It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 03:13

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In all, fifteen or more Greenwich Capital employees

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

VP
VP
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Mar 2013
Posts: 1258

Kudos [?]: 285 [0], given: 163

Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: In all, fifteen or more Greenwich Capital employees [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Sep 2016, 02:35
mikemcgarry wrote:
Dear Mo2men,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

The "with" + noun + participle structure is not automatically wrong. There's a subtle distinction that I explain in this blog:
[url="http://magoosh.com/gmat/2015/with-noun-participle-on-gmat-sentence-correction/"]with + [noun] + [participle] on GMAT Sentence Correction[/url]

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)



Dear Mike,
I would like to expand little further about another adverbial phrase "because of". In Magoosh idiom book, it was mentioned in page 47 that "because of+ NOUN+ VERBing" is 100% wrong. However, I found a SC in GMATprep 1 that breaks the rule mentioned in the book.

on-account-of-a-law-passed-in-1993-making-it-a-crime-70502.html?fl=similar

Because of a law passed in 1933 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them.

How can I differentiate between the right and wrong answers with "because of+ NOUN+ VERBing" ? Have you set any great rules like "with ...." modification in your blog?

Thanks in advance for your support

Kudos [?]: 285 [0], given: 163

Magoosh Discount CodesEMPOWERgmat Discount CodesOptimus Prep Discount Codes
Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4417

Kudos [?]: 8419 [0], given: 102

Re: In all, fifteen or more Greenwich Capital employees [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Sep 2016, 13:46
Mo2men wrote:
Dear Mike,
I would like to expand little further about another adverbial phrase "because of". In Magoosh idiom book, it was mentioned in page 47 that "because of+ NOUN+ VERBing" is 100% wrong. However, I found a SC in GMATprep 1 that breaks the rule mentioned in the book.

on-account-of-a-law-passed-in-1993-making-it-a-crime-70502.html?fl=similar

Because of a law passed in 1933 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them.

How can I differentiate between the right and wrong answers with "because of+ NOUN+ VERBing" ? Have you set any great rules like "with ...." modification in your blog?

Thanks in advance for your support

Dear Mo2men,

I'm happy to respond. :-) I think that statement of ours in the GMAT Idiom book is too black & white: we write that book several years ago, and I would like to make a couple changes on subtle points such as this.

Having said that, the sentence you found does not exactly break the rule, because the participle used is "passed," a passive past participle, one that does not imply an action. As you may recall, present participles are active and past participles are passive: only the former implies an action.

Unfortunately, there's no substitute for understand logic and rhetoric. Normally, the structure "because" + [full clause] is the way to highlight an action, and using "because of" + [noun] + [present participle] usually sounds compromised in that case.

Here's a rule that works a great deal of the time: when you have [preposition] + [noun] + [participle], simply drop the participle and see whether the sentence still makes sense. In this OA, we would get:

Because of a law, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them.

That is essentially correct. The immigrants had to give up their gold because of this law. Yes. Of course, it would be helpful for us to have more detail about the law, and participial phrase provides this detail. If we remove the participle and all that missing is extra detail, and the fundamental logical structure of the sentence is still valid, then then entire sentence with the participle is often correct. If we remove the participle and the sentence doesn't logically make sense any more, that's when we have a problem.

That's not a foolproof rule, because sometimes removing the participle makes a valid sentence, yet the whole sentence is not best way to phrase something. It also depends on rhetorical focus. A preposition, by its very nature, takes a noun as its object, and the "because of" compound preposition is designed to attribute the cause to a noun. If the noun really is the cause, then "because of" is perfect: here, the "law" really is the cause of the situation. If the action really is the cause, then sticking the action in a participle modifying the noun following a preposition is not appropriate: we need a full clause if the action is the cause of something.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Kudos [?]: 8419 [0], given: 102

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 153

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 162

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Re: In all, fifteen or more Greenwich Capital employees [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2017, 23:27
Quote:
2) The US Bill of Rights has been framed to protect individuals from the federal government


Quote:
As this example shows, the use of the past perfect delves deeply into questions of meaning, of what the deep intention of the author. These are the kinds of questions that the official GMAT SC questions regularly explore, and student who simply skate along the surface looking a grammar rules are continually befuddled by such questions. A good GMAT SC question used grammar and logic and rhetoric in a combine effort to produce a deep coherent meaning. If you appreciate a sentence at that level, then you are are on your way to GMAT SC mastery.


Hi mikemcgarry

Hope you are doing good :-)
I have a doubt and need your help to understand the same :-)

The example that you shared (I have quoted it above) uses Present perfect tense. But in the explanation you referred to the tense as Past Perfect

Is my understanding correct or am I reading something wrong? Please correct me if I have understood the tenses incorrectly in the example you shared above

Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 162

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4417

Kudos [?]: 8419 [0], given: 102

Re: In all, fifteen or more Greenwich Capital employees [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2017, 09:27
pikolo2510 wrote:
Quote:
2) The US Bill of Rights has been framed to protect individuals from the federal government


Quote:
As this example shows, the use of the past perfect delves deeply into questions of meaning, of what the deep intention of the author. These are the kinds of questions that the official GMAT SC questions regularly explore, and student who simply skate along the surface looking a grammar rules are continually befuddled by such questions. A good GMAT SC question used grammar and logic and rhetoric in a combine effort to produce a deep coherent meaning. If you appreciate a sentence at that level, then you are are on your way to GMAT SC mastery.


Hi mikemcgarry

Hope you are doing good :-)
I have a doubt and need your help to understand the same :-)

The example that you shared (I have quoted it above) uses Present perfect tense. But in the explanation you referred to the tense as Past Perfect

Is my understanding correct or am I reading something wrong? Please correct me if I have understood the tenses incorrectly in the example you shared above

Thanks.

Dear pikolo2510,

That was an oversight on my part, a mistake--I corrected it in that post. Thank you for pointing this out. You are 100% correct. :-)

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Kudos [?]: 8419 [0], given: 102

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Aug 2017
Posts: 52

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 19

GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V24
Re: In all, fifteen or more Greenwich Capital employees [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2017, 14:24
guerrero25 wrote:
In all, fifteen or more Greenwich Capital employees have been tied to insider trading while at the fund, with four to plead guilty and more likely.

(A) In all, fifteen or more Greenwich Capital employees were tied to insider trading while at the fund, with four to plead guilty and more likely.

(B) All told, fifteen or more Greenwich Capital employees had been tied to insider trading while at the fund, with four having pleaded guilty and more likely.

(C) All told, at least fifteen Greenwich Capital employees have been tied to insider trading while at the fund; four have pleaded guilty and more are likely to do so.

(D) In all, at least fifteen Greenwich Capital employees have been tied to insider trading while at the fund; with four having pleaded guilty and more are likely to do so.

(E) All told, at least fifteen Greenwich Capital employees have been tied to insider trading while at the fund; four have pleaded guilty and more are likely.


Answer should be C. to do so = to plea guilty.
_________________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos are the only way to tell whether my post is useful.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 19

Re: In all, fifteen or more Greenwich Capital employees   [#permalink] 18 Sep 2017, 14:24

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 25 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

In all, fifteen or more Greenwich Capital employees

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.