Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 14:08 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 14:08

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Difficulty: 505-555 Levelx   Verb Tense/Formx                  
Show Tags
Hide Tags
CEO
CEO
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 3675
Own Kudos [?]: 3528 [2]
Given Kudos: 149
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Aug 2020
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 270
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 03 Jun 2022
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 151
Send PM
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14823
Own Kudos [?]: 64922 [0]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national [#permalink]
Expert Reply
KesRay wrote:
is this an independent sentence 'By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national and international speed records' ?


Yes, it is an independent clause which could function as a sentence without the verb-ed modifier at the end.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2020
Posts: 99
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 1614
Send PM
By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national [#permalink]
GMATNinja wrote:
Foi2Evei2 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja egmat

This question is breaking my understanding. :cry:

At first, I understand that

S+V, participle has the rule that;
1. modify preceding clause
2. the doer of participle is the subject of the preceding clause

Meaning that, from the rule, we can use some step to eliminate the choice

From 1, we can check that the participle makes sense to modify the preceding clause or not AND check the v.ing/v.ed form.
In this case;
1. JC held records, earning them at a time... -> make sense because 'earning them at a time...' is try to let us know that [i]how did JC hold these records[/i]
2. JC held records, earned at a time... -> not make sense because JC cannot be earned. it should be 'Records were held by JC, earned at a time...' because 'Records' can be earned.

There's a slight difference between present participles (ending in -ing) and past participles (usually ending in -ed).

When an "-ing" modifier is placed after the thing that it's modifying with a comma in between, then it modifies the entire preceding clause. This is in line with your understanding.

On the other hand, "-ed" modifiers usually only modify a single noun on the GMAT. If the -ed modifier comes before the thing it's modifying, then it modifies the subject. If the "-ed" modifier comes after the thing that it modifies, it usually modifies the closest noun.

So, is it a hard-and-fast rule that "-ed" can never modify an entire clause? Well, I can't think of an OA that uses an "-ed" modifier to modify an entire clause (if anyone can think of one, let us know!). Does that mean that using an "-ed" modifier to modify a clause (i.e. "Tim paces back and forth, worried that he'll be blamed for his toddler's face tattoos.") is inherently wrong? I don't think so. That example with the face tattoos seems fine to me.

Overall, it's best not to stress over a "rule" that the GMAT may or may not violate at some point. Instead, ask yourself, "What does the "-ed" modifier seem to modify here? Does that make sense?" If so, leave it in the running and look for other decision points.

I hope that helps a bit!



Hi, just a quick question- Is there a comma before earned in the correct choice? If yes, can a verb-ed modifier go over and modify a noun? [quote="GMATNinja"]
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14823
Own Kudos [?]: 64922 [1]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
ankitapugalia wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
Foi2Evei2 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja egmat

This question is breaking my understanding. :cry:

At first, I understand that

S+V, participle has the rule that;
1. modify preceding clause
2. the doer of participle is the subject of the preceding clause

Meaning that, from the rule, we can use some step to eliminate the choice

From 1, we can check that the participle makes sense to modify the preceding clause or not AND check the v.ing/v.ed form.
In this case;
1. JC held records, earning them at a time... -> make sense because 'earning them at a time...' is try to let us know that [i]how did JC hold these records[/i]
2. JC held records, earned at a time... -> not make sense because JC cannot be earned. it should be 'Records were held by JC, earned at a time...' because 'Records' can be earned.

There's a slight difference between present participles (ending in -ing) and past participles (usually ending in -ed).

When an "-ing" modifier is placed after the thing that it's modifying with a comma in between, then it modifies the entire preceding clause. This is in line with your understanding.

On the other hand, "-ed" modifiers usually only modify a single noun on the GMAT. If the -ed modifier comes before the thing it's modifying, then it modifies the subject. If the "-ed" modifier comes after the thing that it modifies, it usually modifies the closest noun.

So, is it a hard-and-fast rule that "-ed" can never modify an entire clause? Well, I can't think of an OA that uses an "-ed" modifier to modify an entire clause (if anyone can think of one, let us know!). Does that mean that using an "-ed" modifier to modify a clause (i.e. "Tim paces back and forth, worried that he'll be blamed for his toddler's face tattoos.") is inherently wrong? I don't think so. That example with the face tattoos seems fine to me.

Overall, it's best not to stress over a "rule" that the GMAT may or may not violate at some point. Instead, ask yourself, "What does the "-ed" modifier seem to modify here? Does that make sense?" If so, leave it in the running and look for other decision points.

I hope that helps a bit!



Hi, just a quick question- Is there a comma before earned in the correct choice? If yes, can a verb-ed modifier go over and modify a noun?
GMATNinja wrote:



Verb-ed modifiers after a noun and comma usually modify the noun. So 'earned' modifies 'records.'

Another example:
The most important crop of this region is maize, sown in the month of Oct and harvested in Dec.
'sown' and 'harvested' are past participle modifiers modifying 'maize.'

In regular English grammar, a past participle phrase following a clause and separated by a comma (clause + comma + past participle phrase) could modify the entire preceding clause. But standardised tests are often not very keen on this usage; so we will avoid it. That said, remember that studying grammar rules in isolation is worthless. If the sentence demands such a construction, then it is correct to use it.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2023
Posts: 92
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 283
Location: India
Send PM
Re: By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national [#permalink]
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 aviation was still so new for many of the planes she flew to be

(B) earning them at a time that aviation was still so new for many of the planes she flew were

(C) earning these at a time where aviation was still so new that many of the planes she flew were

(D) earned at a time in which aviation was still so new such that many of the planes she flew were

(E) earned at a time when aviation was still so new that many of the planes she flew were


Just like a location is followed by where, similarly, time is followed by 'at', when etc. Hence E is correct.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national [#permalink]
   1   2   3   4 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne