The United States has the largest trade deficit of any country on Eart

B, C & D can be ruled out because SUCH AS is used for giving examples. Option E is not grammatically correct as it creates a Run-on; moreover, use of HOLD changes the intended meaning of the sentence.
Original intent - Other nations are holding US dollars that increase each year. This action is result of Large trade deficit in US.
Changed intent - Other nations HOLD US dollars that increase each year. The action HOLD is represented as a UNIVERSAL Truth.

option A succinctly presents the results of previous clause, using HOLDING

What do you mean by the action HOLD is represented as a UNIVERSAL truth?

Cheers!
J

Dear jlgdr,
What fameatop was, for some reason, strangely calling a "universal truth" is something much better known by the standard grammatical name: an absolute phrase. See this post for more:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/absolute-p ... -the-gmat/

Mike

Confused between A and E. Can someone explain?

(A) other nations, such as China and Japan, holding
vs.
(D) other nations, such as China and Japan, hold



(D) Is illogical, as it lacks a conjunction between the two thoughts.

The United States has the largest trade deficit of any country on Earth, other nations, such as China and Japan, hold stores of US dollars that increase each year.

Shortening the sentence above...

The US has the largest trade deficit, other nations hold stores of US dollars.

^ That doesn't make sense. Two complete thoughts w/ only a comma doesn't work.

(A) Makes use of an absolute phrase.

Other nations holding stores of US dollars, the US has the largest trade deficit.

^ Makes sense when simplified and rearranged. One is a complete thought, the other is incomplete and uses a nonfinite verb.

The US has the largest trade deficit, other nations holding stores of US dollars.

^ Also makes sense... reads almost like a newspaper title

We use "such as" for actual examples.. so A and E are the only contender.

"holding" is a verb-ing modifier and hence has to modify the preceding clause..

So in A "holding" rightly modifies "such as China and Japan" since they are the ones holding the stores..

The clause before other nations ie. "The US....any country on Earth" is an independent clause and hence it has to have a connector or a verb-ing modifier in between to connect to the next dependent clause.. "hold....each year"

Hence A.

Regards,
Dom.

hi,
i have two points on the question..
1) Don't the two separate clauses require something like "with" to join them ...
The United States has the largest trade deficit of any country on Earth, withother nations, such as China and Japan, holding stores of US dollars that increase each year.
2) yes , "such as " is the appropriate idiom and also the original emphasis on the " china and japan" as examples. but if the sentences tells us that other nations are holding on to the US dollars in similar way as china and japan have done, the usage of " like" is justified. Ofcourse "such as' is correct here.

Hi,

I think "with other nations" could be correct if a comma was present before "with". But yes a phrase connector is needed.. In C it is correct that way..

also if "like" was to be used the sentence should go like ...",with other nations, like China and Japan, which hold"...

The "which" will ensure that the second clause depends on "China and Japan" and hence the verb will become "hold" with emphasis on the "action of holding"...hence "like" will make sense in such case.

Regards,
Dom.

usage of whch will give a wrongly constructed sentence..
",with other nations, like China and Japan, which hold"

OFFICIAL SOLUTION

Split #1: listing examples. Suppose we have a category C and examples in this category P and Q. It is grammatically incorrect to say “…. C, like P and Q.” Choices (B) & (C) & (D) make this mistake. This mistake is woefully common in colloquial English, but entirely unacceptable on the GMAT. The correct way to say this is ” …. C, such as P and Q.”

Split #2: The section of the sentence before the first comma is a full independent clause: this could stand on its own as a complete sentence. What happens after the first comma, at the very beginning of the underline section, varies wildly. Each choices requires its own analysis.

(A) “other nations … holding” —- [noun] + [participle]: this has the form of an absolute clause, which is perfectly correct.

(B) “and other nations … holding” —- the “and” implies another independent clause is coming, parallel to the first, but instead we get [noun] + [participle], which doesn’t fit the pattern. This choice is incorrect.

(C) “with other nations … holding” —- this structure is common in colloquial speech, but the GMAT doesn’t like this at all: “with” + [noun] + [participle]. The prepositions “with” is designed to hold a noun, maybe even a modified noun, but not an entire action. This choice is incorrect.

(D) & (E) “other nations … hold” —- This is [noun] + [verb], another full independent clause. By itself, everything after the first comma in these choices could stand as a complete sentence. The problem is — we have [independent clause], [independent clause] — that’s the structure of a run-on sentence. We always need some kind of conjunction (and, or, but, therefore, etc.) joining two independent clause: they can’t just sit next to each other separated by a comma — that’s the classic run-on pattern. Both of these choices are incorrect.

The only possible answer is (A), with the absolute phrase.

The United States has the largest trade deficit of any country on Earth, other nations, such as China and Japan, holding stores of US dollars that increase each year.

(A) other nations, such as China and Japan, holding -Correct
(B) and other nations, like China and Japan, holding -Like is wrong
(C) with other nations, like China and Japan, holding -Like is wrong
(D) other nations, like China and Japan, hold -Like is wrong
(E) other nations, such as China and Japan, hold -This creates a run on sentence

(A) other nations, such as China and Japan, holding - [color=#00a651]CORRECT
(B) and other nations, like China and Japan, holding - uses "like" to give examples: eliminate!
(C) with other nations, like China and Japan, holding - uses "like" to give examples: eliminate!
(D) other nations, like China and Japan, hold - uses "like" to give examples: eliminate!
(E) other nations, such as China and Japan, hold[/color] - "hold" is incorrect. It should be "holding".

AndrewN chetan2u AjiteshArun GMATNinja generis

It's with respect to the usage of "with + noun + verb-ing (participle). As per the Magoosh explanation given under this question. The usage of with + noun + participle is incorrect.
But in an OG question (OG11#78)
(https://gmatclub.com/forum/visitors-to- ... 51789.html) the usage of with + noun + verb-ing is correct. In this official sentence, the first "with" modifier modifies the preceding noun "Starfish" because the modifier presents additional information/physical description of the animal.
The second "with arms and legs hanging.." modifier modifies the preceding action denoted by the phrase "is quickly replaced". The "with..." modifier further describes what happens while the starfish replaces its lost arm. In the action of replacing the lost arm, the animal sometimes overcompensates and grows an extra arm. So the second "with.." modifier adds on to the action of replacing of the lost arm by the starfish by explaining what happens sometimes during the process. So, the usage of this adverbial modifier (I think that's the jargon used) is correct. Then why did Mikemcgarry say otherwise with its correctness?

This error has plagued my understanding of with modifier. So, I implore you to shed some light on this matter and clear this discrepancy.

Thank you in advance.

Hi nikhilongc,

I don't think that we can say that {with + noun + participle} is impossible. In fact, it's a pretty common pattern in English.

Can you link to the post you're referring to?

I agree with AjiteshArun. Very few so-called rules hold up to scrutiny if you comb through enough questions. I looked up the post you were referring to—it is this one, I believe. I will attach an image below for reference but refrain from discussing the question in depth, since my analysis would then belong in that other thread.


Notice that the options for the tail-end of that underlined portion are the following:

1) sometimes by
2) with... sometimes
3) sometimes with

There are no absolute phrases as such, since all five answer choices present a preposition and adverb combination. Sure, I can see what you are driving at: both questions use with, and in this one, the OE tells you that such usage is incorrect. But you are always bound by what you see on the screen, working with the five options as they appear (not as they could appear or may appear in a different question, with different options). Simply see if you can pick the best one of each lot, and if with keeps popping up in questions you miss, then you can look for patterns. Just be careful not to turn an observation or even a tendency into a hard-and-fast rule.

- Andrew

Thank you AndrewN and AjiteshArun for your responses.

I agree with what Andrew said, we can not turn them into a hard-and-fast rule. But, in many questions, the usage of "with + noun + participle" turns out to be a deciding factor as per their OE to reject choices
.
For AjiteshArun:
1. Here, usage of (with+noun+participle) is correct: https://gmatclub.com/forum/starfish-wit ... l#p1084777
2. Here the usage is incorrect, and this particular (with + noun + participle) usage is considered a deciding factor (image attached herewith). https://gmatclub.com/forum/gusty-wester ... 42543.html

And I constantly see this "rule" pop up again and again here and then. So, I am confused as to what really is the case?

Hi nikhilongc,

While I respect mikemcgarry's opinion, I advocate a far more permissive approach to usage in general. I think that it is a safer (and better) way to tackle the verbal section than a more conservative approach.

What I can see from your screenshot is that Mike has maintained a consistent position on this issue. That doesn't, however, change my position (and, hopefully, yours ). The GMAT is not trying to tell us that the {with + noun + participle} construction is impossible just because it is part of an incorrect option.