In OG-13 SC-7 and SC-133 show with + noun+ participle construction as correct.
I understand why these answers are correct after reading the explanation, but I eliminated these answers on basis of this construction.
The intricate structure of the compound insect eye,with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, helps explain why scientists have assumed that it evolved independently of the vertebrate eye.
with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia
Preposition + Noun + Participle
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's Ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.
with laws requiring
preposition + noun + participle
Kindly let me know where I am making the mistake.
I'm happy to respond.
This is a very tricky issue here.
The structure "with" + [noun] + [participle]
is not acceptable when it contains an action that would more appropriately be expressed as a subordinate clause.
..... with stocks rising in the fourth quarter
....when stocks rise in the fourth quarter
... as stocks rise in the fourth quarter
... because stocks rise in the fourth quarter
Notice, first of all, that, in order to create the incorrect structure, we have to have an active participle --- that is, the present -ing
participle. If the participle is a past participle, i.e. an passive participle, such as "called
", then this is not going to be a problem at all. Thus, SC13 SC #7 is irrelevant to this discussion.
Now, a couple things are going on in OG13, SC #133. First of all, the words "compliance
" or "comply
" idiomatically take the preposition "with
", so we have no choice --- the laws of idiom demand that we use "with
" in this context. The other issue is more subtle, and concerns: what exactly
is the object of the preposition "with
"? If the object is genuinely a noun, and then we are merely modifying the noun, that is 100% acceptable, but if the object is the entire action of the participial phrase, that's unacceptable. Here's the way to tell. Drop the participial phrase, and see if the sentence makes sense:
... saying that their compliance with laws protects adult sea turtles
That makes perfect sense. We don't really know what "laws
", but this sentence is meaningful as is. This means that object of "with
" is genuinely just the noun "laws
", and the participial phrase just fills in detail --- what laws? what kind of laws?
This is very different from the mistake construction:With stocks rising in the fourth quarter, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits.
There, the object of "with" is not simply the noun "stocks" but the entire action, the fact hat stocks will rise. If we drop the participial phrase ...With stocks, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits.
... this has a different meaning. It's not just stocks that will help the brokers --- it's the fact that stock will rise. We need a full [noun]+[verb]
subordinate clause to contain a full-blown action. Because stocks rise in the fourth quarter, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits.
As always in GMAT SC, you cannot rely purely on the mathematical relationships of the parts of speech. You always have to think about meaning. People think that the GMAT SC is only a test of grammar --- it does test grammar, but more importantly, it tests meaning. That's where your focus must be if you want to be successful with this question type.
Do all these distinctions make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Magoosh Test Prep