Hi Plengg,

The letters may have been written in the past, but the fact that they outnumber her letters to anyone else is still true today.

Outnumbered would not be strictly incorrect, but it would create some ambiguity: did her letters to her sister-in-law outnumber her letters to anyone else only in the past (that is, the situation has changed), or is that still true of her letters?
_________________

Can anyone explain who does 'her' refer to in the highlighted portion of the question? The only person it can refer back to is Susan Huntington Dickinson, but that does not make sense.
Although reaching the correct answer does not require this understanding (as all answer choices have the same possessive), but I do want to understand it for learning.

Thanks.

Curious to know why you say so Amol.

her can also refer to Emily Dickinson’s (both possessive, though this doesn't matter too much).
_________________

Hi everyone. Recently, I have been very confused with comma + ing modifiers. There are different rules written at different places. Can you lay down some basic concrete rules?
1. The subject should directly/indirectly agree with ing modifier
2. The ing modifier should show immediate result of the action or should modify the action.
Are these rules correct? or is there more to add?
AndrewN IanStewart DmitryFarber GMATNinja

Hello, pk6969. You probably know that I am not a big fan of expounding on rules (or so-called rules). I like to work on a case-by-case basis with whatever a question provides for me to consider—i.e. within a small set of five answer choices. Even so, I do not mind pointing others to Expert advice: try this post by e-GMAT. Perhaps it will clarify the matter for you.

Happy reading.

- Andrew
_________________

This Q is FAAD !!!! Though I am thankful to all the experts here, I am still not clear on the usage of "which" in E.

Hi bansalgaurav,

Which is a relative pronoun here. It refers to (and provides information about) the entire noun phrase before it.

1. Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson, which were written...

Is there something specific about this which that you think is a little off?
_________________

Option A Vs E

Comma + ing modifiers do either of the three things mentioned below

1) They represent cause and effect relationship
2) They show the How aspect of the previous clause
3) They are logical extension/ general description of the form in which modifier participle phrase will have simultaneous with but subordinate to action with main Verb of the clause. (Will explain further)

Lets look at Option A with three usage as stated:

1) Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886 *and as a result Dickson's letters outnumbered her letters to anyone else*???? It makes no sense. Dickson's letter written over a period from A to B doesn't give any so called CAUSE relationship for the Effect of OUTNUMBERING.

2) Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886 HOW?*by outnumbering her letters to anyone else* It is clearly absurd

3) Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson *were written* and *outnumbering* .Outnumbering is not simultaneous with and subordinating to action of Written. Cannot be the logical extension. A common example to show this relationship is: Sun rose early, shinning brilliantly across the sky. Shinning is a simultaneous and subordinating action of rising ( THE MAIN VERB).Another eg: Amy skipped the school, giving the excuse of stomach ache. Giving the excuse is a simultaneous BUT Subordinating action of MAIN Verb Skipping the school.

For all the reasons above option A is wrong and E is our winner.

Process:

1. Scan the answers - identify the potential issue: modification (Mod.) and parallelism (//m)
2. Write down the 5 lines
3. Write down SVO
4. Read the sentence
5. Identify the SVO: S-letters, V- outnumber, O- all other letters
6. Identify the //m issue: period starting and ending or period started and ended . . .
7. POE . . . you must have a reason why each option is wrong - NOT sounding right is not a good reason!!!

A. Not sure what's wrong here, keep it
B. //m - period that begins . . . and that ended - this is incorrect
C. //m - period beginning . . . and that ends - this is incorrect
D. //m - period beginning . . ., ending - why do we have a comma here? what are we modifying?
E. //m - period beginning and ending (tick).
8. Now check for //m with the subject: The letters written . . . ., outnumber (tick)
9. Compare with A: A has outnumbering . . . The letters were written in the past and they outnumber any other letters. Outnumbering implies we are still comparing these letters in the 1800s.

Would appreciate commentary on my approach PLEASE!?

(A) Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering

In this sentence the parallelism between "beginning" and "ending" is correct.

The problem with this sentence is the use of the "COMMA + ING-MODIFIER": "outnumbering". This is a mistake because a "comma +ING-modifer" must modify the entire preceding clause and be in the same time frame than the main action.

The relation between the clause and the ING-modifier does not make sense and they are not in the same time frame. A) is WRONG.


(B) Dickinson were written over a period that begins a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ended shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber

This is a run-on sentence. There are two independent clauses (subject + verb) that are not linked by any means (not even a comma, which would still be wrong). B) is WRONG.



(C) Dickinson, written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and that ends shortly before Emily’s death in 1886 and outnumbering


There are quite a few problems here, including the "and". The connector "and" implies a certain degree of independence between the 2 elements it separates. Therefore using "and outnumbering" in this sentence makes non sense. (+parallel issue by using "outnumbering"). C) is wrong.



(D) Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother, ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, and outnumbering

Some of the same problems as in C). D) is WRONG



(E) Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber

E) is our last option and it must be CORRECT as we eliminated all other choices.

Here, "which" is correct because it is separated from "letters" by a prep phrase. The "which" allows to fix our problem in B) as "which were written..." becomes a modifier of "letters".

"Outnumber" is the right verb form.





[/quote]

Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else.

This is a good case where the TOUCH rule of which extends a little further for the antecedent because of the prepositional phrase: letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson , which. One must remember if the prepositional phrase is absolutely necessary to modify the noun it may come in between which/that/who/when/those and the noun. Here to identify which set of letters are being talked about the prepositional phrase 'to Susan HD' is necessary.

(A) Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering - Letter were written, outnumbering her letters to anyone else. This construction isnt the best as is it still in the act of outnumbering? I dont think so.

(B) Dickinson were written over a period that begins a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ended shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber - That begins (simple present) is uncalled for as its not a universal fact that always happens.

(C) Dickinson, written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and that ends shortly before Emily’s death in 1886 and outnumbering - Parallelism error, trigger 'and'. 'that ends shortly' needs a 'that begins a few years' (but also remember its better to not keep it as a universal fact using simple present)

(D) Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother, ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, and outnumbering - In the which test (as the word before the ',' is part of a necessary prepositional phrase, we'll let it slide) its fine, not happy but fine. Letters were written ,and outnumbering her letters to others.

(E) Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber - Again which is fine here as its still modifying Letters (to SHD), the construction is similar to A but it corrects the tense to outnumber (which is now representation of a fact that has happened) SELECT E

what's the difference between "... , which" and ".... which"?

For example, in option E: with the comma in front of "which", “which” now modifies the subject of the first sentence - "Emily Disckinson's Letter". In the case when there's no comma before "which", does it modify "Susan Huntington Dickinson" ?

E. "Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber her letters to anyone else."

Hi kaomanfen.

In American written English, there is always a comma before "which" unless "which" is preceded by a preposition, in an expression such as "from which" or "in which."

In British written English, sometimes "which" is not preceded by a comma, in a structure such as "the grass which grows in Kentucky." In such cases, "which" functions the way "that" does in American written English, referring to the previous noun or noun phrase.

So, regardless of whether there is a comma before "which," it still refers to the preceding noun or noun phrase. Thus, in this case, if there were no comma before "which," it would still refer to the noun phrase "Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson."
_________________