By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national

First..... "earned" is definitely a modifier here. The past participle modifier "earned" is not referring to JC, but to "speed records", as you have already recognised. JC was not earned, but the speed records were earned.

Second.... I suppose, e-gmat meant that ".... it is not a verb-ed modifier( of the subject) ", in which case I do not see any contradiction. If the subject of the sentence is the doer of the action, it (verb-ed) can be a modifier, but not of the subject.

(nonetheless the present participle modifier "earning" refers to JC)

Yes, in my view, the use of present participle "earning" is wrong in options B and C because of the reason stated in my previous post. However please note that I mentioned that "a present participle modifier in such cases is used....". What I mean by "in such cases" is "in cases when the present partciple is used to modify a clause".

In addition, a present participle modifier can be used to modify a noun as well, in which case it is used as an adjective. example:
Waking to the buzz of the alarm clock, Freddie cursed the arrival of another Monday.

Responding to a PM......
"Now my question is I used the following rules to identify whether the -ed form is a verb or a verb-ed modifier:
1. The subject should not be the doer of the verb-ed action (I read it from a separate post by e-gmat).

Kindly advise if this rule is the correct one to go by? If not what should I use as a rule to understand if the verb-ed form is a modifier or not."

The rule is correct as long as it is meant that the verb-ed modifier does not refer to the subject. A verb-ed structure can STILL be a modifier if the subject is the doer of the action, but in this case the verb-ed modifier would refer to not the subject, but some other noun in the sentence.

I would say, the folowing method is intuitive for some (for me as well) to identify whether verb-ed construction is a verb or a past participle:

1. Verb-ed structure has only two uses: Verb (simple past), Past participle.
2. FIRST task is to identify the main verb of the sentence. (in general, this is an excellent practice to solve SC questions, not just to identify the verb-ed modifier)
3. If it is not found, then the verb-ed could be the main verb.
4. If it is found, then too the verb-ed could be a second main verb , if it is added with a conjunction "and" / "but".
5. If a main verb is found and the verb-ed construction is NOT added by a conjunction, then it could be a participle.

The above is not as complicated as it may appear - the process is intuitive and naturally occurs while analysing - let us take option E in the question:

What is the main verb? "held"
Can "earned" be a second main verb? No, since there is no conjunction. Thus "earned" is a past participle.

Nonetheless as per the rule above, "earned " would not refer to the subject (JC), but to something else in the sentence (records).

Hi banerjee06, students do find it tricky to distinguish between Simple Past Tense (Verb) and Past Participle (Modifier)

Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses a simple framework to distinguish between Simple Past Tense and Past Participle . If someone is interested, PM me your email-id, I can mail the corresponding section.

very helpful,
thanks sayantan2c,

it will be appreciate if you point out my fault.
1/
IMO, participle V-ING in B and C makes sense, because it states the simultaneous, and V-ing can state this simultaneous actions.

2/
earned in D and E,
I can totally understand earned modifies records,
what confused me is official explanation that earned is preferable,
but, before I read the answers D E, I would consider V-ING preferable,

How to identify which one , V-ING or V-ed, preferable if both works

waiting for your reply

Have a nice day
>_~

Comma + present participle (V-ing) acts as a verb modifier, whereas past participle (V-ed) acts as a noun modifier.

Here a noun modifier is required (referring to "speed records").

[Note: a present participle modifier without a comma may also act as a noun modifier:
I saw a bird flying above the tree: "flying.." refers to noun "bird" - implies that the bird was flying.
I saw a bird, flying above the tree: "flying.. " refers to the verb "saw".. when did I see the bird? - while flying - this sentence implies that I was flying.]

By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national and international speed records, and she earned them at a time when aviation was still so new for many of the planes she flew to be of dangerously experimental design.

A and she earned them at a time when avation was still so new for many of the planes she flew to be - usage of to be is incorrect
B earning them at a time that aviation was still so new for many of the planes she flew were - usage of at a time that is incorrect
C earning these at a time where aviation was still so new that many of the planes she flew were - ‘where’ refers to a place, not ‘time’ ; The use of demonstrative pronoun ‘these’ without a noun following it is incorrect
D earned at a time in which aviation was still so new such that many of the planes she flew were - usage of in which for time is incorrect ; structure ‘so new such that’ is incorrect
E earned at a time when aviation was still so new that many of the planes she flew were - Correct
Answer E

In option A(even in B) , has "for" been used as a conjunction (FANBOYS) or a preposition ?
“aviation was still so new for many of the planes she flew” communicates that aviation was new for the planes!! Logically, it seems we want to use ‘so X that Y” idiom.

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , sayantanc2k, DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , chetan2u , daagh , other experts- please help

Hello Skywalker18,

Thank you for the query.

IMHO, In Choice A, for has been used as a preposition. The structure of this choice makes me say so. Generally, when for is used as a conjunction, it is followed by a clause. But there is no verb for many of the planes.

In Choice B, the structure indicates that for has been used as a conjunction because it is followed by a clause.

But use of for is altogether incorrect in this official sentence because per the context of the sentence, we need the expression so X that Y to express the intended logical meaning.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

I WAS LOOKING FOR THE SUBJECT IN THE UNDERLINED PORTION.
AS IF WHO EARNED THOSE RECORDS.
KINDLY EXPLAIN THIS PART AS IT CREATED A CONFUSION WHEN I ATTEMPTED THIS QUESTION.

The underlined portion does not need a subject. "earned" is not used as a verb here.

"earned at a time ..." is a past participle modifying the noun "records".

To understand the use of participles on GMAT, check out this post:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2014/1 ... -the-gmat/

By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national and international speed records, and she earned them at a time when aviation was still so new for many of the planes she flew to be of dangerously experimental design.


The line "the pilot....records" within the commas can be removed completely and the sentence should still make sense is that not right?
But that doesnt work here, does it?

That's a "tactic", not a rule. In this case, that portion contains one of the two important subject-verb pairs in the sentence.

The pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national and international speed records, and she earned them at a time when aviation was still so new...

Even though I chose the correct answer. I couldn't find a solid reason to eliminate option A and eliminated it since it uses the wrong idiom So X....for... Y instead of So X....that... Y.

AjiteshArun GMATNinja could you please elaborate on why option A is wrong further?

You're on the right track here. The so... for is a good reason not to pick option A. A couple of other points:

1. The and she earned them at a time just adds 3 additional words to the sentence. Earned at a time is enough.

2. When we use for this way (with something like too) we mean that the thing the for introduces is not true. For example:

There were too many confounding factors for the analysis to provide any meaningful information.

This means that the analysis did not actually provide any meaningful information. Similarly, in this question:

... she earned them at a time when aviation was still so new for many of the planes she flew to be of dangerously experimental design.

This means that the planes were not "of dangerously experimental design". That is the exact opposite of the intended meaning.

Hi

Can anybody please explain the absence of past perfect here: By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national and international speed records <...>"

GMATNinja

Thank you guys

Hi jawele, I do think past perfect would also have been a valid (and perhaps better) usage here.

earning these and earning them ie usage of these and them confused me generally as in this example both are used interchangeably in the underlined portion.
is there any rule to differentiate them?