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

 It is currently 15 Dec 2019, 05:45

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 369
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, 08:42
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?
_________________
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2849
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
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, 09:56
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 369
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, 03:21
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 …
_________________
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2849
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
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, 05:47
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: 1347
Location: Malaysia
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2017, 22:04
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."

SVP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1592
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2017, 23:25
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
GMAT-99th Percentile, MBA - ISB Hyderabad
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Dec 2017
Posts: 373
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, 07:22
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?
SVP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1592
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2018, 09:59
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
GMAT-99th Percentile, MBA - ISB Hyderabad
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

SVP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1592
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2018, 10:00
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
GMAT-99th Percentile, MBA - ISB Hyderabad
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Dec 2017
Posts: 373
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, 07:58
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.
SVP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1592
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2018, 08:56
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
GMAT-99th Percentile, MBA - ISB Hyderabad
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Intern
Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Posts: 43
Concentration: Accounting, Social Entrepreneurship
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2018, 22:56
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
_________________
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1333
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2018, 23:05
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 (relates to insurance plans) - incorrect
(B) imposing stricter limits on medical services , requiring doctors to see more patients, and spending (how can insurance plans be "spending.." incorrect
(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
Director
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 931
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2019, 05:11
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 …

doing +comma+ main clause
in this pattern doing phrase refers to subject and work as adverb modifying the whole sentence. doing phrase CAN NOT modify only subject. if you want to modify only subject, use the following
the girl wearing high heels is a freind of mine.
but
in your example, "wearing high heels " is modifying " I talk with my friends' as an adverb which show the condition of talking.

so,
doing phrase+comma or comma+doing phrase is alway refer to subject of the sentence and modify the whole sentence.
Director
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 931
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2019, 08:37
[quote="Ravshonbek"]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

to survive on sc, we have to realize the meaning error. it is ideal that we realize meaning error and the intended meaning when we read only the origianl choice. but this thing sometime can not be done.

we can not understand the intended meaning when we read only the original choice in this problem.
read choice A. we do not realize the meaning error
read choice B. "speading" refers to "plans". "plan" can not "spend". not logic, B is out.
read choice D. we do not realize meaning error
read choice E. "requiring" and "spending' refer to "plans". this reference is not logic. more over, "requiring" and " speanding" can not modify "impose" logically. comma+doing refers to subject of the previous clause and at the same time, work as an adverb to modify the previous clause.

choice A and D are left. now we face the very typical point tested on SC, the difference between "and do" and " comma+doing".
"and do" (in choice A) shows 2 separate actions. " comma+doing" (in choice D) shows that 2 actions are not separate. to see more patient means to spead less time with each. choice D is logic. comma+doing show another facet of the same action in the main clause.

honestly, it is hard to realize whether the case of 2 separate actions is logic or the case of 1 action with 2 faces is logic. but we practice and we can realize which one is more logic.
Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Posts: 108
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2019, 01:39
Hi egmat,

Thank you for your kind explanation.

However, I have a question.

Choice C states that "that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending".

I understand that comma + V.ing modifies the preceding clause and must correspond to the subject of that clause.

My question is: The word "spending" modifies preceding clause but what subject does the word "spending" correspond to?

Thank you.
Manager
Joined: 08 Jul 2016
Posts: 69
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2019, 03:08
ballest127 wrote:
Hi egmat,

Thank you for your kind explanation.

However, I have a question.

Choice C states that "that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending".

I understand that comma + V.ing modifies the preceding clause and must correspond to the subject of that clause.

My question is: The word "spending" modifies preceding clause but what subject does the word "spending" correspond to?

Thank you.

I may be able to help. comma + V.ing do not always modify an entire clause. But, they do always modify some form of action. In this case, it is "to see". "spending less time with each" describes how doctors see their patients.
SVP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1592
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2019, 00:43
ballest127 wrote:
However, I have a question.

Choice C states that "that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending".

I understand that comma + V.ing modifies the preceding clause and must correspond to the subject of that clause.

My question is: The word "spending" modifies preceding clause but what subject does the word "spending" correspond to?

Hi ballest127, a slightly more flexible way to look at these things would be that such present participial phrases (in this case spending...) modify the doer of the preceding action. This doer of the preceding action is mostly the subject of the preceding clause. However, in this case, the preceding action is to see more patients and the doer of this action is doctors.

So, basically option D suggests correctly that Doctors spend less time with each patient.
_________________
Thanks,
Ashish
GMAT-99th Percentile, MBA - ISB Hyderabad
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Director
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 931
Re: Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2019, 01:55
[quote="Ravshonbek"]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

look at choice D, the official answer.
by using "spending", the author want to attach "spending" to "to see more patients". these two actions are not separate . this case is typical of use of doing as participle.
but there is a problem here.
"spending" can be applicable to both " impose stricter limits " and " require doctors to see more patients. it is correct to apply "spending " to "require doctor to see..." but is not logic to apply "speanding" to " impose ...". this is wrong.

do you agree with me.

other choices suffer terrible mistake because they consider "require" and " spend" are paralel and separate actions, not as inseparate action
Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2018
Posts: 31
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2019, 08:18
daagh wrote:
Among lower- paid workers, union members are less likely than nonunion 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.

The first observation is that a comma does not precede the ‘ing’ modifier imposing in this case. Therefore, any discussion relating it to the rules that pertain to an adverbial modifier is futile. Imposing without a comma before is an adjectival modifier in this case and modifies the plans. Similarly, the restrictive pronoun ‘that’ also refers to plans and is correct. In fact, the split of using ‘posing’ and ‘that impose’ is a pseudo split to divert the focus.
What decides the correct choice is the rest of the sentence, and the logic of the meaning expressed there.
The intent of the topic is that the plans impose two restrictions. 1. Limits on medical services (maybe such as fewer number of diseases covered or financial limits on the amount to be given) and 2. That doctors see more patients by spending less time with each patient. Spending less time with patients is a means to achieve the objective of seeing more patients and not yet another objective. So ‘spending’ should be given a modifier status and not the main verb role. Additionally, when you give a verb status to the factor of spending, it will mean that the plans either spend or do spending, which is illogical.

In the light of the above,
(A) imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend ------ and spend is wrong – ‘spend’ is given a verb status.

(B) imposing stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients, and spending – The modifier ‘requiring’ is wrong as it is one of the two main objectives; it has to be given a verb status.

(C) that impose stricter limits on medical services, require doctors to see more patients, and spend --- wrong – 1. ‘and is missed between services and require. 2. and spend is wrong as in A.

(D) that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending – This is correct because now spending is relegated to modifier status

(E) that impose stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients and spending --- pushing the second factor of requiring to a modifier status as if it is a corollary of the stricter limits is wrong. Secondly and spending signifies that it is the plans which are spending

That is the logic of this beautiful question. .

Hi daagh,

I have a little question.

In choice D, we have "... insurance plans that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending ...".

It seems that "spending ..." modifies "that (plans) impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patient" or "that (plans) require doctors to see more patient" but not "doctors to see more patients".

Could you clarify that? Thanks.
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union   [#permalink] 01 Apr 2019, 08:18

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 46 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by