Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 04:45 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 04:45
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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   5   
605-655 Level|   Grammatical/Rhetorical Construction|   Pronouns|                                 
User avatar
Arthurito
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2022
Last visit: 16 Nov 2022
Posts: 41
Own Kudos:
11
Given Kudos: 42
Posts: 41
Kudos: 11
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 15 May 2022, 11:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
One thing about this question


(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

Since THEY is the subject of the second clause, cant we say that it unambiguously refers back to provisions ? so it's not ambiguous ? to me the problem isnt here, but maybe im wrong

what do you think GMATNinja ?
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 16 May 2022, 05:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Arthurito
One thing about this question


(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

Since THEY is the subject of the second clause, cant we say that it unambiguously refers back to provisions ? so it's not ambiguous ? to me the problem isnt here, but maybe im wrong

what do you think GMATNinja ?
Show more

Hello Arthurito,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, it is not necessary that two linked clauses share a subject; so, if the subject of one clause is a pronoun, that pronoun need not refer to the subject of the other clause.

For example, "Mary's husband is a doctor, so she is very health conscious."

Here, the subject of the first clause is "Mary's husband", and the subject of the second clause is "she", which refers to "Mary".

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,783
 [2]
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 19 May 2022, 09:51
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Arthurito
One thing about this question


(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

Since THEY is the subject of the second clause, cant we say that it unambiguously refers back to provisions ? so it's not ambiguous ? to me the problem isnt here, but maybe im wrong

what do you think GMATNinja ?
Show more
I'm with you here: the "they" isn't the problem with (A). (And pronoun ambiguity isn't a concrete error, so it should be way way down on your list of priorities, as discussed in this video.)

The bigger problem is the logic of the construction. "Because" suggests a causal relationship between the clauses. But the stripped-down clauses here are:

  • "Because there are provisions..."
  • "they have already stimulated international disputes..."

But that's not quite right. The provisions caused international disputes... because "there are provisions?" Nah. It makes way more sense to write that the maritime code stimulated disputes because of what the provisions in the code do.

Contrast the above meaning with the two clauses we get in (B):

  • "Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims..."
  • "it has already stimulated international disputes."

This time, the causal relationship is clear. Why is the code causing disputes? Because the provisions in the code say that any tiny islet can be the basis of a claim. This is clear and logical, and better than (A).

The takeaway: you're right! The pronoun ambiguity is not the main problem with (A).

I hope that helps!
avatar
Anhezjel
avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2016
Last visit: 15 Jun 2022
Posts: 9
Own Kudos:
1
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 9
Kudos: 1
 [1]
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 20 May 2022, 06:18
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated
-provisions provide? Sounds great ;)
-"they have already stimulated" - not clear what "they" refers to. Islets? Provisions?

(B) Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated
- Hmm... Cant't find anything wrong. Let's keep it. I look more cautiously at "it" in "it has already stimulated", but it seems that it can refer only to "maritime code", so everything is clear.

(C) Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating
- Not sure what can be "already stimulating". The code is already stimulating? Claims?

(D) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, this has already stimulated
-What does "this" refer to? It also sounds weird overall "Because X, this has already stimulated Y". I would say "Because I don't like yellow, I painted my house white" rather than "Because I don't like yellow, this has made me paint my house white".

(E) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating
- The overall sound of the sentence seems to be missing something. What happens "because even tiny islets..."?

The most difficult choice was at the end of the day between B and D.
User avatar
sirglane
User avatar
Joined: 29 May 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2022
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 23 May 2022, 13:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I understand why all the other answer choices are wrong but in choice B, can't "it" refer to the noun "the basis" as well as "the new maritime code"?

Please help!
GMATNinja
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 24 May 2022, 05:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sirglane
I understand why all the other answer choices are wrong but in choice B, can't "it" refer to the noun "the basis" as well as "the new maritime code"?

Please help!
GMATNinja
Show more

Hello sirglane,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, there is no pronoun ambiguity in Option B because it makes little to no logical sense to say that the conceptual basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas has stimulated dispute; remember, pronoun ambiguity does not apply if there is only one noun that a pronoun can logically refer to.

To understand the concept of "Exceptions to Pronoun Ambiguity" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,783
 [1]
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 28 May 2022, 03:56
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sirglane
I understand why all the other answer choices are wrong but in choice B, can't "it" refer to the noun "the basis" as well as "the new maritime code"?

Please help!
GMATNinja
Show more
Two things to keep in mind:

    1) Pronoun ambiguity isn't a concrete error. If the pronoun in question could logically refer to some noun in the sentence, it's okay.
    2) When a pronoun is the subject of a clause, the most logical place to look for the referent is the subject of the previous clause.

Here, the subject of the first clause is "the new maritime code," and the subject of the second is "it." According to this construction, the new maritime code has stimulated disputes. That makes sense, so the pronoun isn't a problem.

I hope that clears things up!
avatar
aumd568
avatar
Joined: 20 Nov 2021
Last visit: 07 Nov 2022
Posts: 20
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Schools: Booth '24 Columbia CBS '24 Fuqua '24 Haas '24 Harvard '24 Johnson '24 Kellogg '24 Sloan '24 Stanford '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
Schools: Booth '24 Columbia CBS '24 Fuqua '24 Haas '24 Harvard '24 Johnson '24 Kellogg '24 Sloan '24 Stanford '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
Posts: 20
Kudos: 5
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 26 Jul 2022, 08:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
Arthurito
One thing about this question


(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

Since THEY is the subject of the second clause, cant we say that it unambiguously refers back to provisions ? so it's not ambiguous ? to me the problem isnt here, but maybe im wrong

what do you think GMATNinja ?
I'm with you here: the "they" isn't the problem with (A). (And pronoun ambiguity isn't a concrete error, so it should be way way down on your list of priorities, as discussed in this video.)

The bigger problem is the logic of the construction. "Because" suggests a causal relationship between the clauses. But the stripped-down clauses here are:

  • "Because there are provisions..."
  • "they have already stimulated international disputes..."

But that's not quite right. The provisions caused international disputes... because "there are provisions?" Nah. It makes way more sense to write that the maritime code stimulated disputes because of what the provisions in the code do.

Contrast the above meaning with the two clauses we get in (B):

  • "Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims..."
  • "it has already stimulated international disputes."

This time, the causal relationship is clear. Why is the code causing disputes? Because the provisions in the code say that any tiny islet can be the basis of a claim. This is clear and logical, and better than (A).

The takeaway: you're right! The pronoun ambiguity is not the main problem with (A).

I hope that helps!
Show more

Hi GMATNinja,

If Option (B) did not exist, would you still say Option (A) was definitely incorrect?

I got down to Option (A) and (B) and just picked (B) over (A) for the following reasons -

i) Did not like "that provide that" structure
ii) The sentence might seems better with "maritime code" as the subject

Is there anything else particularly that you would call a "definite elimination" in Option (A)?

Thanks.

-Aum
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,783
 [2]
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 26 Jul 2022, 14:20
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
aumd568
GMATNinja
Arthurito
One thing about this question


(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

Since THEY is the subject of the second clause, cant we say that it unambiguously refers back to provisions ? so it's not ambiguous ? to me the problem isnt here, but maybe im wrong

what do you think GMATNinja ?
I'm with you here: the "they" isn't the problem with (A). (And pronoun ambiguity isn't a concrete error, so it should be way way down on your list of priorities, as discussed in this video.)

The bigger problem is the logic of the construction. "Because" suggests a causal relationship between the clauses. But the stripped-down clauses here are:

  • "Because there are provisions..."
  • "they have already stimulated international disputes..."

But that's not quite right. The provisions caused international disputes... because "there are provisions?" Nah. It makes way more sense to write that the maritime code stimulated disputes because of what the provisions in the code do.

Contrast the above meaning with the two clauses we get in (B):

  • "Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims..."
  • "it has already stimulated international disputes."

This time, the causal relationship is clear. Why is the code causing disputes? Because the provisions in the code say that any tiny islet can be the basis of a claim. This is clear and logical, and better than (A).

The takeaway: you're right! The pronoun ambiguity is not the main problem with (A).

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja,

If Option (B) did not exist, would you still say Option (A) was definitely incorrect?

I got down to Option (A) and (B) and just picked (B) over (A) for the following reasons -

i) Did not like "that provide that" structure
ii) The sentence might seems better with "maritime code" as the subject

Is there anything else particularly that you would call a "definite elimination" in Option (A)?

Thanks.

-Aum
Show more
There's no reason to worry about this scenario. We have a better option than (A), so there's no reason to pick (A)!

To be clear, there's no concrete grammar error in (A). So is there a world in which (B) didn't exist and so (A) could have been the right answer?

I highly doubt it, because (A) is illogical for the reason we outlined in the previous post. I suppose you could make an argument that it's the least terrible of the remaining options, but again, there's no reason to do this exercise. The test might give us a correct answer that sounds goofy. But the correct answer has to make sense logically. Period. And (A) doesn't make a ton of sense.

I hope that clears things up!
User avatar
CYp113
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 19 Nov 2021
Last visit: 10 Jun 2023
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 137
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Carroll (A$) Katz (A) Simon '25 (A) Northeastern (II)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V39
GMAT 2: 570 Q39 V28
GMAT 3: 650 Q46 V34
GPA: 3.82
Schools: Carroll (A$) Katz (A) Simon '25 (A) Northeastern (II)
GMAT 3: 650 Q46 V34
Posts: 15
Kudos: 9
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 09 Aug 2022, 13:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
For anyone who is confused by choice C):
According to the great Ron Purewal:
two problems with that choice:

1) when you use a COMMA -ING modifier after a clause**, you should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
-- the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause, as you have stated;
AND
-- the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.
User avatar
woohoo921
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Last visit: 17 Mar 2023
Posts: 516
Own Kudos:
142
Given Kudos: 623
Posts: 516
Kudos: 142
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 02 Oct 2022, 11:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Question 1:
I have a question on empowergmatverbal's explanation as to why Choice A is incorrect.

"We need to rule this out as INCORRECT because the pronoun "they" is vague! There are several plural nouns that we could pair this up with: provisions, islets, fisheries, and oil fields. Any time you have a pronoun that could apply to several nouns, get rid of it."

How do we know whether the author intended for the subject to be the "provisions of the code" or "the new maritime code"? Is A incorrect just because it is more wordy? (e.g., "that provide that" and the sentence is in past tense e.g., "have already" when present tense is preferred on the GMAT)


Question 2:
For answer Choice C, Empowergmatverbal's explanation says that the reader might think that "already simulating" modifies the "even tiny islets", but because it is a comma -ing modifier, everything is modified before it and not just the "even tiny islets". It also seems clear to me what causes the disputes based on GMATNinja's explanation. Unfortunately, I am still confused. Any further explanations on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your help.
User avatar
RonTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 19 Jul 2022
Last visit: 07 Nov 2022
Posts: 430
Own Kudos:
537
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 430
Kudos: 537
 [2]
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 02 Oct 2022, 14:37
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
woohoo921
why Choice A is incorrect
Show more

Well, the most straightforward way to eliminate choice A is to notice that it contains both provisions and provide, which together are redundant (...a redundancy that ought to be less challenging to find than most others, because we have two forms of the same word!)



Also, choice A is wrong because it says something that doesn't make literal sense.

If "Because X, Y" (or, equivalently, "Y because X") is a workable sentence, then, if "Why Y?" is posed as a question, "[Because] X" needs to make perfectly literal sense as an answer.

This formulation DOES make literal sense:
"Why has the code stimulated disputes? [Because] it provides that tiny little islands can be the basis of huge claims."
—> Because the new code provides that tiny islands can be the basis for huge claims, it has stimulated disputes.

This formulation does NOT make literal sense:
"Why have some provisions of the new code stimulated disputes? [Because] there are some provisions that provide/state that tiny little islands can be the basis of huge claims."
—> (this is choice A)
Huh? Provisions of the new code have stimulated disputes because there are some provisions? That doesn't work. (The actual reason needs to be the main clause of the sentence following "because". This isn't something you should memorize; it's just another instance of "The sentence should say what it means and mean what it says.")
User avatar
RonTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 19 Jul 2022
Last visit: 07 Nov 2022
Posts: 430
Own Kudos:
537
 [3]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 430
Kudos: 537
 [3]
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 02 Oct 2022, 14:51
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
woohoo921
For answer Choice C
Show more

A comma + _ING modifier actually has to modify the action of the preceding clause—which means that the "_ING" MUST happen IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME AS the action of the main clause. (You may want to memorize this, but it should be clear enough if you just think carefully and literally about exactly what it means to describe an action: The description can't possibly fall into any timeframe other than that of the action itself!)

Causal relationships, therefore, can only be described with comma+_ING modifiers if the causation is IMMEDIATE, without even the slightest delay.

E.g..,
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying instantly from the impact.
—> This sentence WORKS, because the causation is "instant"—meaning that both parts of the sentence are telling you about exactly the same event that happened at exactly the same time.

vs.
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying in the hospital an hour later.
—> This sentence DOES NOT WORK. The comma+_ING part describes something that didn't happen until an hour after the action of the main clause, so it doesn't actually describe/modify the action of the main clause.


The comma+_ING modifier in choice C doesn't work because it's like the second of these examples. The main clause is about the content of the law itself; that statement is true starting from the very moment the law was written. The _ING modifier, on the other hand, is something that may have happened soon afterwards—but "soon afterwards" is still "afterwards".
User avatar
woohoo921
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Last visit: 17 Mar 2023
Posts: 516
Own Kudos:
142
Given Kudos: 623
Posts: 516
Kudos: 142
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 03 Oct 2022, 17:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RonTargetTestPrep
woohoo921
For answer Choice C

A comma + _ING modifier actually has to modify the action of the preceding clause—which means that the "_ING" MUST happen IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME AS the action of the main clause. (You may want to memorize this, but it should be clear enough if you just think carefully and literally about exactly what it means to describe an action: The description can't possibly fall into any timeframe other than that of the action itself!)

Causal relationships, therefore, can only be described with comma+_ING modifiers if the causation is IMMEDIATE, without even the slightest delay.

E.g..,
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying instantly from the impact.
—> This sentence WORKS, because the causation is "instant"—meaning that both parts of the sentence are telling you about exactly the same event that happened at exactly the same time.

vs.
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying in the hospital an hour later.
—> This sentence DOES NOT WORK. The comma+_ING part describes something that didn't happen until an hour after the action of the main clause, so it doesn't actually describe/modify the action of the main clause.


The comma+_ING modifier in choice C doesn't work because it's like the second of these examples. The main clause is about the content of the law itself; that statement is true starting from the very moment the law was written. The _ING modifier, on the other hand, is something that may have happened soon afterwards—but "soon afterwards" is still "afterwards".
Show more

Thank you for your response. The link between the action of the preceding clause and the comma ing modifier being immediate is new concept to me. I think of this question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/between-14-0 ... 42405.html in which the comma ing modifier does not seem to be immediate?

I also think of this example from MP in the All the Verbal Book: “Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.” There is no time marker as to when the property values increased.
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 04 Dec 2022, 14:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.


(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

(B) Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated

(C) Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating

(D) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, this has already stimulated

(E) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating
Show more
Request Expert Reply:
Hi experts,
I've a quick question for choice A. I saw most of the official questions where THAT verb THAT is wrong. So, can I just cross out any choice that holds THAT verb THAT structure like choice A?
User avatar
woohoo921
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Last visit: 17 Mar 2023
Posts: 516
Own Kudos:
142
Given Kudos: 623
Posts: 516
Kudos: 142
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 04 Dec 2022, 14:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
woohoo921
RonTargetTestPrep
woohoo921
For answer Choice C

A comma + _ING modifier actually has to modify the action of the preceding clause—which means that the "_ING" MUST happen IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME AS the action of the main clause. (You may want to memorize this, but it should be clear enough if you just think carefully and literally about exactly what it means to describe an action: The description can't possibly fall into any timeframe other than that of the action itself!)

Causal relationships, therefore, can only be described with comma+_ING modifiers if the causation is IMMEDIATE, without even the slightest delay.

E.g..,
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying instantly from the impact.
—> This sentence WORKS, because the causation is "instant"—meaning that both parts of the sentence are telling you about exactly the same event that happened at exactly the same time.

vs.
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying in the hospital an hour later.
—> This sentence DOES NOT WORK. The comma+_ING part describes something that didn't happen until an hour after the action of the main clause, so it doesn't actually describe/modify the action of the main clause.


The comma+_ING modifier in choice C doesn't work because it's like the second of these examples. The main clause is about the content of the law itself; that statement is true starting from the very moment the law was written. The _ING modifier, on the other hand, is something that may have happened soon afterwards—but "soon afterwards" is still "afterwards".

Thank you for your response. The link between the action of the preceding clause and the comma ing modifier being immediate is new concept to me. I think of this question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/between-14-0 ... 42405.html in which the comma ing modifier does not seem to be immediate?

I also think of this example from MP in the All the Verbal Book: “Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.” There is no time marker as to when the property values increased.
Show more

MartyTargetTestPrep

Gently following up to see if you have any thoughts on this. Thank you again.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
 [2]
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 04 Dec 2022, 15:08
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
woohoo921
Thank you for your response. The link between the action of the preceding clause and the comma ing modifier being immediate is new concept to me. I think of this question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/between-14-0 ... 42405.html in which the comma ing modifier does not seem to be immediate?
Show more
The two events mentioned in that sentence could have occurred at the same time.

Quote:
I also think of this example from MP in the All the Verbal Book: “Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.” There is no time marker as to when the property values increased.
Show more
That is not a great sentence. It conveys that, by decreasing, crime has lead to a rise in property values. That meaning doesn't make sense.
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 04 Dec 2022, 15:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RonTargetTestPrep
woohoo921
For answer Choice C

A comma + _ING modifier actually has to modify the action of the preceding clause—which means that the "_ING" MUST happen IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME AS the action of the main clause. (You may want to memorize this, but it should be clear enough if you just think carefully and literally about exactly what it means to describe an action: The description can't possibly fall into any timeframe other than that of the action itself!)

Causal relationships, therefore, can only be described with comma+_ING modifiers if the causation is IMMEDIATE, without even the slightest delay.

E.g..,
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying instantly from the impact.
—> This sentence WORKS, because the causation is "instant"—meaning that both parts of the sentence are telling you about exactly the same event that happened at exactly the same time.

vs.
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying in the hospital an hour later.
—> This sentence DOES NOT WORK. The comma+_ING part describes something that didn't happen until an hour after the action of the main clause, so it doesn't actually describe/modify the action of the main clause.


The comma+_ING modifier in choice C doesn't work because it's like the second of these examples. The main clause is about the content of the law itself; that statement is true starting from the very moment the law was written. The _ING modifier, on the other hand, is something that may have happened soon afterwards—but "soon afterwards" is still "afterwards".
Show more
RonTargetTestPrep RonPurewal
Thanks for the superb explanation.
So how do we take it as ''afterwards''? is it because of the word 'already' that indicates the 'different timeframe'?
User avatar
woohoo921
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Last visit: 17 Mar 2023
Posts: 516
Own Kudos:
142
Given Kudos: 623
Posts: 516
Kudos: 142
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 04 Dec 2022, 15:20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MartyTargetTestPrep
woohoo921
Thank you for your response. The link between the action of the preceding clause and the comma ing modifier being immediate is new concept to me. I think of this question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/between-14-0 ... 42405.html in which the comma ing modifier does not seem to be immediate?
The two events mentioned in that sentence could have occurred at the same time.

Quote:
I also think of this example from MP in the All the Verbal Book: “Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.” There is no time marker as to when the property values increased.
That is not a great sentence. It conveys that, by decreasing, crime has lead to a rise in property values. That meaning doesn't make sense.
Show more

MartyTargetTestPrep

There seems to be some ambiguity in deciding whether the modifier could be in the same time or not for that Official Question I linked (https://gmatclub.com/forum/between-14-0 ... 42405.html). Was this just a case in which the -ing modifier was simply the best answer among the options, so by default... it must have been around the same time?

This issue seems to be similar to pronoun ambiguity on the GMAT --> thinking of my favorite pine tree question (https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-some-type ... 20379.html) in that by default, it must be correct based on other concrete issues in the other wrong answers. Thanks again, Marty THE man!
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th 04 Dec 2022, 15:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RonTargetTestPrep
woohoo921
For answer Choice C

A comma + _ING modifier actually has to modify the action of the preceding clause—which means that the "_ING" MUST happen IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME AS the action of the main clause. (You may want to memorize this, but it should be clear enough if you just think carefully and literally about exactly what it means to describe an action: The description can't possibly fall into any timeframe other than that of the action itself!)

Causal relationships, therefore, can only be described with comma+_ING modifiers if the causation is IMMEDIATE, without even the slightest delay.

E.g..,
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying instantly from the impact.
—> This sentence WORKS, because the causation is "instant"—meaning that both parts of the sentence are telling you about exactly the same event that happened at exactly the same time.

vs.
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying in the hospital an hour later.
—> This sentence DOES NOT WORK. The comma+_ING part describes something that didn't happen until an hour after the action of the main clause, so it doesn't actually describe/modify the action of the main clause.


The comma+_ING modifier in choice C doesn't work because it's like the second of these examples. The main clause is about the content of the law itself; that statement is true starting from the very moment the law was written. The _ING modifier, on the other hand, is something that may have happened soon afterwards—but "soon afterwards" is still "afterwards".
Show more

Hi RonPurewal
Here is the another official example-->

Quote:
As an actress and, more importantly, as a teacher of acting, Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.

(A) Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including
(B) Stella Adler, one of the most influential artists in the American theater, trained several generations of actors who include
(C) Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, training several generations of actors whose ranks included
(D) one of the most influential artists in the American theater was Stella Adler, who trained several generations of actors including
(E) one of the most influential artists in the American theater, Stella Adler, trained several generations of actors whose ranks included
Show more
We know that Stella Adler died in 1992. So if the included actor's birth is after 1992 then the use of COMMA+_ING (adverbial modifier) in choice C will be wrong, right? As Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro born in between 1901-1992 (Stella Adler's duration), the choice C makes sense! Is it?
   1   2   3   4   5   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts