kanikab wrote:
DmitryFarber GMATNinjaTwo,
MikeScarn,
GMATNinja,
hazelnut,
generis,
egmatHi - I have gone through the forum discussion on choices C and E. I still have a few doubts. Can you please clarify.
1) My understanding of a comma + verb-ing modifier is that it modifies the preceding clause in 2 ways - a) by showing the how aspect b) by showing the result of the action. However, in this question, I am unable to understand how option C is fitting in (keeping in mind the 2 ways talked bwout earlier)
Option C reads - For members of the seventeenth century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, protecting warriors against enemy arrows and spears.
2) For option E, a lot of the responses said that to protect cant be preceded by a comma. Is it a rule? It doesnt seem like it because in this thread, there are some correct
OG sentences that have used to + verb after a comma. Is there another reason to reject this? I am also not clear on whether this sentence can use the to + verb format here because I dont think it menas to show intention.
Option E reads - For members of the seventeenth century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, to protect warriors against enemy arrows and spears
In case, the sentence is written to show intention then would option E be correct if the comma wasnt there? The sentence would read - For members of the seventeenth century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment to protect warriors against enemy arrows and spears.
Lastly, would we have 2 options present such as Option C and revised option E in the answer choices.
Thanks.
Your understanding of how VERB-ing modifiers work when they follow CLAUSE + COMMA is correct. Either VERB-ing provides a consequence of the previous clause, or is giving context for that clause.
In (C) we have:
"...animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, protecting warriors..."
This modification is perfectly logical - it provides context. How were the shields essential? By providing protection to warriors. Looks good.
But when we have a "to verb" (an infinitive, if you like jargon) following a full clause, typically the infinitive is giving us the
intention of the previous subject. For example:
"Tim deprived himself of pancakes for three weeks to get himself in shape for Burning Man."
Tim made a conscious decision to stop eating pancakes, because he had the intention of getting in shape. So now look at (E) again:
"...animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, to protect warriors..."
This makes it sound as though the shields consciously chose to be essential so that they could protect the warriors. In science fiction, perhaps. On the GMAT? Not so much. (E) is illogical, so (C) is our answer.
I hope that helps!
Sorry as this may sound a silly question, but can a 'infinitive construction' be used as
in GMAT? if so, would you be able to share an example so that I get an idea of how the meaning is drawn from such a construction.
close
22 Mar 2022, 00:27
