basic question, but I wonder when we say a "Modifier modifies an action" is that the same as a saying "it modifies a verb". I wonder if there is a difference in the two meanings here?

Thanks

Hi,

I have this doubt on RPC modifier v/s ed verbal.

'who were born in the city' v/s 'born in the city'

what difference does it make in the meaning below using above two modifiers?


''50 percent of male drivers and 35 percent of female drivers, who were born in the city, were involved in at least one accident''