Insufficiently trained for combat, the soldier was grievously injured

Option A out as anesthetized is modifying uncounciousness here. It should modify soldier. Option c awkward and same goes with option b, c and d. The verb + ing format of sinking and being anaesthetized mentioned in option E correctly highlights the repercussions of the industry, the same purpose for which verb + ing format is generally used. Option E should be the answer. What is OA...

Sent from my XT1068 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

If 'anaesthetized' modifies unconsciousness, what exactly does it mean? BTW, can unconsciousness ever be anaesthetized at all?

Can someone please explain the options. I have trouble understanding this question and it appears that this question is not a valid GMAT question.

The meaning of this topic is: The soldier was poorly trained. As such he was injured severely. Many rounds of surgeries were seen to be required if his leg had to be saved. Therefore, he was given strong anesthetics and consequently he sank into unconsciousness due to the strong medication.
The soldier was anesthetized but not his unconsciousness. 'Anesthetized ' is modifying the soldier and not his action. Therefore, this is an adjectival noun modifier. The take - away: Let us not conclude that past participles after a comma have to modify the noun just in front, (except when there is no comma in front)
B and D require the preposition 'by' to make the meaning complete. C is a total fragment of double verb+ing. E wrongfully implies that the soldier was injured because of his sinking into unconsciousness and because of the anesthesia. A is by far the best

OFFICIAL SOLUTION

Strategically on this problem, you should identify that there are two verbs (or, more properly, "verbals") within the underlined portion ("sank" and "anesthetized"), and that there are up to two possible uses of the conjunction "and" in the answer choices. Your job, then, is to determine whether these verbs are part of a parallel list, or whether one (or more) is used as a participial modifier.

To do that, consider the meanings of the first two choices. In choice A, "anesthetized" is used as a modifier at the end of the sentence. For that meaning, the soldier has two verbs: was injured, and sank into unconsciousness. And the verb anesthetized describes how the soldier sank into unconsciousness.

For the second meaning, with three verbs in the list, the soldier did three things: was wounded, sank into unconsciousness, and (actively) anesthetized medicine. Consider that meaning, even if you're not clear on the verb "anesthetized" - is it logical that the soldier actively did something to medicine while or after slipping into unconsciousness? It is not, particularly in comparison to the more passive story ("anesthetized by") in choice A, a much more logical description of what would happen to someone slipping into unconsciousness. So the meaning in choice A is the logical meaning of the sentence.

Note that while choice C tries to preserve that meaning in a three-verb list using "was anesthetized by" it foregoes the "and" necessary to complete the list and is therefore incorrect. Choice D is guilty of a similar error, omitting the necessary "by" to complete the construction "was anesthetized by the medicine..." And choice E illogically treats "sinking" and "being" as separate actions subordinate to "was gravely injured," when the logical storyline is that the anesthetization is part of the sinking into unconsciousness, which is itself a separate event from "was wounded."

mikemcgarry - Hello Mike- sorry for bothering you twice. I just had a small query and was hoping that you could help me with this please. Choice A is by far the best answer choice. I agree with the statements made by the experts above. But, in A, after all, isn't the usage of ed-modifier wrong, because unlike the rest of modifiers- I know as a fact that ed modifier can only modify the closest noun. Is there any exception to this rule? Is there any of the blogs, in which you have addressed this specifically. Once again, really sorry for bothering you with this. Would n't anesthetized be modifying unconciousness in option A, while it should be modifying the patient

Insufficiently trained for combat, the soldier was grievously injured in battle and sank once again into unconsciousness, anesthetized by the medicine required by the many rounds of surgery necessary to save his badly wounded leg.



Notwithstanding the great point of logic and modification, this seemingly monstrous problem can be tamed by a simple perusal of basic grammar.

a) battle and sank once again into unconsciousness, anesthetized by -- can't decide swiftly, let me come back to this later.

b) battle, sank once again into unconsciousness, and anesthetized-- absurd to say that the soldier anesthetized the medicine.

c) battle, sinking once again into unconsciousness, was anesthetized by -- This is a double - verbing syndrome

d) battle and sank once again into unconsciousness, and was anesthetized -- unparallel with too many 'conjunctions.

e) battle, sinking once again into unconsciousness and being anesthetized by --- being anesthetized is redundant and wordy

Now I am going back to A since I couldn't find an error with that.

Dear harshdeep12,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

First of all, my friend, please learn the proper terminology: precise use of terminology is one of the prerequisite for precise understanding. What you are calling an "-ed modifier" is actually known as a "past participle." It's very important to understand participles and how they function as modifiers.

Next, it important to appreciate the two kinds of modifiers: noun modifiers and verb modifiers. As a general rule, with a few notable exceptions, noun modifiers are subject to the Modifier Touch Rule. Because noun modifiers are always targeting one specific word, there are very strict rules governing their locations, because they have to refer back to that one word.

On the other hand, verb modifiers are a whole other thing. The Touch Rule is 100% irrelevant to verb modifiers. Because a verb modifier, in some sense, is modifying the entire action of the clause, it can appear in a variety of places in that clause, and doesn't need to touch anything in particular.

Participle modifiers are tricky, because they easily can act either as noun modifiers or verb modifiers. We have to be very discerning to figure out what a participle is modifying. We have to apprehend whether it asking a "noun modifying question" (who? what? what kind? which one?) or a "verb modifying question" (when? where? how? why?).

Here, I would say "anesthetized by the medicine" is a clause that answer the question "why?" for the verb "sank." Why did the soldier sink? Because he was anesthetized. That's the answer to a "why" question, so it's a verb modifier. The Modifier Touch Rule, a formidable rule in the world of noun modifiers, is entirely irrelevant and non-existent in the world of verb modifiers.

Thus, in the spirit of Joshu's Mu, the most correct answer to your question is the "un-asking" of the question itself. In other words, when all the correct relationships are understood, your question no longer exists.

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)

BRILLIANT Mike. Till now, I thought that past participle that follows a clause can modify only a noun- even though I knew as a fact that present participles can modify both noun and verbs. But was not aware that past participles can also be used to modify a noun, clause and a verb. This post of yours makes it exceptionally clear. Also, I would like to make another subtle point- When I was trying to answer this question, I thought that the sentence should read as follows:

Insufficiently trained for combat, the soldier was grievously injured in battle and was sunk once again into unconsciousness, anesthetized by the medicine required by the many rounds of surgery necessary to save his badly wounded leg.

Instead of sank, I thought the sentence should use Sunk, because by using sank(that was used originally), it looked like the soldier himself do the sinking- because I don't think there is any such word as was sank. So if he was anesthetized by a medicine- I thought we should be using passive form to show that action was performed by the medicine. I hope I am able to make some sense here. Thanks much Mike

Dear harshdeep12,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

You are correct. The structure "was sank" does not exist.

English is funny. Regular verbs have the -ed form for both the past tense and the past participle.

Some irregular verbs (to buy, bought; to sell, sold; to have, had) have a past that cannot be constructed simply from the infinitive form, but it's the same form in both the past tense and the past participle.

The rest of the irregular verbs have three different forms: infinitive, past, and past participle
swim, swam, swum
sing, sang, sung
sink, sank, sunk
go, went, gone
come, came, come
For these verbs, it's important to remember that all the perfect tense verbs have the general form
[auxiliary verb][past participle]
The past tense form is never used with an auxiliary verb.

Thus,
Today, he sinks. (simple present)
Yesterday, he sank. (simple past)
Often he has sun. (present perfect)
He had sunk before X happened. (past perfect)
Right now, he is sinking. (present progressive)
Yesterday, he was sinking. (past progressive)

Notice that the forms of the verb "to be," such as "is" and "was," would be used as auxiliary verbs only in the progressive tenses.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)

Hello mikemcgarry

Hope you are doing good

I read your response above regarding the verb-ed modifiers (past participle) in which you said that the past participle should always refer back to the subject of the preceding clause

I disagree with the above because I have seen a OG example in which GMAC says that the past participle modifier modifies the nearest noun and cannot modify a faraway subject. Example below



Official OG explanation below for Option A



Now coming back to this question

In Option A (based on the OG example that I quoted above) anesthetized is clearly modifying unconsciousness , a noun . It cannot modify a faraway noun i.e. soldier

All other options have errors that daagh and many other have pointed out. Hence I disagree with all the options in this question

Please correct me if I am wrong. Will be eager to hear back from you

Dear pikolo2510,

I'm happy to respond.

First of all, my friend, what you are quoting back to me as something you think I said is something I certainly don't recognize as my own words nor it is true:
". . . the past participle should always refer back to the subject of the preceding clause . . ." = 100% false
Sometimes, a present or past participle can refer back to the subject--certainly that happens sometimes, but it is far from the only possibility.

My friend, it seems to me there is a disconnect between what I have written above and what you think I have said. I am going to ask you to re-read my post in this thread from 2017.08.16. Go back and read it very carefully. I believe that post already addresses everything you intend to ask. The sentence you quoted about "images of Hindu deities" employs a past participle as a noun-modifier, and this question about the "soldier" "insufficiently trained for combat" employs a past participle as a verb-modifier. Both uses are 100% correct, but they don't shed light on each other, because the rules for noun-modifiers and verb-modifiers are 100% different.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

I am confused with option A VS E.

Independent Clause , ing modifier generally shows cause -effect relation or result.
option E- why cant sinking and being anesthetized be parallel? both ing modifier showing result of what happened after soldier was injured .
Because of injury- He sank into unconsciousness and was anesthetized ?

Hi Experts

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma EducationAisle ChrisLele mikemcgarry AjiteshArun egmat sayantanc2k RonPurewal DmitryFarber MagooshExpert avigutman EMPOWERgmatVerbal MartyTargetTestPrep ExpertsGlobal5 IanStewart
other experts AnthonyRitz

I was confused between A and E but chose E.
Reason - I thought Sinking and being anesthetized is result of the grievously injured in battle. Didn't chose A and Past participle must modify the closest noun but modifying "unconsciousness" is useless.

Please explain me?

Unfortunately, the rule you were using is incorrect.

There is no such thing as a "past participle." Participles are modifiers, not verbs, and do not have tense. "anesthetized" is a passive participle.

The rule for participles is that

(1) a participle phrase
(2) at the end of a sentence or clause and
(3) set off by a comma

almost always modifies the preceding clause as a whole and does not modify the word it is next to.

In A, "anesthetized" describes the soldier and the way in which he sank into unconsciousness. This is correct.

In E, "sinking" and "being anesthetized" describe the soldier and the way in which he was injured in battle (or some other aspect of his being injured in battle). This makes no logical sense as a description of the clause as a whole, so it's wrong.

Hi AnthonyRitz

Don't we call Verb-ed modifiers as Past participle? And also participle sometimes show the result of the preceding clause. How can I understand if the participle phrase is sowing the result of modifying the whole previous clause?

Some people use that term, but it's a misnomer. Participles do not have tense. The distinction is about voice. For example, "anesthetized" describes something done to the soldier, whereas "sinking" describes something done by the soldier.

As for when a participle phrase modifies the preceding clause, I gave the rule above: