Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys that were sleeping on the branches, and the monkeys' arms and legs hung like socks on a clothesline.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Modifiers + Verb Forms + Parallelism

• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.
• The simple past continuous tense is used to refer to actions that took place in the past over a period of time.
• The simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.
• The present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.
• In the “noun + comma + phrase” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun; this is one of the most frequently tested concepts on GMAT sentence correction.
• “who/whose/whom/which/where”, when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.

A: This answer choice incorrectly uses “whose arms and legs…” to refer to “branches”, illogically implying that the arms and legs that hung like socks belonged to the branches; the intended meaning is that the arms and legs that hung like socks belonged to the monkeys; please remember, “who/whose/whom/which/where”, when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma. Moreover, Option A incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb “saw” (rather than the past participle “seen”) with the helping verb “have”, which is used as part of the present perfect and present perfect continuous verb constructions; in simple words, “have…saw” is incorrect whereas “have…seen” is the correct usage. Further, Option A incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb “saw” to refer to an action that began and concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; present perfect tense is correct for such usage. Additionally, Option A incorrectly uses the simple present tense verb “hang” to refer to an action that took place in the past over a period of time; remember, the simple past continuous tense is used to refer to actions that took place in the past over a period of time, and the simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses “whose arms and legs…” to refer to “branches”, illogically implying that the arms and legs that hung like socks belonged to the branches; the intended meaning is that the arms and legs that hung like socks belonged to the monkeys; please remember, “who/whose/whom/which/where”, when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma. Moreover, Option B incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb “saw” (rather than the past participle “seen”) with the helping verb “have”, which is used as part of the present perfect and present perfect continuous verb constructions; in simple words, “have…saw” is incorrect whereas “have…seen” is the correct usage. Further, Option B incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb “saw” to refer to an action that began and concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; present perfect tense is correct for such usage.

C: Trap. This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb “saw” (rather than the past participle “seen”) with the helping verb “have”, which is used as part of the present perfect and present perfect continuous verb constructions; in simple words, “have…saw” is incorrect whereas “have…seen” is the correct usage. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb “saw” to refer to an action that began and concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; present perfect tense is correct for such usage.

D: Correct. This answer choice avoids the modifier error seen in Options A, B, and E, as it uses the phrase “with arms and legs”, rather than a “who/whose/whom/which" phrase, conveying the intended meaning of the sentence- that the arms and legs that hung like socks belonged to the monkeys. Further, Option D correctly uses the present perfect tense verb “have…seen” to describe an event that began and concluded in the past but continues to affect the present. Additionally, Option D correctly uses the present participle (“verb+ing” – “hanging” in this sentence) to refer to an action that took place over a period of time in the past; remember, the present participle can be used to refer to actions that are continuous in nature, in any time period.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses “whose arms and legs…” to refer to “branches”, illogically implying that the arms and legs that hung like socks belonged to the branches; the intended meaning is that the arms and legs that hung like socks belonged to the monkeys; please remember, “who/whose/whom/which/where”, when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma. Additionally, Option E incorrectly uses the present perfect tense verb “have hung to refer to an action that took place in the past over a period of time; please remember, the simple past continuous tense is used to refer to actions that took place in the past over a period of time, and the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Present Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Simple Continuous Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

D.

Keep verbs consistent "have looked" . . . "have seen"

saw = simple past
have seen = present perfect
and
had seen = past perfect --> past perfect MUST have a simple past. it cannot be used alone unless you're from the ghetto, in which case you're emphasizing that something was done in the past.

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.

(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung

Obviously, the answer is either D or E.

(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
Adverb phrase starting 'with' modifies 'sleeping', conveying the meaning of the sentence clearly.

Whereas in E, 'whose' is not clear to modify either the branches or the monkeys. Since there's an ambiguity in the modifier, (D) wins!

please correct my reasoning if wrong.

On the GMAT I think whose can only refer to people, and not animals. Saw can be eliminated because it causes a conflict in tense. Basically if the visitors saw a monkey the next set of customers may not see the same monkeys hanging on trees. And the action is ongoing because the continually have people coming and noticing the same as the last group.

So A, B, and E can be eliminated because whose is not referring to a person. A, B and C can be eliminated because it
changes the meaning of the sentence in terms of tenses.

D is only one left

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.

(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
Whose cannot modify animals
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
Whose cannot modify animals
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
saw is not the right tense used because the tense should be parallel to have often looked up
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
Correct
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung
Whose cannot modify animals

Now regarding your doubts:

1) According to the OE, "whose" modifies "branches". However, in other official questions I have seen that sometimes the clause modifier doesn't modify the closest noun. Actually, it can modify the main noun in a noun phrase as long as it makes sense and it is not ambiguous.
In this case, we have "monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose..."; "monkeys" is the main noun of that noun phrase and makes sense with "arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline".
So, my question is: Is the split "whose....", a good reason to eliminate some choices?
The answer choice containing whose can simply be eliminated, because on the GMAT, whose can only modify people and here it seems to modify monkeys.

2) What are the rules related to a prepositional phrase after a comma? In this question: "..., with arms and legs hanging". How could we know that the prepositional phrase refers to the monkeys and not the visitors. Because these modifiers modify the entire clause, usually modifies the subject (visitors).
normally a prepositional phrase can be placed anywhere, but generally it is placed closest to the noun being modified, in this case the monkeys.

Can you cite any official example where a relative pronoun (such as "whose" in this case) used as a non-essential modifier (basically delimited by commas) modifies anything other than the nearest eligible noun.

Would be interesting to see such example.

Dear b2bt.
I'm happy to respond. Relative pronouns begin a noun-modifying clause, an adjectival clause. As a general rule, all noun-modifiers should touch the noun they modify, but there are regular exceptions to the Modifier Touch Rule. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/modifiers- ... orrection/

I agree with what daagh had to say above. I will simply clarify:
The relative pronouns "who" and "whom" are always used with people, never with animals or objects.
The relative pronouns "which" and "that" are used with animals or object, never with people.
The relative pronoun "whose" is used in all cases, people or animals or objects.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

I know this might sound stupid , but can anyone explain the verb usage between saw and seen here?

Please if you could explain the usage without just stating , "Parallelism" and "Tenses" ?

Thanks in advance

Dear jindal,

The full structure is
... have often looked up .... and saw/seen ...

If we choose "saw," then we are deliberately choosing a different tense for the second verb. The first verb in the parallelism ("have ... looked") is present perfect tense and "saw" is past tense. In terms of the grammatical mechanics of parallelism, it's perfectly fine to have two verbs of different tenses in parallel. We naturally would do this if the actions were separated by some meaningful time difference:
The USA ratified its constitution in 1789 and still follows its principles to this day.
Different times call for different tenses. The trouble is that logically having different tenses in this SC sentence simply doesn't make sense. In this situation, the "looking" and "seeing" have to be simultaneous: they cannot possibly be separated by a meaningful time difference. Thus, on logical grounds, it makes absolutely no sense to have two different tenses.

Logically, because the actions are simultaneous and inseparable, we have to use the same tense for them. Both are in the present perfect. The auxiliary verb "have" applies to both and does not need to be repeated in the second branch:

... have often looked up .... and [have] seen ...

This has two verbs with the same tense, so the grammar mirrors the logic. It's always a good thing if the grammar of a sentence and the logic of the sentence are saying the same thing!

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi mike,
my interpretation of the structure "with" + [noun] + [participle] is that
1/
[noun] + [participle] is another doer and action, not the same as the subjection and subjection's action, --- INCORRECT

2/
[noun] + [participle] is the subject and subject's action -- CORRECT

while correct is the one "with" + [noun] + [participle], and not the subject and subject's action,
I am confused, appreciate if you point out my fault.

3/
when I performed this question, I hesitated btw D and E,
E) I think "whose" here is ambiguous, because both human and monkey have arms and legs,
D) my fault interpretation confused me.

then I selected randomly...

waiting for your help...

have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

How are you my friend? I'm happy to respond.

First of all, you may find this blog article helpful:
with + [noun] + [participle] on GMAT Sentence Correction
I think you understand Case 1 better than Case 2. Case I is indeed a separate action, something done by somebody else. Again, my example:
1) With the Army of the James approaching from the west, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
The "Army of the James" is one actor, and on the opposite side of the war was Lee. In this sentence, there are two completely different and mutually opposed actors, so it's 100% clear that "with" + [noun] + [participle] is wrong in this case.

I wouldn't say that Case 2 is the "subject and subject's action." Instead, I would say that the "with" phrase is a description of the subject, a description rather than an action. In my other example,
2) With an overcoat hanging over one shoulder, he saunter into the room.
The "overcoat" is not really doing an action. That whole phrase before the comma is simply a description of the subject.

Here's a big litmus test I discuss in that blog: drop the participle and everything after it, and see whether the sentence still makes sense.
2a) With an overcoat, he saunter into the room.
That's not quite as descriptive but still factually true. He walked into the room "with an overcoat." In case 2, the sentence loses some descriptive detail but is still factually correct. Now, compare the Case 1 example:
With the Army of the James, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
This completely changes the meaning. Now, it sounds as if Lee was "with the Army of the James," as if they were on the same side, rather than opposed in warfare. In Case 1, when we drop the participial phrase, we drop an essential action, and this omission either changes the meaning or makes the sentence nonsense. That's a practical test you can you to compare these cases.

For this SC question, (D) is perfectly correct. The question is: are the "monkeys" "with arms and legs"---in other words, can we attribute the possession of "arms and legs" to "monkeys"? Of course! The rest of the sentence after the comma simply provide description. Again, it's not really an action at all, but just a description.

In (E), the word "whose" is 100% correct. As in many cases, a pronoun correctly and unambiguously refers to the nearest noun. The problem with (E) is the weird verb tense: "have hung"---the present perfect tense is very strange in this context, and sounds quite awkward. Matching the case to the case of the main verb makes the action sound simultaneous--as if the very moment the visitors looked, the monkeys simultaneously put their arms and legs down for viewing. This is NOT the meaning of the sentence. Instead, we want to suggest that the arms and legs were already hanging when the visitors arrived and looked. The past progressive is the correct way to indicate that if we were going to use a clause with a full verb. For example, this option is not given but would be perfectly correct:
(F) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging

Does all this make sense?

My friend, have a lovely day.
Mike

Dear superczan,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, it is natural in English to have the structure [noun][modifying phrase #1],[modifying phrase #2]. If [modifying phrase #1] is a vital noun modifier, then it always would come between the target noun and the second modifier. Here, neither modifier is a vital noun modifier, but it's still natural to have to different modifying phrases acting on the same noun, coming one after the other and separated by a comma. A preposition typically modifies the target noun closest to it. If we wanted "with arms and legs hanging" to modify the people, the prepositional phrase would have to come much closer to the beginning of the sentence.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Dear DmitryFarber AnthonyRitz IanStewart GMATGuruNY AjiteshArun egmat,

Q1. Do you think "whose" can jump over "branches" to modify "monkeys"?
Q2. What's wrong with the tense in choice E.?

"Whose" is the possessive relative pronoun for anything. It is not restricted to modifying people (or animals, or whatever). "whose" can absolutely modify "branches" (not logically in this sentence, but grammatically as a general matter). So "whose" certainly cannot jump over "branches" to modify "monkeys." This is one reason why A, B, and E are 100% incorrect.

Yeah, we definitely can't jump there. Typically, we only jump over a noun modifier when the whole phrase is referring to one thing: "I brought a bag of food and toys, which I opened for all to see." Since "sleeping on branches" describes what the monkeys are doing, it's not really all one thing in the same way, so we read "whose" as applying to the nearest noun.

As for "have hung," it's fake-out parallelism. Just because we use present perfect in the main core of the sentence, that doesn't mean we need it in our modifier. It implies that the monkeys' arms and legs HAVE HUNG at some time, but not necessarily at the time that people saw the monkeys. Remember that present participles (-ing) are not verbs, but rather time-neutral modifiers. I can say "I saw people leaving the store," "I see people leaving the store," or even "I will see people leaving the store." The -ing form is not an indicator of time; it just makes a modifier, and thus works very well for our purpose here.

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.

(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung

Here "and" triggers parallelism. Do we say Visitors to the park have often saw monkeys or have often seen monkeys? often saw monkeys is clearly wrong.
This eliminates (A), (B), and (C) and leaves us with (D) and (E).
The relative pronoun "whose" should modify monkeys, not branches.
In (E), it seems as if the branches are having their arms and legs hanging like socks, which is absurd.
Thus our answer is (D).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GMATBuddha
Quitters never win, Winners never quit.

I have some doubts about "have hung" within answer choice E. Have hung is present perfect, so it started in the past and continues into the future (could just be the effect that continues into the future, but in this case, it's safe to say that the hanging is still occuring). Given this, how come it can't match the present perfect within the non-underline? One of the experts mentioned that it's saying these actions (the actions in the present perfect tense) are simultaneous. Why is this the case? Is it because they're both in the present perfect? If verbs are in the same tense, are they occuring simulataneously?