NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 17:22 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 17:22
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
 1   2   3   4   5   
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
L
Bunuel
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92915
Own Kudos [?]: 619030 [554]
Given Kudos: 81595
Send PM
CAT Tests Forum Quiz Mode
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   26 Apr 2019, 05:15
35
Kudos
517
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (01:42) correct 43% (01:48) wrong based on 10165 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault


SC36241.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
B
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
D
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 1691
Own Kudos [?]: 14673 [197]
Given Kudos: 766
Send PM
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   03 May 2019, 21:20
103
Kudos
94
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow it down to the correct choice! To start, let's take a quick scan over the options and highlight any major differences in orange and purple:

Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

After a quick glance over the options, it appears there are a lot of differences. However, we can narrow it down to 3 main issues:

1. a situation that was quite tense / a situation, which was quite tense / a quite tense situation (Clarity & Meaning)
2. with her public statement / by publicly stating / by stating publicly / with a public statement (Clarity & Meaning)
3. that the debacle... / that Smith was not responsible... / about the debacle... / the debacle not to have been... (Wordiness)

Let's start with #1 on our list because it should eliminate 2-3 options rather quickly. We need to determine if it's better to say "a situation that was quite tense" and "a quite tense situation." This is an issue of clarity. WHAT did the CEO diffuse? A situation. To make sure that's absolutely clear, it makes more sense to keep those two things together. This becomes even more important when the word "quite" is involved:

Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG

So - let's see how each option handles this particular issue:

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle (different problem - save for later)
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

We can eliminate options D & E because they don't use the proper construction when describing the situation. Notice how I left option C off the table? It's also incorrect, and here is why:

C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle

This is INCORRECT because the addition of "which" turns this phrase into a non-essential modifier. This sentence tells us that the phrase "which was quite tense" isn't important information to the overall meaning of the sentence. In this sentence, it IS important to know that the situation the CEO diffused was tense - otherwise why would she bother dealing with it?

We can eliminate option C because it created a non-essential phrase that then changed the overall meaning and clarity.

Now that we only have 2 options left, let's take a closer look at each one to determine which is better:

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
This is INCORRECT because the phrase "with her public statement" is problematic. By not giving clear credit to the CEO for making the statement, readers might think that the CEO diffused the situation with a public statement made by someone else, or by not actually making the statement herself. This isn't a strong enough way to say what they mean, so it's not the best choice.

B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
This is CORRECT. It's clear that the CEO made a public statement herself with the phrase "by publicly stating." It gives credit where it's due, and it's absolutely clear what the writer intended to say.

There you have it - option B is the correct choice! It's absolutely clear what is going on in the sentence, and all of the actions are tied to the correct people.


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
User avatar
D
GMATGuruNY
Tutor
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 1315
Own Kudos [?]: 3136 [86]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Send PM
Although some had accused Smith, the firms network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 23 Jun 2022, 11:05
47
Kudos
38
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Bunuel wrote:
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault


A: a situation that was quite tense with her public statement
Here, the referent for the red portion is unclear.
While the red portion is intended to modify defused (expressing how the CEO defused a situation), a reader might construe that the red portion is serving to modify the portion in blue (expressing why the situation was tense).
Also, it is not crystal clear whether her refers to Smith or to the CEO.
Eliminate A.

A which-clause provides NONESSENTIAL information.
If a which-clause is removed, the remaining words must convey a clear and complete meaning.
If we remove the which-clause from C, we get:
The CEO defused a situation by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle.
Here, it is unclear what situation is being diffused.
Since removing the which-clause yields an incomplete meaning, eliminate C.

Generally, a VERBing modifier expresses a TEMPORARY action happening at the same time as the main action.
D: the debacle not being Smith's fault
Here, the usage of being implies that the debacle was TEMPORARILY not BEING Smith's fault at the same time as the CEO defused.
This meaning is nonsensical.
It is illogical to convey that the situation was not Smith's fault only temporarily.
Eliminate D.

E: by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith's fault
Here, the red portion seems to be an adjective describing the debacle.
As a result, the following meaning is conveyed:
The CEO was stating the debacle.
What KIND of debacle?
A debacle NOT TO HAVE BEEN SMITH'S FAULT.
This meaning is nonsensical.
It is not possible to state a debacle.
Eliminate E.

LINKING VERBS are forms of to be such as is, are, was, were, etc.
One purpose of a linking verb is to express a STATE-OF-BEING:
Mary IS tall.
The boys ARE happy.
The situation WAS tense.

by + VERBing serves to express HOW an ACTION is performed.
Since a state-of-being is not an action, by + VERBing cannot serve to modify a linking verb.

OA: The CEO defused a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.
In accordance with the rule above, by publicly stating cannot serve to modify the linking verb was.
As a result, it is clear that by publicly stating is serving to modify DEFUSED -- the nearest preceding ACTION -- expressing HOW the CEO DEFUSED a situation.

Originally posted by GMATGuruNY on 04 May 2019, 04:17.
Last edited by GMATGuruNY on 23 Jun 2022, 11:05, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63669 [40]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   06 Oct 2019, 12:32
23
Kudos
17
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
dcummins wrote:
I was very much thrown off by the comma in (B). Any advice on this would be appreciated.

I also failed to detect the error with "with" in (A), but after reading a few responses i realise i'm using my ear too much here.

"she defused a situation... with her (public statement)" is different from "she defused a situation, by publicly stating"

Public statement = the means by which she defused; publicly stating is essentially how she did it - what we want.

Generally, I'd try to avoid using a comma as a decision point -- the GMAT really isn't that interested in testing you on the presence or absence of commas. (More on punctuation in this video.) And in this case, the comma is just setting off a modifier, and that's a fairly typical usage.

Prepositions such as "with" are flexible modifiers - they can describe nouns or actions, depending on context. For example, if I order a hamburger with cheese, I'm not using the cheese to order the burger, but rather, "with cheese" is offering additional information about the burger I've ordered. Put another way, "with" is modifying the noun "hamburger," rather than the verb "order."

But if I perform a task with great enthusiasm, "with great enthusiasm" describes how I'm performing the task, rather than the task itself. In this case, "with" is modifying an action.

The biggest problem with (D) is that it can be hard to see which scenario applies. "With" could be a noun modifier or a verb modifier.

Take another look: "the CEO defused a quite tense situation with a public statement." It really isn't clear whether "with a public statement" is functioning as verb modifier explaining how the CEO defused the situation, or functioning as a noun modifier describing the situation itself.

In other words, a "defused a quite tense situation with a public statement," could be one in which a disastrous public statement was the very situation the CEO defused, or it could be the case that the CEO defused a situation by issuing a public statement. The possibility of two interpretations makes (D) more confusing than (B), in which it's crystal-clear that the public statement was how the CEO defused the situation. Clarity beats ambiguity every time, so (B) is a better option.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5181
Own Kudos [?]: 4653 [21]
Given Kudos: 631
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   27 Apr 2019, 21:40
11
Kudos
10
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
janadipesh wrote:
Please clarify the below points
1. by publicly stating and by stating publicly ...both are ok?
2. usage of that or which . in this particular case , are both ok?
1. I think both are okay.

Before we take (2), remember that when we see a "comma + which", the information contained in the which clause is just additional information and is not used to define the noun that the which points to (it works the opposite way for that).

2. No. We'll need a that here (not a ", which"). The reason for this is that we want to say "the CEO defused a tense situation", and not "the CEO defused a situation". For example:

The mathematician solved a problem that was considered impossible to solve. ← We should read the whole thing as a unit.
The mathematician solved a problem, which was considered impossible to solve. ← Here we don't take a problem and the which clause as a unit.

The second one is not correct as the information about the problem is essential (it helps the reader understand that a particular type of problem, not just any problem, was solved).
General Discussion
User avatar
L
daagh
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42104 [15]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 21 Jul 2019, 00:39
11
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Top Contributor
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.



A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault -- It may weirdly mean that CEO turned the situation tense by making the statement: funny!


B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault --- The correct choice. .. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith, was not responsible for the debacle -- The non-restrictive 'which' is not correct since the meaning will be insensible without the situation being tense.The use of comma after Smith is wrong . we do not separate a subject from its verb


D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault---' Debacle not being' , that is, --using being as a modifier-- is not in the vibe of GMAT.

E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault --We must use 'that' after stating; 'The debacle not to have been' is too clumsy.

Originally posted by daagh on 04 May 2019, 01:24.
Last edited by daagh on 21 Jul 2019, 00:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
G
tamal99
Manager
Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2018
Posts: 124
Own Kudos [?]: 153 [11]
Given Kudos: 445
Location: India
Schools: IIM (II)
GMAT 1: 640 Q46 V32
GPA: 3.84
Send PM
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   26 Apr 2019, 05:37
8
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bunuel wrote:
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault


SC36241.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION


Option A- wrong because the part " With.... " Changes the intended meaning. she created a situation NOT with a statement, it would be rather - by a statement or announcing....
Option B- no issue.
Option C- no grammatical or meaning issue, but not preferred bcz its indirect.
Option D- has same issue as option A has.
Option E- missing a THAT after " Stating " and wrong construction.

Correct option- B.
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63669 [10]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   16 May 2019, 01:22
8
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Leonaann wrote:
just would like to clarify a doubt.

In option B, ' by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith???s fault' is modifying the action verb defused right? Could someone please help to confirm this? thanks

That's right! How did the CEO defuse the situation? By publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith's fault. "By publicly stating..." functions as an adverb, modifying the verb "defused".
User avatar
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5181
Own Kudos [?]: 4653 [9]
Given Kudos: 631
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   03 May 2019, 19:03
3
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
JS1290 wrote:
Could someone please explain why option E is incorrect?
There are two problems in option E:

... a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault.

1. A quite tense situation is not the right way to express that idea. For example:

She solved a question that was quite tough. ← This one is fine.
vs.
She solved a quite tough question. ← This is not correct.

He watched a movie that was quite long. ← This one is fine.
vs.
He watched a quite long movie. ← This is not correct.

2. Stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault is better (more direct) than stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault.
User avatar
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5181
Own Kudos [?]: 4653 [4]
Given Kudos: 631
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   04 Aug 2019, 17:55
1
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
jamalabdullah100 wrote:
AjiteshArun wrote:
JS1290 wrote:
Could someone please explain why option E is incorrect?
There are two problems in option E:

... a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault.

1. A quite tense situation is not the right way to express that idea. For example:

She solved a question that was quite tough. ← This one is fine.
vs.
She solved a quite tough question. ← This is not correct.

He watched a movie that was quite long. ← This one is fine.
vs.
He watched a quite long movie. ← This is not correct.

2. Stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault is better (more direct) than stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault.


Why are the parts in bold not correct?



Quite cannot take that position in that structure. This is something that we'll have to remember.

a + quite + [adj] + [noun] ← This is not correct. We need to move that quite.

1. a quite tough question ← This is not correct.

2. a question that was/is quite tough ← This is fine.
3. quite a tough question ← This is fine.
User avatar
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5181
Own Kudos [?]: 4653 [4]
Given Kudos: 631
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firms network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   28 May 2022, 03:06
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
PyjamaScientist wrote:
AjiteshArun,

I hope you are doing good.

I have a small doubt to discuss. Although I chose option (B) as the correct choice, one thing that threw me off was the placement of comma + by stating.... As per my understanding, a "present participle phrase" or a "verb-ing modifier" acts an action modifier that modifies its preceding action.
Here, the sentence is,
Quote:
"the CEO (S1) defused (V1) a situation that (S2) was (V2) quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.
So, does not "verb-ing modifier" modify the just preceding action "that was tense" here? Logically it should refer to the first action, but the placement of the "comma" does bring up that room for ambiguity in my opinion, what do you think about this? I have read Charles' explanation on why "comma" does not necessarily make this option incorrect, but I feel that it does make it a bit ambiguous.

Regards

Hi PyjamaScientist,

Good question. I'm not sure how you normally look at present participles, but by publicly stating is a prepositional phrase. It tells us how she defused a tense situation.

That said, other experts may be in a better position to help you with this. I generally avoid taking calls on comma usage (with the exception of issues like comma splices, the GMAT doesn't seem to be too interested in testing commas). For what it's worth, as far as I know, using commas with adverbials like this one doesn't involve any hard and fast rules.
User avatar
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5181
Own Kudos [?]: 4653 [3]
Given Kudos: 631
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   17 Mar 2021, 00:54
3
Kudos
Expert Reply
chayma wrote:
Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG

I don’t understand why this is wrong

Hi chayma,

This is one of those somewhat frustrating issues in English (such issues are, of course, not limited to English). The word quite simply cannot take that position in that structure. This is something that we'll have to remember.

a + quite + [adj] + [noun] ← This is not correct. We need to move that quite.

1. a quite tough question ← This is not correct.

2. a question that was/is quite tough ← This is fine.
3. quite a tough question ← This is fine.
User avatar
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5181
Own Kudos [?]: 4653 [3]
Given Kudos: 631
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Although some had accused Smith, the firms network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   22 Jul 2022, 22:03
3
Kudos
Expert Reply
woohoo921 wrote:
I do not understand why "Mandy passed a quite difficult exam" is incorrect. "Difficult" modifies "exam" and "quite" modifies "difficult". Thank you again.

Hi woohoo921,

Until you receive a better response: does that structure sound good to you (don't worry about whether the modifiers seem to be okay)? If it doesn't, you probably don't need to worry too much about this issue.

If it does, things become a little tougher. The problem with [a quite + {adj} + {noun}] is that it is relatively rare, and is typically used only in very specific situations, to achieve certain effects. The GMAT most likely won't ask us to take that kind of call (it'd be too fine a call to test). On the other hand, the GMAT does occasionally ask us to pick a stylistically preferable option, which is what we're doing here.

In other words, [a quite + {adj} + {noun}] is technically not impossible, but it's also not how most people normally use quite.
User avatar
L
egmat
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4347
Own Kudos [?]: 30796 [3]
Given Kudos: 635
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Although some had accused Smith, the firms network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   01 Dec 2022, 02:40
3
Kudos
Expert Reply
JaydeepPatadiya wrote:
alicebling wrote:
Can someone please explain why a comma is needed in front of "by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault." Is it stil correct if the comma is removed?? Thank you!


I also have some what similar query. After comma "by publically stating that....." is an independent clause. I rejected this schoice because two independent clauses can not be connected by comma. I'd appreciate if experts can help here to understand why my reasoaning is incorrect.


Hey JaydeepPatadiya

Happy to help you with this.

Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

1. The first takeaway is that the words "by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault" do not form an Independent Clause. This is just a prepositional phrase:
    Preposition: by
    Complete Object of Preposition: publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
    Main Object of Preposition "by": stating (verb-ing noun a.k.a. a gerund)

So, "by publicly stating something" is just a prepositional phrase in which:
    something = that the debacle was not Smith's fault

In order to improve your ability to distinguish between phrases and clauses, I strongly recommend you strengthen your basics of grammar and work on deriving the Sentence Structure of complex sentences.

2. Now, let's come to the question of the comma placed before this prepositional phrase "by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault".
This prepositional phrase modifies the verb "defused", telling us "how" the situation was defused. Now, the comma has been placed before 'by' only to make it clear that this prepositional phrase modifies 'defused' and nothing else in between.

This is normally done when the preceding object is especially long. The comma signifies the end of that object and the start of the next part of speech, in this case an adverb. This eliminates any possible ambiguity or unintended modification.


So, although this comma is not absolutely necessary here, it certainly makes the sentence more comprehensible.


I hope this helps improve your understanding of adverbial prepositional phrases.


Happy Learning.

Abhishek
User avatar
D
GMATGuruNY
Tutor
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 1315
Own Kudos [?]: 3136 [3]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Send PM
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firms network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   01 Dec 2022, 13:11
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
TheUltimateWinner wrote:
Quote:
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

GMATGuruNY
Sir, A very quick question. Normally, we use COMMA+VerbING as adverbial modifier but in choice B we use some extra words (i.e., by publicly). Why don't we use as usual like '',stating publicly that the debacle was not Smith’s fault''?
Thank you for your time..


One possible reason:

As mentioned in my first post, by + VERBing cannot serve to modify a state-of-being such as was or were.

COMMA + VERBing, however, is not constrained in this way.
SC30 in the OG12:
Shields were essential items of military equipment, protecting warriors against enemy arrows.
Here, COMMA + protecting refers to were and to the subject of this verb -- shields -- conveying that the SHIELDS were PROTECTING warriors.

Your proposed revision:
a situation that was quite tense, stating publicly that the debacle was not Smith's fault
Here, COMMA + stating seems to refer to was and to the implied subject of this verb -- a situation -- conveying that a SITUATION was STATING publicly that the debacle was not Smith's fault.
This meaning is nonsensical.
User avatar
D
AshutoshB
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Posts: 325
Own Kudos [?]: 1664 [2]
Given Kudos: 348
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V28
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   26 Apr 2019, 07:34
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bunuel wrote:
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault


SC36241.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION


IMO Correct Answer would be B

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault
User avatar
S
janadipesh
Manager
Manager
Joined: 10 Jun 2014
Posts: 70
Own Kudos [?]: 78 [2]
Given Kudos: 286
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
WE:Manufacturing and Production (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   27 Apr 2019, 05:01
2
Bookmarks
tamal99 wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault


SC36241.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION


Option A- wrong because the part " With.... " Changes the intended meaning. she created a situation NOT with a statement, it would be rather - by a statement or announcing....
Option B- no issue.
Option C- no grammatical or meaning issue, but not preferred bcz its indirect.
Option D- has same issue as option A has.
Option E- missing a THAT after " Stating " and wrong construction.

Correct option- B.


Please clarify the below points
1. by publicly stating and by stating publicly ...both are ok?
2. usage of that or which . in this particular case , are both ok?
avatar
L
AndrewN
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3512
Own Kudos [?]: 6859 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firms network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   28 May 2022, 03:47
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
PyjamaScientist wrote:
AjiteshArun AndrewN,

I hope you are doing good.

I have a small doubt to discuss. Although I chose option (B) as the correct choice, one thing that threw me off was the placement of comma + by stating.... As per my understanding, a "present participle phrase" or a "verb-ing modifier" acts as an action modifier that modifies its preceding action.
Here, the sentence is,
Quote:
"the CEO (S1) defused (V1) a situation that (S2) was (V2) quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.
So, does not "verb-ing modifier" modify the just preceding action "that was tense" here? Logically it should refer to the first action, but the placement of the "comma" does bring up that room for ambiguity in my opinion, what do you think about this? I have read Charles' explanation on why "comma" does not necessarily make this option incorrect, but I feel that it does make it a bit ambiguous.

Regards

Hello, PyjamaScientist. Thank you for the well wishes and for doing me the honor of requesting my input alongside AjiteshArun. I am not exactly sure why, but your query reminded me of this question and my response to someone on a concern about a comma + verb-ed modifier. Because many comma conventions, especially those involving single commas, are flexible in written English, I find it less useful to project onto a given sentence what I think should be true based on an understanding of modifiers. Rather, I ask myself whether the modifier can reasonably modify what I think it does—i.e. without my forcing an interpretation. In the sentence at hand, the embedded that clause is clearly modifying the situation, but is it clear without the comma that that relative clause has wrapped up, that the description of the situation has resolved? I suppose if you read fast enough, you would have little problem connecting the by modifier with the main clause, but consider:

a situation that was quite tense by...

Is it inconceivable that the description of the situation would continue? No. Now, I am not by means going to argue that the comma is compulsory. In fact, I think the sentence would be readily understandable without the comma. But I am guessing that the question-writer wanted to make it absolutely clear that the relative clause had resolved, so the comma entered the picture.

Regarding ambiguity, I have a hard time grasping how the by modifier could be commenting on the situation specifically, rather than on the main clause, because quite tense does not seem to work in conjunction with the CEO providing a public exoneration. I would expect a finger of blame to be pointed instead to support such an interpretation.

So, in short, I agree with your own assessment: logically [the modifier] should refer to the first action. Trust logic, not some mechanical input-output understanding.

- Andrew
User avatar
B
JaydeepPatadiya
Intern
Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2022
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [2]
Given Kudos: 24
Send PM
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firms network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   01 Dec 2022, 21:23
2
Kudos
egmat wrote:
JaydeepPatadiya wrote:
alicebling wrote:
Can someone please explain why a comma is needed in front of "by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault." Is it stil correct if the comma is removed?? Thank you!


I also have some what similar query. After comma "by publically stating that....." is an independent clause. I rejected this schoice because two independent clauses can not be connected by comma. I'd appreciate if experts can help here to understand why my reasoaning is incorrect.


Happy to help you with this.

Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

1. The first takeaway is that the words "by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault" do not form an Independent Clause. This is just a prepositional phrase:
    Preposition: by
    Complete Object of Preposition: publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
    Main Object of Preposition "by": stating (verb-ing noun a.k.a. a gerund)

So, "by publicly stating something" is just a prepositional phrase in which:
    something = that the debacle was not Smith's fault

In order to improve your ability to distinguish between phrases and clauses, I strongly recommend you strengthen your basics of grammar and work on deriving the Sentence Structure of complex sentences.

2. Now, let's come to the question of the comma placed before this prepositional phrase "by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault".
This prepositional phrase modifies the verb "defused", telling us "how" the situation was defused. Now, the comma has been placed before 'by' only to make it clear that this prepositional phrase modifies 'defused' and nothing else in between.

This is normally done when the preceding object is especially long. The comma signifies the end of that object and the start of the next part of speech, in this case an adverb. This eliminates any possible ambiguity or unintended modification.


So, although this comma is not absolutely necessary here, it certainly makes the sentence more comprehensible.


I hope this helps improve your understanding of adverbial prepositional phrases.


Happy Learning.

Abhishek


Thanks for the detailed explanation. I considered "by publically stating..." as clause only because it has subject and verb pair but now I realize that its the part of entire object. Appreciate your time for the explanation. I am very happy after improving this aspect:-)
User avatar
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5181
Own Kudos [?]: 4653 [2]
Given Kudos: 631
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firms network manager, of neglig [#permalink] New post   21 Nov 2023, 07:00
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Ritwickhota wrote:
I have a doubt here with the usage of the second "that" - Shouldn't 'that' have a noun to refer to? or is there another use case for the word?. Please help.

Hi Ritwickhota,

There are other ways to use that. For example, in "he said that the question was tough", we don't need to look for a noun for the that to point to.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Although some had accused Smith, the firms network manager, of neglig [#permalink]
21 Nov 2023, 07:00
 1   2   3   4   5   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions