Doubt on verb-ing modifiers

Question

Can I have a series of verb-ing modifiers modifying the preceding indepedent clause?

For example:

My cousin took extra class in every semester in the college, graduating in three years, ranking first in all subjects, and being the youngest to graduate.

gmatter0913 · Answer

Can someone help me on this, please?

gmatter0913 · Answer

Request to please clarify the above

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear gmatter0913 , I'm happy to respond to your p.m. :-)

First of all, terminology. What you are calling " verb-ing modifiers " are know as participles , which begin participial phrases . Here's a blog that discusses these: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/participle ... -the-gmat/ The answer to your question is "yes" --- we can have a series in a sentence, each of which modifies the independent clause. The GMAT would tend not to use a participial phrase beginning with the word " being ", but otherwise, your sentence is correct. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Mike :-)

gmatter0913 · Answer

Mike, Thank you so much for your reply. I love your answers. :-D

As I got the confirmation from you that this sentence is correct, I have a few afterthoughts or doubts on participles. I have a tendency to ignore the non-essential modifier and read the sentence to check for grammar and meaning. For the above sentence mentioned, I would've read it as follows: (reading only the text in blue ) My cousin took extra class in every semester in the college , graduating in three years, ranking first in all subjects , and being the youngest to graduate. I would've thought that 'ranking' is modifying 'college' and hence the sentence is incorrect. As this approach of blinding the non-essential modifier might lead us into trouble, do you even advice to use this approach? Or probably we should always check if -ing modifier has a sequence? Also, it would be great if you can help me on a few modifications mentioned below. Can you confirm if the below sentences are correct? 1. Can we have something like -

, verb-ed modifier, verb-ing modifier? Will the verb-ing modifier modify the main clause in such a case? " My cousin took extra class in every semester in the college and graduated in three years, the quickest in the history of the college, ranking first in all subjects ." 2. Introducing a verb-ed modifier ( quickest modifying three years ). " My cousin took extra class in every semester in the college, graduating in three years, the quickest in the history of the college, and ranking first in all subjects ." 3. " My cousin took extra class in every semester in the college, graduating in three years, ranking first in all subjects ." I guess this sentence will be incorrect, as we will not consider 'ranking' as a verb-ing modifier. Instead, 'ranking' is directly modifying 'college' and hence it is not correct. Am I right? So, the correct sentence will be: (use a conjunction) " My cousin took extra class in every semester in the college, graduating in three years and ranking first in all subjects ."

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear gmatter0913 , First of all, a stylistic thing --- DO NOT use the "quote" box when you are simply listing example sentences. The quote box is used to set off the words of other users from your own. Simply use another color, or something such as that, to indicate example sentences. The quote boxes make your post too bulky. Important distinction ---- participles can be either noun-modifier or verb-modifiers; they are very flexible. As verb modifiers, they are 100% not subject to the Touch Rule, so they can come at the end of the main clause. In #1, you have a modifier, " the quickest in the history of the college ", that's very tricky. In a way, this is a verb modifiers, with the word " being " implied, but the GMAT would NEVER do this sort of thing. As a general rule, the "ing" participle is the present participle, which is active. The "ed" participle is the past participle, which is passive. It's hard to mix active and passive elements in a way that is sensible and logically coherent. Furthermore, the present participle can be used to modify a verb or entire clause, but I believe past participles are almost always simply noun modifiers, which would be subject to the Touch Rule. Sentence #2 also has this strange modifier, in parallel with present participles. The GMAT would not like this at all. You don't use a past participle at all. Sentence #3 makes the mistake of putting two items in parallel and not joining them with a conjunction. That's always incorrect. If we are listing two items, we absolutely need a conjunction. That's precisely why #3 is wrong and the last is correct. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

gmatter0913 · Answer

Mike, Thank you so much for your reply and for your tip on quote boxes; I'll use them correctly from now on. Yeah, it makes a lot of sense to me. But, I think I didn't ask my doubt very clearly in the previous post, so could you please help me on the below? My doubt is only regarding non-essential modifiers (past and present participial phrases preceded by a comma). Let us first look at the past participial modifier. Typically, the sentence looks as below:

, . The verb-ed modifier modifies the closest noun preceding the comma and belonging to the main clause. Ex: Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of the death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer. (The past participial phrase is modifying the noun 'third leading cause'.) Now, my doubt is whether the below is also correct on the GMAT.

,non-essential modifier ending with some noun, verb-ed modifier modifying the noun in the preceding modifier. Ex: Diabetes, the nation's third leading cause of death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer, is a deadly disease. Now, let us look at the present participle (verb-ing) Typically the sentence looks like the below:

,. Ex: Sam is the third fastest runner in school, running at 10 miles per hour. I want to know if the below is also correct on the GMAT.

,non-essential modifier,. Ex: Sam is the third fastest runner in school, surpassed only by John and Ronnie, running at 10 miles per hour. (If it is wrong, then is it wrong because of the missing conjunction?) Ex: Sam is the third fastest runner in school, surpassed only by John and Ronnie and running at 10 miles per hour. (Is this a correct sentence on the GMAT?) If so, can we say that the verb-ing modifier or present participle modifying a verb or clause should only be preceded by a clause that it intends to modify?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear gmatter0913 , So, let's look at these sentences. Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of the death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer . This sentence, which is suspiciously similar to OG13 SC #6, is perfectly correct. It's debatable whether the participle " surpassed " is a noun modifier, modifying " third leading cause of the death ", or a verb modifier, modifying " ranks ," or something that modifies the entire clause. One could make any of those cases. Diabetes, the nation's third leading cause of death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer, is a deadly disease . This is awkward. I don't think there's something definitively wrong with it, but it sounds funny. The reason it's not entirely wrong is that the first modifier is an appositive phrase . See: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... e-phrases/ Appositives are very different from other non-essential modifiers, because they are restatements of the noun. What's between the commas is another way of stating the subject, so a modifier that modifies it is modifying the subject. If you wanted to demonstrate the effect of an intervening non-essential modifier, unfortunately you chose the worst possible example in choosing an appositive phrase. Here's what I think you were trying to demonstrate, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which killed Lou Gehrig, associated with loss of motor control, has no cure . That sentence is a total trainwreck. The participle " associated " is a noun-modifier that should touch the noun it modifiers, but instead of touching ALS, it incorrect touches Gehrig. That involved the past participle as a noun-modifier. Here's another: California was admitted to the US in 1850, nine years before Oregon's admission, propelled to importance by the discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill . Hmmm. Questionable. It's hard to imagine this as a correct answer on the GMAT SC. Participle modifiers are flexible, but this is a bit over the top. The funny thing is --- it sounds OK. It's very colloquial. Nevertheless, I suppose we would have to call this a misplaced modifier, and hence wrong. Do these two examples answer your question? Sam is the third fastest runner in school, running at 10 miles per hour . Correct. Sam is the third fastest runner in school, surpassed only by John and Ronnie, running at 10 miles per hour . Wrong, because the absence of the conjunction creates ambiguity about the target noun of the second participle. Sam is the third fastest runner in school, surpassed only by John and Ronnie and running at 10 miles per hour . This is 100% grammatically correct, but I'm not completely sure that such an unconventional structure would be tested on the GMAT. Notice that a present participle modifying a verb or clause can come before the clause or after the clause: Running at 10 miles per hour, Sam is the third fastest runner in school . I'm not sure whether all this answers your questions. Mike

gmatter0913 · Answer

Thank you so much Mike and my apologies for bothering you a lot. I really appreciate your support.

Yes, I agree with your comments.

What I was trying to demonstrate is :

Assume the past-participial phrase ' associated with loss of motor control ' is supposed to modify the noun ' Lou Gehrig ', then will the sentence be correct? (I know it doesn't make any meaningful sense, but I want to know if it is grammatically correct.)

I am looking to construct a sentence with the following structure and I want to know if it is valid?

<main clause> , non-essential modifier ending with some   noun/noun phrase   , verb-ed modifier modifying the    noun    in the preceding modifier, rest of the main clause.

Ex:   Joe is extremely fond of baseball  ,  always making an updated     list     of the greatest base ball players ,  led by Lou Gehrig ,   and is a die-hard fan of Yankees.

Is the above sentence correct on the GMAT?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear gmatter0913 , My friend, part of the problem is you are trying to be very formulaic in your understanding of grammar, and at a certain point, this approach involves missing the forest for the trees. You cannot get to a pure and perfect understanding of GMAT Sentence Correction purely through formulaic patterns. Language is living, and it has a feel to it. You get to know this feel by developing the habit of doing sophisticated reading every day. You wrote: Assume the past-participial phrase ' associated with loss of motor control ' is supposed to modify the noun ' Lou Gehrig ', then will the sentence be correct? (I know it doesn't make any meaningful sense, but I want to know if it is grammatically correct.) I would say that a deep flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that grammar and meaning are separable, that somehow grammar can be mathematically isolated in the absence of meaning. That is pure nonsense. Meaning trumps grammar. Meaning is always more important than grammar. Folks naively believe that the GMAT SC is primarily a test of grammar, but it's not! First and foremost, GMAT SC is a test of meaning. You see, the grammar rules are not like mathematics --- in mathematics, we simply can plug any number we like into a valid equation, and the equation holds the same regardless of the choice of numbers. You are assuming that you can plug in grammatical units, irrespective of meaning, and the same overall grammatical structure will have the same validity. It simply doesn't work that way. Language is living, and if the sentence doesn't meaningfully say anything, it's not really language anymore. That's precisely the problem with the sentence: Joe is extremely fond of baseball , always making an updated list of the greatest base ball players , led by Lou Gehrig , and is a die-hard fan of Yankees. Is it grammatically correct? Maybe: it's hard to say. The problem is that it's an extremely poorly written sentence, that does an abysmal job of communicating the information it is trying to communicate. This sentence would never in a 100 years be correct on the GMAT SC, simply on rhetorical grounds. Here's what I'll say. STOP making up example sentences. STOP. Language that isn't really intended to communicate is not really language, and jumping through arbitrary grammatical hoops is not the same as communicating. Start reading . Read high level sophisticated material in English. Here are some recommendations about what to read: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-reading-list/ In that sophisticated, high level reading, keep your eyes open for structures involving participial modifiers. My suspicion is that, in any well-written sentence, you will not find any ambiguity at all --- everything about the way the participial phrase was used will be perfectly clear. If you find a sentence in some sophisticated material and you genuinely don't understand why it's correct or whether it would be correct on the GMAT, that's an excellent sentence to post. Post sentences such as that, not your own. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

gmatter0913 · Answer

Thanks a lot Mike.

I understand what you're saying. Right meaning can only be conveyed by right grammar.

Actually, I wanted to know if the sentence was grammatically incorrect.

Thank you so much for your responses, and I really appreciate your support on this forum.

Doubt on verb-ing modifiers

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards