In Greek theology the supreme being was Esaugetu Emissee

A it is.

Go with parallelism. In the non-underlined part we have "who dwelt" to modify "the supreme being was Esaugetu Emissee"

A. in which the sky was the floor, and who had the power to give and to take -> who || who
B. where the sky was the floor, having the power to give and to take -> Having is def the wrong modifier to use.
C. whose floor was the sky, and who has the power of giving and of taking - WHOSE is modifying realm. Realm itself had the sky as the floor? - No sir. of giving and of taking very awkard.
D. in which the sky was the floor, with the power of giving and taking -> "with the power" is not || to anything.
E. whose floor was the sky, having the power to give and take -> same as B and D!

could somebody justify the usage of 'had' in A?

Agreed you can really nail down this sentence just with verb tense, 'was the master of breath' must be in line with the power that he 'had' in the past.

Split 1 : (at the start of Underline part) Whose Vs "In which" / "where"
Whose usually refer to people not to place. So whose is not correct. Option C and E are out.
In which and where both are correct in current reference

Lets Do POE for the rest of the option Choices.

A. in which the sky was the floor, and who had the power to give and to take
dwelt in an upper realm in which Sky was the floor - Correct
Esaugetu Emissee had power to give and take - correct parallelism - correct.


B. where the sky was the floor, having the power to give and to take
Incorrect modified - "having". It refer to noun Sky. It should have refer to Esaugetu Emissee logically.

D. in which the sky was the floor, with the power of giving and taking
Incorrect modifier "with the power of giving and taking" fails to modify Esaugetu Emissee

What is the OA? I marked A but want to be sure that this answer is correct! Please help!

B. The present participle modifier having the power... wrongly modifies supreme being rather than Esaugetu Emissee.
C. The present tense has is wrong.... should be simple past had. (The first part of the sentence uses simple past the supreme being was Esaugetu Emissee )
D. The prepositional modifier with the power of giving and taking.. is wrong.
E. The present participle modifier having the power to give and take... wrongly modifies supreme being rather than Esaugetu Emissee.


Option A eliminates the errors above and is the correct option.

pl. explain why the present participle modifier ''having the power..'' modifies the supreme being and not Esaugetu Emissee.

thanks

A present participle modifier may modify the subject of the previous clause or the entire previous clause. Therefore "having the power" may modify either the subject of the previous clause, " the supreme being", or the entire previous clause, but not the object the previous clause, "Esaugetu Emissee".

I got to A in about 40 seconds...

A. in which the sky was the floor, and who had the power to give and to take
in which - correct usage.
and who had - parallel to first "who dwelt" - note that we need past simple, because we have in the underlined portion "supreme being was"
A looks good.

B. where the sky was the floor, having the power to give and to take
it is not clear what the ing modifier tries to modify - moreover, it doesn't make any sense to use the ing modifier, as it has to be associated with the noun & verb of the previous clause.
SB was EE, and the result was the power? nope
SB was EE, by having the power? nope.
B is clearly not good.

C. whose floor was the sky, and who has the power of giving and of taking
as discussed in A, we need past simple verb.

D. in which the sky was the floor, with the power of giving and taking
as it is written now...the floor had the power...

E. whose floor was the sky, having the power to give and take
same mistake as in B.

A is the answer!

Hi experts,

one more question for (D)

I think "with blah.." can validly modify "who", and does not necessarily make an ambiguity according to the context. Consider this:

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.
(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung

The OA is D, and "with arms..." modifies "monkeys", not the closest noun "branches".

So which principle stipulates that "with blah..." must modify the closest noun?
Is there a better way for us to skip this trap? Because the problem about "with modifier" is just so annoying.

Many thanks!

HI experts, could anyone please help me out with how the usage of 'had' is correct in option A.

GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, aragonn, generis

The important thing to remember here is that the had is past tense, and not past perfect (past perfect is had + past participle).

A teacher has the power to set homework. ← This is in the simple present tense (has).
A teacher had the power to set homework. ← This is the same sentence, just in the simple past tense (had).

That's a sharp question you asked!

We should look for the intended meaning always.

OP's question gives information about Esaugetu Emissee.
And we have 2 info about Esaugetu given.
① Esaugetu dwelt in an upper realm.
② Esaugetu had a certain power.

If we describe ① with ②, it will break the intended meaning. There is a reason the sentence was written in parallel structure.

So rather than judging if "with" prepositional phrase modifies which previous nouns, judge the whole sentence from the perspective of intended meaning.


Let's go over the monkey question.

What is the intended meaning?



Who saw the monkeys? The visitors.
Because the visitors have looked up (the canopy), we cannot say "saw" monkeys because the sentence started with present perfect tense.
We need to parallel the structure.

So logically visitors have looked up and have seen monkeys.

We can now eliminate A, B, and C.

Now comes to the crux of your question.

Between D and E,
the difference is
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung

It's not only with/whose that is different!
The verbs are also different between D and E. This is WHY (E) is wrong.
Visitors may have looked up canopy and have seen monkeys, but the monkeys' arms and legs are not have hung!
It should be in past tense, not present perfect tense.

If (E) read like this, then it would have been perfectly fine.
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging ━ CORRECT


So you see, using with or whose does not make much difference in this case either. It's always the intended meaning that differs.

For your reference,
WHOSE is used to describe all kind of nouns - inanimate objects, animals, or people.
WITH is used to describe a characteristic of a previous clause.

So in this case you CANNOT say in this logic: WHOSE describes animals so it's clearer. Nope, that's not the case.

Between D and E we are given the same modifying description about arms and legs. So logically it would be monkeys having arms and legs.

Hope this helps.

A. Correct Answer. ‘Who lived’ and ‘who had power’ are parallel.
B. Eliminate. The participle modifier beginning with ‘having’ modifies the entire preceding clause ‘who lived… floor’. This does not make sense as ‘having the power’ has no bearing on where he lived.
C. Eliminate. ‘who lived’ and ‘who has’ are not parallel. The tenses do not agree.
D. Eliminate. ‘with the power… taking’ modifies the preceding clause. It has no bearing on the action ‘lived’.
E. Eliminate. Same as B. The participle modifier beginning with ‘having’ modifies the entire preceding clause and has no bearing on where he lived.

Hope this helps!

[/quote]The important thing to remember here is that the had is past tense, and not past perfect (past perfect is had + past participle).

A teacher has the power to set homework. ← This is in the simple present tense (has).
A teacher had the power to set homework. ← This is the same sentence, just in the simple past tense (had).[/quote]

This is a great takeaway. I did not know this.

Thanks.

EducationAisle is the first half of all the options correct? In other words do in which, where, and whose correctly modify "realm"

Hi Hoozan, if your question is whether in which and whose can grammatically modify realm, then the answer is yes.

Remember that among relative pronouns, which can modify non-persons, while whose can pretty much modify anything.