aditya8062 wrote:
hi mike
i have a query about
Quote:
:mike wrote:" The insect faced decline, now is the focus ... RUN-ON, needs an "and" or other conjunction"
the construction after comma seems more like an adverb modifier .i feel that it lacks the subject and is not an independent clause .(i feel that run on is wrong joining of independent clauses )
i have a query regarding this also .i feel that run on is wrong joining of two independent clauses .for instance :
i need to relax ,i have so many things to do
i agree that a sentence :"The insect faced decline, has now become the focus....." is wrong but i feel that it is wrong because the construction "has now become the focus." lacks the subject .i feel that such faults are called fragment
please tell me if my understanding is wrong
thanks and regards
please look into this sentence: "
More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined does (a correct GMAT sentence)"
in this sentence the construction after comma seems same as is the construction in the question under contention
i mean if at all u contend that the construction :
"....decades, now is the focus of an urgent push for a rescue.
contains "verb" after the comma then same can be said about this construction :
"...world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined does"PS : for the sake of clarity i have made "verbs" in respective construction bold
please help me understand if something is wrong in my understanding
thanks and regards
Dear
aditya8062I'm happy to respond.
First of all, please do NOT use the quote boxes if you are simple quoting a sentence from another source, such as the
OG. Simply use a different color or something of that sort. The quote boxes are to demonstrate what a previous GC user has said.
Also, just for reference --- this is a common mistake for non-native speakers --- spaces never come
before periods & commas, as you have in your writing above. They always come after --- one space after a comma, and two after a period. Also, you need to capitalize the first word of each sentence. Mistakes of this sort on your business school application would be a huge red flag, perhaps unfairly indicating weakness in your verbal skills. You may know all this already, and perhaps you were just being casual on GMAT Club. This is your opportunity to practice writing absolutely flawless English: please do not underestimate how valuable this opportunity is. Everything you write here should be of the highest possible quality, so that you can get valuable feedback on your writing.
As to your question: yes, a sentence is certainly a run-on if two independent clauses are separated only by a comma. The problem with the sentence in the prompt is not that a a subject is missing. It would be perfectly correct parallel structure to omit the same subject for a second verb.
The insect faced decline, and now is the focus of ...
The candidate won his previous election in a landslide, but now is trailing in the polls. Those sentences are 100% correct --- because of the parallel structure, we can drop the subject in the second branch. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/dropping-c ... -the-gmat/The parallel structure absolute depends on the conjunction. If we omit the conjunction from either, these sentences become wrong:
The insect faced decline, now is the focus of ....
The candidate won his previous election in a landslide, now is trailing in the polls.
Now, to some extent, it is a matter of semantics whether to call these incorrect sentences "run-on sentences." I would call them "run-on sentences," precisely because they are incorrect for exactly the same reason that it is incorrect to juxtapose two independent clauses. In either case, simply adding a conjunction would fix the problem.
An adverbial clause, like any clause, would need to have a clear subject and clear verb. An adverbial phrase, such as a participial phrase, would not have a full verb. The structure "
now is the focus of ..." cannot possibly be a proper phrase or clause, because it has a full verb "
is" and no subject. It can only be the second branch of a parallel construction in which the subject is stated explicitly in the first branch.
The GMAT sentence about Lake Baikal is entirely different. Notice that you appended an extra verb, which makes the sentence wrong. That final "
does" was not part of the OA of that question ---- if we put a verb there, it would have to be "
do." The clause following the comma is 100% correct:
more than all the North American Great Lakes combinedUnlike the example from above, this has a legitimate subject and a verb implied by the parallel structure. Furthermore, this begins with an appropriate transition to the second branch of parallelism, the words "
more than."
Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test PrepEducation is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)