Dear
honchos,
I'm happy to respond.
There is a lot to say about this, my friend.
First of all, a prepositional phrase beginning with "
with" can be either a noun modifier (a.k.a. an
adjectival phrase) or a verb/clause modifier (a.k.a. an
adverbial phrase). The nature of the role depends on context.
When we have
[noun] "with X" [verb]then it's clear that the "
with" phrase probably modifies the noun and is adjectival in nature.
When we have
[noun] [verb] "with X"then it's clear that the "
with" phrase probably modifies the verb or whole clause and is adverbial in nature.
But when we have
[noun] [verb] [direct object] "with X"then we can't specify a general rule. The "with" clause may be a noun modifier modifying the direct object or last noun in the clause, or it may be a verb modifier modifying the action of the entire clause.
I bought a car with leather seats. = noun modifier
I bought a car with the money I earned at that special assignment. = verb/clause modifier
Typically, the "
with" modifier would not be separated from the rest of a sentence by a comma break: that really introduces a curveball.
This official SC question is brilliant and particularly subtle. Choice (A) & (B) are out for the pronoun problem ("
its" referring to "
profits"). There's nothing wrong with (C).
In (D) or (E), if the rest of the sentence after the comma were different, it could be conceivable that "
with" might be an adverbial modifier modifying the adjective "
evident," answering the question "
how evident?" or "
why was it evident?"
...
cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a stunning clarity that makes all the company's previous moves seem ambiguous"
Not the best sentence, and certainly not what they would discuss in the business world, but it's a grammatical example.
The trouble is, that entire section after the comma is talking about the profits. If we are going to use a modifying phrase/clause to talk about the profits, then "
profits" is the word we have to be modifying. It is not good logical design to have a modifier grammatically point to one word but to use the modifier to discuss another world. I would argue that the primary problem with the adverbial interpretation in (D) & (E) is a
logical one, not a grammatical one.
If the "
with" preposition were going to modify the noun "
profits," again, it would be extremely unusual to have a comma-break between a noun and the prepositional phrase that modifies it. More importantly, it's awkward and illogical---even without a comma. Consider a simplified sentence.
"
The company's profits with a 5% increase during the first 3 months of this year were notable because . . . "
There, there's no ambiguity: the "
with" clause has to be a noun modifier modifying "
profits." Even without a comma, this is awkward, and the comma only makes it worse.
Part of this is the verb/noun/adjective issue. The entire construction "
X with an increase" is an extremely poor way to say "
X increased."
This is what is so brilliant about this official question, and why as a question-writer, I am so jealous of the amazing quality of the official questions. We absolutely do have a choice of looking at the "
with" construction in (D) or (E) as either an adverbial phrase or an adjectival phrase---it's just that either option produces a complete trainwreck. It's not so much about a rule knowing which option to choose: it's that we potentially have
both options, but
neither works in this particular sentence!
Does all this make sense?
Mike