Last visit was: 20 Apr 2026, 21:33 It is currently 20 Apr 2026, 21:33
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   
User avatar
daagh
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Last visit: 16 Oct 2020
Posts: 5,262
Own Kudos:
42,463
 [1]
Given Kudos: 422
Status: enjoying
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,262
Kudos: 42,463
 [1]
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 21 Jan 2016, 00:16
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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. .
User avatar
Icecream87
User avatar
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Last visit: 02 Aug 2018
Posts: 332
Own Kudos:
353
Given Kudos: 72
Location: France
Schools: Insead Sept '17 (M$)
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
WE:Real Estate (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Insead Sept '17 (M$)
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
Posts: 332
Kudos: 353
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 16 Apr 2016, 08:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mitulsarwal
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.
Show more
I am trying to rub my head around this!! why do I feel like everything is wrong about what's written here? :P :P :lol:
User avatar
sayantanc2k
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Last visit: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 2,391
Own Kudos:
15,571
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Posts: 2,391
Kudos: 15,571
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 16 Apr 2016, 09:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Icecream87
mitulsarwal
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? :P :P :lol:
Show more

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.
User avatar
Icecream87
User avatar
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Last visit: 02 Aug 2018
Posts: 332
Own Kudos:
353
Given Kudos: 72
Location: France
Schools: Insead Sept '17 (M$)
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
WE:Real Estate (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Insead Sept '17 (M$)
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
Posts: 332
Kudos: 353
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 17 Apr 2016, 03:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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 …
User avatar
sayantanc2k
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Last visit: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 2,391
Own Kudos:
15,571
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Posts: 2,391
Kudos: 15,571
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 18 Apr 2016, 05:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Icecream87
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 …
Show more

(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.
User avatar
BillyZ
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Last visit: 24 Jan 2026
Posts: 1,135
Own Kudos:
22,607
Given Kudos: 926
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Sloan '23 (D) Tuck '23 (D) Darden '23 (D) Ross '23 (D) Kellogg '23 (D) Wharton '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Fuqua '24 (A) Harvard '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D)
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
GPA: 3.53
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Sloan '23 (D) Tuck '23 (D) Darden '23 (D) Ross '23 (D) Kellogg '23 (D) Wharton '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Fuqua '24 (A) Harvard '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D)
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
Posts: 1,135
Kudos: 22,607
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 20 Jun 2017, 22:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
Show more

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 []?
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 20 Apr 2026
Posts: 3,901
Own Kudos:
3,585
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,901
Kudos: 3,585
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 20 Jun 2017, 23:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hazelnut

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 []?
Show more
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).
User avatar
Hero8888
User avatar
Joined: 29 Dec 2017
Last visit: 14 Apr 2019
Posts: 299
Own Kudos:
348
Given Kudos: 273
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)
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V37
Posts: 299
Kudos: 348
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 07 Jul 2018, 07:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle
hazelnut

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).
Show more

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?
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 20 Apr 2026
Posts: 3,901
Own Kudos:
3,585
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,901
Kudos: 3,585
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 08 Jul 2018, 09:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hero8888
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?).
Show more
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.
Show more
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.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 20 Apr 2026
Posts: 3,901
Own Kudos:
3,585
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,901
Kudos: 3,585
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 08 Jul 2018, 10:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hero8888
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?).
Show more
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.
Show more
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.
User avatar
Hero8888
User avatar
Joined: 29 Dec 2017
Last visit: 14 Apr 2019
Posts: 299
Own Kudos:
348
Given Kudos: 273
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)
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V37
Posts: 299
Kudos: 348
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 09 Jul 2018, 07:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle
Hero8888
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.
Show more
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.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 20 Apr 2026
Posts: 3,901
Own Kudos:
3,585
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,901
Kudos: 3,585
 [1]
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 09 Jul 2018, 08:56
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hero8888
E.g. Mary asked me to go out, nervously knocking on the table.
Show more
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.
User avatar
rashedBhai
User avatar
Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Last visit: 04 Feb 2019
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
80
Given Kudos: 339
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: Iowa State '21 Haas '21 Kelley '21 Marshall '21 Simon '21
Schools: Iowa State '21 Haas '21 Kelley '21 Marshall '21 Simon '21
Posts: 29
Kudos: 80
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 26 Oct 2018, 22:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
chetan2u
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..
Show more

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

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
dcummins
User avatar
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Last visit: 16 Mar 2026
Posts: 1,021
Own Kudos:
2,376
Given Kudos: 368
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: INSEAD Sept'21 Intake (WA$$$) Melbourne (A$$$$) AGSM (A$$$$) Kellogg '23 (WL) Said '22 (A$$$$) CBS '23 (D) Booth '23 (WA) Anderson '23 (WA) Cambridge '22 (WL) LBS '23 (D) Stern '24 (WA)
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: INSEAD Sept'21 Intake (WA$$$) Melbourne (A$$$$) AGSM (A$$$$) Kellogg '23 (WL) Said '22 (A$$$$) CBS '23 (D) Booth '23 (WA) Anderson '23 (WA) Cambridge '22 (WL) LBS '23 (D) Stern '24 (WA)
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
Posts: 1,021
Kudos: 2,376
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 10 Dec 2018, 23:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
thangvietnam
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Last visit: 04 Apr 2026
Posts: 743
Own Kudos:
419
Given Kudos: 2,198
Posts: 743
Kudos: 419
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 21 Jan 2019, 05:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Icecream87
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 …
Show more

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.
User avatar
thangvietnam
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Last visit: 04 Apr 2026
Posts: 743
Own Kudos:
419
Given Kudos: 2,198
Posts: 743
Kudos: 419
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union Updated on: 16 Nov 2021, 02:52
Originally posted by thangvietnam on 21 Jan 2019, 08:37.
Last edited by thangvietnam on 16 Nov 2021, 02:52, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
[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

I make it simple.
spend/spending must refers to "doctor", but not to "plans", so, choice B, C and E are wrong because in these choices, "plans" do spending/spend . this is no sense. so simple.

choice A and D are left.
in choice A, "see" and "spend" are parallel. this is not logical. "spend"should logically depend on "see"

choice D is left.
the meaning in choice D is
"plans require doctor to see more patients, spending less time with each"

normally, comma+doing refers to the subject and modifies the preceding clause
I learn gmat, making my family happy.

but in choice S, "speanding" modifies "to see". so, comma+doing modifies "to do".

IS THIS WHAT GMAT WANT US TO KNOW ?

honestly, I am not easy with choice D. this is a high level question.
avatar
ballest127
avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Last visit: 27 Dec 2021
Posts: 105
Own Kudos:
44
Given Kudos: 599
Posts: 105
Kudos: 44
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 23 Feb 2019, 01:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?

Please explain.

Thank you.
avatar
manishcmu
avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2016
Last visit: 14 Jan 2022
Posts: 52
Own Kudos:
45
Given Kudos: 71
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Posts: 52
Kudos: 45
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 23 Feb 2019, 03:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ballest127
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?

Please explain.

Thank you.
Show more

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.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 20 Apr 2026
Posts: 3,901
Own Kudos:
3,585
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,901
Kudos: 3,585
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 25 Feb 2019, 00:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ballest127

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?
Show more
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.
User avatar
thangvietnam
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Last visit: 04 Apr 2026
Posts: 743
Own Kudos:
419
Given Kudos: 2,198
Posts: 743
Kudos: 419
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union 09 Mar 2019, 01:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
[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
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
494 posts
bhanu29
358 posts