Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff, Deborah Sampson,

GMATNinja



Do we treat coma + having as a verb or as a noun modifier showing how / result of preceding clause?

And thanks for sharing more info about Souvik

What?! I mean, "Souvik" was just a randomly selected name. I mean, totally just a coincidence. Did you really think that souvik101990 is a hard-working movie lover?

Hi, GMATNinja

Althought I chose A, as the best availble option, I have a doubt: the author listed 3 actions in the past, and in the end the author placed "a reason + past perfect". Isn't it can be read as "She did all these 3 actions because she had been ill"?
How can the problem be solved, of course, if it exists not only in my head, but also in a real world ? Thanks.

I often hear people say that (A) isn’t parallel: “…Deborah Sampson… joined the Continental Army…, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783…” That’s actually completely fine: we have three parallel verbs, and they make perfect sense, since they are three actions that Sampson performed.

The objection is usually that the three verbs “aren’t in the same form” or “don’t sound the same.” Neither of those are legitimate objections. All that really matters is that they’re three verbs that logically are three actions performed by the subject of the clause. It’s not a problem that one is an action verb (“joined”) and the other two are states of being (“was injured” and “was discharged”).

The only other potential issue is the past perfect tense (“had become”) at the end of the sentence. We can only use past perfect tense to describe an action that happened in the past, but BEFORE some other past action, which is usually in simple past tense. And we have that: she “had become too ill too serve” before she “was discharged.”

So let’s keep (A).


My biggest issue is with the phrase “while being discharged in 1783.” Literally, that seems to be saying that she simultaneously was discharged and was injured three times in 1783. And that makes no sense – there’s no way that those things can happen at the same exact time.

Plus, I think we would need an “and” somewhere in here: there are several actions, and at least two of them (“joined the Continental Army” and “was injured three times”) already seem to be parallel. So the “and” is necessary.

That’s enough to eliminate (B).


Now this is a weird mess. Sampson “joined the Continental Army… and was injured… and discharged…” Huh? First of all, those three actions (“joined”, “was injured”, and “was discharged”) are logically parallel to each other, so we only need one “and” – not two.

Second, it’s wrong to say that Sampson “discharged in 1783.” We could say that she WAS discharged from the Army, or I guess we could say that she “discharged a weapon” (a semi-obscure way to say that she fired it). But you wouldn’t just say that “Sampson… discharged.”

And “being” is also a mess. It seems to be trying to act as a modifier of some sort, but that’s rarely an acceptable use on the GMAT. (More on “being” here.)

So we have tons of reasons to ditch (C).


(D) isn’t too bad, but it doesn’t make sense to say that Sampson “injured three times.” You can say that she WAS injured three times, or maybe that she injured three enemy soldiers. But you can’t say that she “injured three times.”

And that’s enough to disqualify (D).


Whenever you see a “having + verb” construction on the GMAT, it generally needs to be the first of two past actions. So you could say something like “having studied all night, Souvik collapsed on the sofa and watched three consecutive Marvel films.” In other words, he studied first, and then collapsed. Fair enough.

But in (E), it sounds like Sampson was injured and discharged first, and THEN she joined the Army. And that makes no sense at all.

We also have a problem with “being”, which is apparently being used as a modifier in (E) – and that’s a use that we almost never see on correct GMAT questions. “Being” isn’t always wrong on the GMAT, but it’s probably wrong here.

But even if you really love “being” in (E) for some inexplicable reason, we still have lots of reasons to eliminate (E). And we’re left with (A).

I often hear people say that (A) isn’t parallel: “…Deborah Sampson… joined the Continental Army…, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783…” That’s actually completely fine: we have three parallel verbs, and they make perfect sense, since they are three actions that Sampson performed.

The objection is usually that the three verbs “aren’t in the same form” or “don’t sound the same.” Neither of those are legitimate objections. All that really matters is that they’re three verbs that logically are three actions performed by the subject of the clause. It’s not a problem that one is an action verb (“joined”) and the other two are states of being (“was injured” and “was discharged”).

The only other potential issue is the past perfect tense (“had become”) at the end of the sentence. We can only use past perfect tense to describe an action that happened in the past, but BEFORE some other past action, which is usually in simple past tense. And we have that: she “had become too ill too serve” before she “was discharged.”

So let’s keep (A).


My biggest issue is with the phrase “while being discharged in 1783.” Literally, that seems to be saying that she simultaneously was discharged and was injured three times in 1783. And that makes no sense – there’s no way that those things can happen at the same exact time.

Plus, I think we would need an “and” somewhere in here: there are several actions, and at least two of them (“joined the Continental Army” and “was injured three times”) already seem to be parallel. So the “and” is necessary.

That’s enough to eliminate (B).


Now this is a weird mess. Sampson “joined the Continental Army… and was injured… and discharged…” Huh? First of all, those three actions (“joined”, “was injured”, and “was discharged”) are logically parallel to each other, so we only need one “and” – not two.

Second, it’s wrong to say that Sampson “discharged in 1783.” We could say that she WAS discharged from the Army, or I guess we could say that she “discharged a weapon” (a semi-obscure way to say that she fired it). But you wouldn’t just say that “Sampson… discharged.”

And “being” is also a mess. It seems to be trying to act as a modifier of some sort, but that’s rarely an acceptable use on the GMAT. (More on “being” here.)

So we have tons of reasons to ditch (C).


(D) isn’t too bad, but it doesn’t make sense to say that Sampson “injured three times.” You can say that she WAS injured three times, or maybe that she injured three enemy soldiers. But you can’t say that she “injured three times.”

And that’s enough to disqualify (D).


Whenever you see a “having + verb” construction on the GMAT, it generally needs to be the first of two past actions. So you could say something like “having studied all night, Souvik collapsed on the sofa and watched three consecutive Marvel films.” In other words, he studied first, and then collapsed. Fair enough.

But in (E), it sounds like Sampson was injured and discharged first, and THEN she joined the Army. And that makes no sense at all.

We also have a problem with “being”, which is apparently being used as a modifier in (E) – and that’s a use that we almost never see on correct GMAT questions. “Being” isn’t always wrong on the GMAT, but it’s probably wrong here.

But even if you really love “being” in (E) for some inexplicable reason, we still have lots of reasons to eliminate (E). And we’re left with (A).

Though, I am bit late to the party, but I was thinking about Option (A) on the similar lines and rejected it for the following reason:
1. She joined, was injured and was discharged, because she had become too ill to serve.
Now, as far as I understand the sequence, it should be like this:
joined -> was injured -> had become too ill to serve -> was discharged.
Above is the reason I backed off from Option (A). Can you please clarify this GMATNinja?

I often hear people say that (A) isn’t parallel: “…Deborah Sampson… joined the Continental Army…, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783…” That’s actually completely fine: we have three parallel verbs, and they make perfect sense, since they are three actions that Sampson performed.

The objection is usually that the three verbs “aren’t in the same form” or “don’t sound the same.” Neither of those are legitimate objections. All that really matters is that they’re three verbs that logically are three actions performed by the subject of the clause. It’s not a problem that one is an action verb (“joined”) and the other two are states of being (“was injured” and “was discharged”).

The only other potential issue is the past perfect tense (“had become”) at the end of the sentence. We can only use past perfect tense to describe an action that happened in the past, but BEFORE some other past action, which is usually in simple past tense. And we have that: she “had become too ill too serve” before she “was discharged.”

So let’s keep (A).


My biggest issue is with the phrase “while being discharged in 1783.” Literally, that seems to be saying that she simultaneously was discharged and was injured three times in 1783. And that makes no sense – there’s no way that those things can happen at the same exact time.

Plus, I think we would need an “and” somewhere in here: there are several actions, and at least two of them (“joined the Continental Army” and “was injured three times”) already seem to be parallel. So the “and” is necessary.

That’s enough to eliminate (B).


Now this is a weird mess. Sampson “joined the Continental Army… and was injured… and discharged…” Huh? First of all, those three actions (“joined”, “was injured”, and “was discharged”) are logically parallel to each other, so we only need one “and” – not two.

Second, it’s wrong to say that Sampson “discharged in 1783.” We could say that she WAS discharged from the Army, or I guess we could say that she “discharged a weapon” (a semi-obscure way to say that she fired it). But you wouldn’t just say that “Sampson… discharged.”

And “being” is also a mess. It seems to be trying to act as a modifier of some sort, but that’s rarely an acceptable use on the GMAT. (More on “being” here.)

So we have tons of reasons to ditch (C).


(D) isn’t too bad, but it doesn’t make sense to say that Sampson “injured three times.” You can say that she WAS injured three times, or maybe that she injured three enemy soldiers. But you can’t say that she “injured three times.”

And that’s enough to disqualify (D).


Whenever you see a “having + verb” construction on the GMAT, it generally needs to be the first of two past actions. So you could say something like “having studied all night, Souvik collapsed on the sofa and watched three consecutive Marvel films.” In other words, he studied first, and then collapsed. Fair enough.

But in (E), it sounds like Sampson was injured and discharged first, and THEN she joined the Army. And that makes no sense at all.

We also have a problem with “being”, which is apparently being used as a modifier in (E) – and that’s a use that we almost never see on correct GMAT questions. “Being” isn’t always wrong on the GMAT, but it’s probably wrong here.

But even if you really love “being” in (E) for some inexplicable reason, we still have lots of reasons to eliminate (E). And we’re left with (A).

Hi GMATNinja,

Thank you for the explanation. I am always searching for your explanations for all verbal questions.
I had a doubt regarding the verb tense in D. Is the usage of simple past tense "was discharged in 1783 because she was" correct? As per my understanding, it is wrong. The usage of past perfect in A clarifies the sequencing whereas the usage of simple past in D seems to suggest that she was ill and was discharged at the same time.
Is my understanding correct?

Regards,
Udit

"Had" in (A), is fine before she was fired, but the sequence of events takes us further back when she was joining. Then isn't telling that she was fired before she joined the army?

I often hear people say that (A) isn’t parallel: “…Deborah Sampson… joined the Continental Army…, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783…” That’s actually completely fine: we have three parallel verbs, and they make perfect sense, since they are three actions that Sampson performed.

The objection is usually that the three verbs “aren’t in the same form” or “don’t sound the same.” Neither of those are legitimate objections. All that really matters is that they’re three verbs that logically are three actions performed by the subject of the clause. It’s not a problem that one is an action verb (“joined”) and the other two are states of being (“was injured” and “was discharged”).

The only other potential issue is the past perfect tense (“had become”) at the end of the sentence. We can only use past perfect tense to describe an action that happened in the past, but BEFORE some other past action, which is usually in simple past tense. And we have that: she “had become too ill too serve” before she “was discharged.”

So let’s keep (A).


My biggest issue is with the phrase “while being discharged in 1783.” Literally, that seems to be saying that she simultaneously was discharged and was injured three times in 1783. And that makes no sense – there’s no way that those things can happen at the same exact time.

Plus, I think we would need an “and” somewhere in here: there are several actions, and at least two of them (“joined the Continental Army” and “was injured three times”) already seem to be parallel. So the “and” is necessary.

That’s enough to eliminate (B).


Now this is a weird mess. Sampson “joined the Continental Army… and was injured… and discharged…” Huh? First of all, those three actions (“joined”, “was injured”, and “was discharged”) are logically parallel to each other, so we only need one “and” – not two.

Second, it’s wrong to say that Sampson “discharged in 1783.” We could say that she WAS discharged from the Army, or I guess we could say that she “discharged a weapon” (a semi-obscure way to say that she fired it). But you wouldn’t just say that “Sampson… discharged.”

And “being” is also a mess. It seems to be trying to act as a modifier of some sort, but that’s rarely an acceptable use on the GMAT. (More on “being” here.)

So we have tons of reasons to ditch (C).


(D) isn’t too bad, but it doesn’t make sense to say that Sampson “injured three times.” You can say that she WAS injured three times, or maybe that she injured three enemy soldiers. But you can’t say that she “injured three times.”

And that’s enough to disqualify (D).


Whenever you see a “having + verb” construction on the GMAT, it generally needs to be the first of two past actions. So you could say something like “having studied all night, Souvik collapsed on the sofa and watched three consecutive Marvel films.” In other words, he studied first, and then collapsed. Fair enough.

But in (E), it sounds like Sampson was injured and discharged first, and THEN she joined the Army. And that makes no sense at all.

We also have a problem with “being”, which is apparently being used as a modifier in (E) – and that’s a use that we almost never see on correct GMAT questions. “Being” isn’t always wrong on the GMAT, but it’s probably wrong here.

But even if you really love “being” in (E) for some inexplicable reason, we still have lots of reasons to eliminate (E). And we’re left with (A).

Why "joined" is an action verb instead a modifier?

Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff, Deborah Sampson, the first woman to draw a soldier's pension, joined the Continental Army in 1782 at the age of 22, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she had become too ill to serve.