Insufficiently trained for combat, the soldier was grievously injured

Question

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.

a) battle and sank once again into unconsciousness, anesthetized by
b) battle, sank once again into unconsciousness, and anesthetized
c) battle, sinking once again into unconsciousness, was anesthetized by
d) battle and sank once again into unconsciousness, and was anesthetized
e) battle, sinking once again into unconsciousness and being anesthetized by

Teerex · Accepted Answer

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.

a) battle and sank once again into unconsciousness, anesthetized by.. Correct 
b) battle, sank once again into unconsciousness, and anesthetized.. Wrong 
c) battle, sinking once again into unconsciousness, was anesthetized by.. Wrong 
d) battle and sank once again into unconsciousness, and was anesthetized.. Wrong 
e) battle, sinking once again into unconsciousness and being anesthetized by.. Wrong

In B,D  has to be "anesthetized BY the medicine. NOT "anesthetized the medicine"..So B, D is wrong. 
In E,  "the soldier was grievously injured,sinking and being anesthetized by"..wrong. "being anesthetized by" should not modify "the soldier was grievously injured" since he was not injured by being anesthetized! 
In C,  misplaced modifier. So Wong.. since "sinking.." is modifying "soldier.." The meaning of sentence will be different. It will mean he sank into unconsciousness due to his injuries.  
In A,  "anesthetized by" is correctly modifying "sank once again into unconsciousness". Also was injured and sank into..correct tense. Correct Answer

VeritasPrepBrian · Answer

Great point by daagh - I was tutoring using this problem along with a bunch from the GMAT Prep Question Pack 1 the other day, making the points that 1) not all modifier rules are as cut and dry as "the next word" (that question pack has a couple really interesting ones marked as "hard" for that very reason) and that 2) on hard questions our main job as test-takers is to prioritize which differences we know we're 100% on (is it definitely right or definitely wrong?) and which ones we want to save until we have no differences left. Certain differences (subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, parallelism in a both/and - either/or - not only / but also construction, etc.) are as binary as they come and should always go first. Others, and I'd put modifiers in the middle or at the end of a sentence definitely in this group, are often best to wait on while you attack other differences.

One thing I see a lot of on official problems (and try to replicate with Veritas Prep problems) is that choice A or B (the ones you read first) is right but includes something like you see here - a modifier that seems like it would be wrong, or an idiomatic structure that's strange but not incorrect, etc. - and in doing rewards those who have the patience to say "I'm not totally qualified to make this decision yet" while punishing those who are make their final decision on each answer choice the first time they read through it. There's a little bit of "patience is a virtue" tested in the way that difficult Sentence Correction questions are written.

mukulvaidya · Answer

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

Sent from my XT1068 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

daagh · Answer

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

vishnusivathej · Answer

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

daagh · Answer

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

BillyZ · Answer

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."

harshdeep12 · Answer

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

daagh · Answer

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.

mikemcgarry · Answer

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 :-)

harshdeep12 · Answer

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

mikemcgarry · Answer

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
     
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 :-)

pikolo2510 · Answer

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

mikemcgarry · Answer

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

onlyformohit1122 · Answer

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 ?

Vatsal7794 · Answer

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?

AnthonyRitz · Answer

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.

Vatsal7794 · Answer

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?

AnthonyRitz · Answer

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:

Insufficiently trained for combat, the soldier was grievously injured

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

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Insufficiently trained for combat, the soldier was grievously injured

Prep Toolkit

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