Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 01:01 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 01:01 |
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
10 Jan 2020, 08:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
JonShukhrat
Hi JonShukhrat, so you (and these two very esteemed gentlemen) are basically suggesting that official explanation is wrong.
Well, that can definitely be the case, since official explanations do not have a formidable reputation preceding them
.However, what will conclusively prove that this official explanation is incorrect, is if we could locate a correct official example where the present participial phrase modifies the subject of the immediate preceding non-restrictive clause. Would you agree?
I could not locate such example. Curious to know if you (or someone else reading this post) has come across such an example.
Quote:
I found this part most interesting in your post. Isn't this completely contradictory to what you've been stating in your posts so far:
present participial phrase always modifies the nearest preceding action (save for a noun clause immediately preceding the present participial phrase).
Because now, what you're basically saying is that meaning is supreme. If the preceding clause does not make sense with the participial phrase, then the participial phrase can modify the clause preceding the preceding clause.
Updated on: 13 Jan 2020, 06:06
Originally posted by JonShukhrat on 11 Jan 2020, 03:17.
Last edited by JonShukhrat on 13 Jan 2020, 06:06, edited 3 times in total.
Last edited by JonShukhrat on 13 Jan 2020, 06:06, edited 3 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
EducationAisle
Hi Ashish,
With all due respect to OE writers, when they dissent from Ron’s or Mitch’s opinion, I choose to concur with the latter two gentlemen who, fortunately, hardly ever contradict themselves and each other, unlike those writers.
My answer to all three highlights above is a big fat Nope. There are ten (always)’s in this thread, including this one. However, none of them appears in my posts in the way you’ve suggested. I am careful not to use such scary words. That would be tantamount to saying “Voldemort” aloud.
It’s as clear as daylight that I provided so many examples to show how a noun clause (your example) isn’t the sole case in which “comma + verbing” can jump over. However, note that all such cases happen when an essential modifier comes before “comma + verbing”.
generis simply explains such cases as “essential modifier trumps a nonessential modifier”. MGMAT SC guide likewise provides similar cases on pages 59, 60, and 167. So, the same thing is happening here: an essential mod intervenes between “comma + verbing” and the action it modifies.
1. Well, the conversation started when you stated that “applying” modifies “offer” in the below problem.
- Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying part of the rent to a purchase later.
I stated that it’s impossible for “applying” to jump over a non-restrictive clause and refer to “offer”. So, I am sure it’s impossible for a Present participial phrase to refer to the action standing before a non-restrictive clause EVEN IF meaning requires this. Please, prove me wrong.
2. Later, I talked about two cases that happen if a restrictive clause (or any other essential mod containing an action) precedes a Present participial phrase. Please, note that I said only 2, mo more. The action to be modified is either the closest one before the restrictive clause or the closest one in the restrictive clause:
Case 1: In the following made-up sentence, “likening” can modify “contend” (closest action before a restrictive c.), but not any other farther action (such as “express”) EVEN IF meaning required this. Please, prove me wrong.
- Many others in the film industry express their disapproval and contend that the technique degrades major works of art, likening it to putting lipstick on a Greek statue.
- To meet the rapidly rising market demand for fish and seafood, suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as they grow naturally, cutting their feed allotment by nearly half and raising them on special diets.
Here also, “cutting” can reach “are growing”, but not “to meet” EVEN IF meaning required this.
Case 2: In the below official example, “spending” modifies “see” (closest action in a restrictive c.), but not any other farther action (such as “require” or “impose”) EVEN IF meaning required this. Please, prove me wrong.
- Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending less time with each.
To sum up, a Present participial phrase (with comma) modifies either the closest action or the closest action standing before a restrictive clause. Other options are hardly ever possible EVEN IF meaning requires this.
That’s all I think. Nothing contradictory.
You are right – meaning is supreme. And that’s the main reason why what you say later doesn’t work in Case 1 above (with “which clause”). Otherwise, there's a danger of lack of clarity. But, we don’t want lack of clarity because, as you said, meaning is supreme.
Sure, but I don’t have such example at hand. However, I bet you are not going to find any official example in which “comma + verbing” jumps over “which clause”. I actually can bet $100… (which I don’t have.. because, fortunately, I keep money in euro. It’s quite convenient to bet what we don’t posses.. because we can’t lose it. I initially wanted to bet my friend’s kidneys to make the bet more alluring. But I already lost them yesterday when I bet that experts read our posts carefully
)
Hi Ashish,
Quote:
With all due respect to OE writers, when they dissent from Ron’s or Mitch’s opinion, I choose to concur with the latter two gentlemen who, fortunately, hardly ever contradict themselves and each other, unlike those writers.
Quote:
My answer to all three highlights above is a big fat Nope. There are ten (always)’s in this thread, including this one. However, none of them appears in my posts in the way you’ve suggested. I am careful not to use such scary words. That would be tantamount to saying “Voldemort” aloud.
It’s as clear as daylight that I provided so many examples to show how a noun clause (your example) isn’t the sole case in which “comma + verbing” can jump over. However, note that all such cases happen when an essential modifier comes before “comma + verbing”.
generis simply explains such cases as “essential modifier trumps a nonessential modifier”. MGMAT SC guide likewise provides similar cases on pages 59, 60, and 167. So, the same thing is happening here: an essential mod intervenes between “comma + verbing” and the action it modifies.
1. Well, the conversation started when you stated that “applying” modifies “offer” in the below problem.
- Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying part of the rent to a purchase later.
I stated that it’s impossible for “applying” to jump over a non-restrictive clause and refer to “offer”. So, I am sure it’s impossible for a Present participial phrase to refer to the action standing before a non-restrictive clause EVEN IF meaning requires this. Please, prove me wrong.
2. Later, I talked about two cases that happen if a restrictive clause (or any other essential mod containing an action) precedes a Present participial phrase. Please, note that I said only 2, mo more. The action to be modified is either the closest one before the restrictive clause or the closest one in the restrictive clause:
Case 1: In the following made-up sentence, “likening” can modify “contend” (closest action before a restrictive c.), but not any other farther action (such as “express”) EVEN IF meaning required this. Please, prove me wrong.
- Many others in the film industry express their disapproval and contend that the technique degrades major works of art, likening it to putting lipstick on a Greek statue.
- To meet the rapidly rising market demand for fish and seafood, suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as they grow naturally, cutting their feed allotment by nearly half and raising them on special diets.
Here also, “cutting” can reach “are growing”, but not “to meet” EVEN IF meaning required this.
Case 2: In the below official example, “spending” modifies “see” (closest action in a restrictive c.), but not any other farther action (such as “require” or “impose”) EVEN IF meaning required this. Please, prove me wrong.
- Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending less time with each.
To sum up, a Present participial phrase (with comma) modifies either the closest action or the closest action standing before a restrictive clause. Other options are hardly ever possible EVEN IF meaning requires this.
That’s all I think. Nothing contradictory.
Quote:
You are right – meaning is supreme. And that’s the main reason why what you say later doesn’t work in Case 1 above (with “which clause”). Otherwise, there's a danger of lack of clarity. But, we don’t want lack of clarity because, as you said, meaning is supreme.
Quote:
Sure, but I don’t have such example at hand. However, I bet you are not going to find any official example in which “comma + verbing” jumps over “which clause”. I actually can bet $100… (which I don’t have.. because, fortunately, I keep money in euro. It’s quite convenient to bet what we don’t posses.. because we can’t lose it. I initially wanted to bet my friend’s kidneys to make the bet more alluring. But I already lost them yesterday when I bet that experts read our posts carefully
) 
Aviral1995
18 Feb 2020, 01:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
GMATNinja
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma, i have a question wrt option C. Since overlooking is coming after comma , soesn't this mean overlooking is referring to the subject of the previous clause...in this case a natural response means a natural response is overlooking the forces that caused the disaster could also cause another one. How can it refer to site?
18 Feb 2020, 02:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
EducationAisle
Dear Ashish,
Here is such officially correct answer:
Analysts blamed May's sluggish retail sales on unexciting merchandise as well as the weather, which was colder and wetter than usual in some regions, slowing sales of barbecue grills and lawn furniture.
You can see that “comma + slowing” modifies the closest action “was colder and wetter” and its performer “weather = which”.
Conveyed meaning: the weather - which was colder and wetter than usual - was consequently responsible for the action in red (SLOWING the SALES of barbecue grills).
Please, take a look at very helpful elucidations from GMATGuruNY here and RonPurewal here.
