GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 21 Nov 2018, 06:16

# LBS is Calling R1 Admits - Join Chat Room to Catch the Latest Action

### 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

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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### All GMAT Club Tests are Free and open on November 22nd in celebration of Thanksgiving Day!

November 22, 2018

November 22, 2018

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Mark your calendars - All GMAT Club Tests are free and open November 22nd to celebrate Thanksgiving Day! Access will be available from 0:01 AM to 11:59 PM, Pacific Time (USA)
• ### Key Strategies to Master GMAT SC

November 24, 2018

November 24, 2018

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Attend this webinar to learn how to leverage Meaning and Logic to solve the most challenging Sentence Correction Questions.

# Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 382
Location: France
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
WE: Real Estate (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2016, 07:42
mitulsarwal wrote:
There is no strict rule that such a modifier always modifies the subject of the previous clause. On GMAT such modifiers mostly modify the subject of the previous clause(or entire clause when expressing result)but that can't be a rule.

The correct usage is as follows:
An end modifier introduced by a present participle and separated by commas mostly modifies
(i) the subject of previous clause
(ii)the whole clause, if it is expressing result
(iii) may refer back to an in between noun in the previous clause. Such a construction is considered correct.

To select the correct antecedent you need to consider the meaning. If you find a logically connected noun referent, that's all correct.

Example: I watched the sun rise over the ridge, blazing over houses, farms, and fields.
Here "blazing over houses, farms, and fields" is not modifying "I" but "Sun" and this is perfectly alright.

>> Pls award KUDOS if it really helped.

I am trying to rub my head around this!! why do I feel like everything is wrong about what's written here?
_________________

New Application Tracker : update your school profiles instantly!

Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2989
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2016, 08:56
Icecream87 wrote:
mitulsarwal wrote:
There is no strict rule that such a modifier always modifies the subject of the previous clause. On GMAT such modifiers mostly modify the subject of the previous clause(or entire clause when expressing result)but that can't be a rule.

The correct usage is as follows:
An end modifier introduced by a present participle and separated by commas mostly modifies
(i) the subject of previous clause
(ii)the whole clause, if it is expressing result
(iii) may refer back to an in between noun in the previous clause. Such a construction is considered correct.

To select the correct antecedent you need to consider the meaning. If you find a logically connected noun referent, that's all correct.

Example: I watched the sun rise over the ridge, blazing over houses, farms, and fields.
Here "blazing over houses, farms, and fields" is not modifying "I" but "Sun" and this is perfectly alright.

>> Pls award KUDOS if it really helped.

I am trying to rub my head around this!! why do I feel like everything is wrong about what's written here?

Not everything is wrong about that post; rather the post is mostly correct. I would say that the first 2 points [(i) the subject of previous clause , (ii)the whole clause, if it is expressing result ] are absolutely correctly stated, whereas I differ with the third point (that a present participle modifier "may refer back to an in between noun in the previous clause.")

The example sited is probably wrong. The modifier "blazing over houses, farms, and fields" refers to "I", NOT "sun", and therefore wrong meaning is conveyed.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 382
Location: France
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
WE: Real Estate (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2016, 02:21
Hi sayantanc2k,

Thanks for answering, I just felt like there were several inconsistencies with what I read. Please correct me if I am wrong, this is how I see things:

(i) the subject of previous clause
- a comma + ING modifier can modify the subject of the clause ONLY when placed before the clause
EXAMPLE Modifying subject: wearing high heels, I talked to my friend (my heels had nothing to do with my talking to my friend). Therefore high heels only modify ‘me’

- when place before the clause it can also modify the entire clause (by bringing additional info)

EXAMPLE Modifying the entire clause: Using my phone, I talked to my friend (How did I talk to my friend? By using the phone. This modifies the entire clause)

(ii) the whole clause, if it is expressing result

- when placed after the clause, it always modifies the entire clause, but the ING modifier can now have TWO functions: bringing additional info or bringing the result)
EXAMPLE Modifying the entire clause bringing additional info: I talked to my friend, using my phone. (How did I talk to my friend? By using the phone.)
EXAMPLE Modifying the entire clause bringing result: I played with my phone, finishing the battery. (the result of playing with my phone was that I finished my battery)

(iii) may refer back to an in between noun in the previous clause. Such a construction is considered correct.

This is the role of a noun + noun modifier: the only time that an ING modifier holds the same role as a noun + noun modifier is when the ING modifier modifies the entire clause by bringing additional information and when the noun + noun modifier also modifies the entire clause.

EXAMPLE ING modifier and Noun + noun modifier playing the same role :
using ING modifier: Scientists detected high levels of radiation at crash sites around the world, suggesting that …
Noun + noun modifier: Scientists detected high levels of radiation at crash sites around the world, results that suggest that …
_________________

New Application Tracker : update your school profiles instantly!

Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2989
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 04:47
Icecream87 wrote:
Hi sayantanc2k,

Thanks for answering, I just felt like there were several inconsistencies with what I read. Please correct me if I am wrong, this is how I see things:

(i) the subject of previous clause
- a comma + ING modifier can modify the subject of the clause ONLY when placed before the clause
EXAMPLE Modifying subject: wearing high heels, I talked to my friend (my heels had nothing to do with my talking to my friend). Therefore high heels only modify ‘me’

- when place before the clause it can also modify the entire clause (by bringing additional info)

EXAMPLE Modifying the entire clause: Using my phone, I talked to my friend (How did I talk to my friend? By using the phone. This modifies the entire clause)

(ii) the whole clause, if it is expressing result

- when placed after the clause, it always modifies the entire clause, but the ING modifier can now have TWO functions: bringing additional info or bringing the result)
EXAMPLE Modifying the entire clause bringing additional info: I talked to my friend, using my phone. (How did I talk to my friend? By using the phone.)
EXAMPLE Modifying the entire clause bringing result: I played with my phone, finishing the battery. (the result of playing with my phone was that I finished my battery)

(iii) may refer back to an in between noun in the previous clause. Such a construction is considered correct.

This is the role of a noun + noun modifier: the only time that an ING modifier holds the same role as a noun + noun modifier is when the ING modifier modifies the entire clause by bringing additional information and when the noun + noun modifier also modifies the entire clause.

EXAMPLE ING modifier and Noun + noun modifier playing the same role :
using ING modifier: Scientists detected high levels of radiation at crash sites around the world, suggesting that …
Noun + noun modifier: Scientists detected high levels of radiation at crash sites around the world, results that suggest that …

(i) and (ii) When placed after the clause, the -ing modifier could be invalid in absence of a suitable subject. Following is an example (from Manhattan SC guide):

Correct: I lifted the weight, WHISTLING "Beat It."
Wrong: The weight was lifted, WHISTLING "Beat It."

In the first sentence, the -ing modifier may be considered either a (pro)noun-modifier ( modifying I .. who lifted?), or a verb-modifier (modifying lifted... how lifted?). It may be more meaningful to consider it a (pro)noun modifier, since in the second sentence, in absence of the (pro)noun, the modifier becomes invalid. (i.e. cannot be used just a verb modifier).

(iii) I could not clearly understand which "in between" noun in the previous clause the modifier ("suggesting....") is referring to; what I understood is that the -ing modifier modifies the whole clause.
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1319
Location: Malaysia
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2017, 21:04
Quote:
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend less time with each.

(A) imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend
(B) imposing stricter limits on medical services , requiring doctors to see more patients, and spending
(C) that impose stricter limits on medical services, require doctors to see more patients, and spend
(D) that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending
(E) that impose stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients and spending

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.

GMATNinja It is a tricky and super tough question. What is VERBing "spending" intended to modify in this sentence? Does the VERBing modifier modify the preceding clause in blue bracket []?
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

VP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1022
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2017, 22:25
hazelnut wrote:
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], and spending less time with each.

What is VERBing "spending" intended to modify in this sentence? Does the VERBing modifier modify the preceding clause in blue bracket []?

Hi hazelnut, there should not be any and before spending.

The clause immediately before this participial phrase is:

lower-end insurance plans require doctors to see more patients

The reason this sentence is slightly tricky is that the participial phrase does not directly modify the subject of this clause: lower-end insurance plans.

However, the participial phrase does modify the doer (doctors) of the preceding action (to see).
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Dec 2017
Posts: 388
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.25
WE: Marketing (Telecommunications)
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2018, 06:22
EducationAisle wrote:
hazelnut wrote:
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], and spending less time with each.

What is VERBing "spending" intended to modify in this sentence? Does the VERBing modifier modify the preceding clause in blue bracket []?

Hi hazelnut, there should not be any and before spending.

The clause immediately before this participial phrase is:

lower-end insurance plans require doctors to see more patients

The reason this sentence is slightly tricky is that the participial phrase does not directly modify the subject of this clause: lower-end insurance plans.

However, the participial phrase does modify the doer (doctors) of the preceding action (to see).

Hi EducationAisle

Does it mean that comma + ing can modify not only the subject but also an object of the clause (if the object also does some action?).

E.g.1 Mary asked me to go out, taking our dog for a walk - but it seems ambigious.
E.g 2 Mary recommended that I ask Mike to go out, taking our dog for a walk - better? is that because of "that"?

Is there any rule/recommendation what -ing is to modify after sequence of several subjects and objects that all do some actions?
VP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1022
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2018, 08:59
Hero8888 wrote:
Hi EducationAisle

Does it mean that comma + ing can modify not only the subject but also an object of the clause (if the object also does some action?).

Hi Hero8888, you ask a good question. Rather than looking at Doctors as the object of the preceding clause (thereby creating a whole new rule, which would be both redundant and confusing), I would have a consistent rule as:

These type of Present Participial phrases modify the doer of the preceding action.

In most cases, the doer of the preceding action is the subject of the preceding clause, except in the sentence under consideration (incidentally, I have not come across any other such official question).

Quote:
E.g.1 Mary asked me to go out, taking our dog for a walk - but it seems ambigious.

Wonder why you think it is ambiguous. Even the context seems to make it quite clear that I should be taking our dog for a walk.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

VP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1022
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2018, 09:00
Hero8888 wrote:
Hi EducationAisle

Does it mean that comma + ing can modify not only the subject but also an object of the clause (if the object also does some action?).

Hi Hero8888, you ask a good question. Rather than looking at Doctors as the object of the preceding clause (thereby creating a whole new rule, which would be both redundant and confusing), I would have a consistent rule as:

These type of Present Participial phrases modify the doer of the preceding action.

In most cases, the doer of the preceding action is the subject of the preceding clause, except in the sentence under consideration (incidentally, I have not come across any other such official question).

Quote:
E.g.1 Mary asked me to go out, taking our dog for a walk - but it seems ambigious.

Wonder why you think it is ambiguous. Even the context seems to make it quite clear that I should be taking our dog for a walk.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Dec 2017
Posts: 388
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.25
WE: Marketing (Telecommunications)
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2018, 06:58
EducationAisle wrote:
Hero8888 wrote:
Hi EducationAisle

Does it mean that comma + ing can modify not only the subject but also an object of the clause (if the object also does some action?).

Hi Hero8888, you ask a good question. Rather than looking at Doctors as the object of the preceding clause (thereby creating a whole new rule, which would be both redundant and confusing), I would have a consistent rule as:

These type of Present Participial phrases modify the doer of the preceding action.

In most cases, the doer of the preceding action is the subject of the preceding clause, except in the sentence under consideration (incidentally, I have not come across any other such official question).

Quote:
E.g.1 Mary asked me to go out, taking our dog for a walk - but it seems ambigious.

Wonder why you think it is ambiguous. Even the context seems to make it quite clear that I should be taking our dog for a walk.

EducationAisle

Thanks a lot! So context plays a huge role. Can I assume that there will be a case when Present Participial phrase will modify slightly further action, jumping over the right preceding action, if the context allows?

E.g. Mary asked me to go out, nervously knocking on the table.
VP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1022
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2018, 07:56
1
Hero8888 wrote:
E.g. Mary asked me to go out, nervously knocking on the table.

This does not seem to be a great construct because nervously knock on the table doesn't seem to have any discernible correlation with asking me to go out.

I would rather articulate this sentence as:

Nervously knocking on the table, Mary asked me to go out.

Also, going forward, the discussion would be more useful if we can limit the discussion to official questions.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Intern
Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Posts: 28
Concentration: Accounting, Social Entrepreneurship
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2018, 21:56
chetan2u wrote:
Hi,
here 'that impose' is better than 'imposing' as 'that' relates to the word immediately preceding it
therefore A and B are out....

now there are 3 activities

a)impose stricter limits on medical services
b) require doctors to see more patients, and
c)spend less time with each.
in these a and b are independent and c is dependent on b....

C makes all a ,b ,c independent...... E makes b and c dependent on a..
only D makes a and b independent and c dependent on b.. therefore D is the ans...
hope i have been of some help..

how do I know which actions should be parallel and which should not be parallel?

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

....and now go, make glorious MISTAKES and make PROFIT from those mistakes. You are already NAKED. There is NO reason not to FOLLOW your heart.

Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union &nbs [#permalink] 26 Oct 2018, 21:56

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by