Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global

jlo1234
I think there's been a fair amount of discussion of the problems with C, so it may help to ask about whichever part is unclear. However, the shortest possible explanation is that "despite that" is not the correct idiom.

There's also a subtler issue with the use of "despite" in the first place. The sentence is a bit awkward even in A, in that the modifier in question (even though/despite) needs to modify the verb phrase at the end: "restricted their gains." When we plug in "despite," it seems to modify "limiting their investments," since "despite" is most commonly used to describe something that we do in spite of reasons to the contrary. "Even though" is more open-ended, and is thus easier to apply to that last verb phrase. But all that's pretty subtle, so the simplest elimination is to ditch the bad idiom.

I just realized I never saw this candidate from zoezhuyan. However, there's no clause acting as a noun. The core is "Scientists say that they have made cells behave." The "by bathing" part and the "as if" part are adverbial modifiers, not clauses or noun phrases. The core uses a very common structure: clause THAT clause. The object of "scientists say that" is a second clause that describes what the scientists say. The GMAT seems to love this structure!

Hi IanStewart GMATNinja avigutman AndrewN

I have a question for the option (E) that no previous post discussed, so I decided to write my own post and hope that you could share some thoughts on it when you have time.

I know understanding the meaning is very important for solving SC questions and generally I try to avoid over-focus on grammar issues, but the different uses of the so-called "subordinate conjunctions," such as "while" and "although," in different questions confused me recently.

It seems to be a consensus in this thread that in the option (E), "although" should be followed by a full clause, and that is the main reason to eliminate (E). I am not to argue against this explanation--I agree that it is very common that the word "although" is used to introduce a clause--but I am unsure whether there is such a rule that "although" must be followed by a clause.

In another official example, the subordinate conjunction "while" is not followed by a full clause (https://reurl.cc/Dyy4Vm):

A recent poll indicates that many people in the United States hold a combination of conservative and liberal political views; i.e., they denounce big government, saying government is doing too much and has become too powerful, while at the same time supporting many specific government programs for health care, education, and the environment.

I think that the "longer" version of this sentence is "they denounce...,while they at the same time support many specific government programs...." The word "while" means "although" here. Because the subjects are the same "they," the sentence adopts a more special structure by omitting the subject "they" in the second part and changing the verb "support" to "supporting." So, we get "while at the same time supporting."

Since the subordinate conjunction "while" can be used in this way, I am wondering whether the conjunction "although" can also be used in this way. If the answer is "yes," then the rule that "although" must be followed by a clause is not really valid.

But, I am also aware that in this investor question, we do not have the repeated subject--"limiting" is the main subject of the "that" clause and "the US stock market" is the intended subject for the part following "although."

I put the option (E) into the sentence:


I personally eliminated the option (E) not because I am convinced that "although" must be followed by a clause, but because I think this sentence cannot adopt the omitted structure as the poll question does.

I hope to check--if this sentence were revised to "limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market, although being certainly home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains,," this sentence would still be incorrect, would not it? (because "although being home to the stocks" would modify the subject "limiting"?)


I know some experts do not encourage us to rewrite the incorrect options, but I hope to confirm what makes the option (E) incorrect, learn more about the use of "although" and clarify whether there is a rule that the conduction must be followed by a clause. (To be very frank, if there is such a rule, I might be glad since preparing SC will be a bit easier, but I think that the poll question suggests otherwise.)

Thank you very much!

IanStewart

Thank you so much for answering my questions and providing the link!

The Cambridge Dictionary explicitly says that we can use "although" or "though" to introduce an "ing" clause or "reduced" clause, as shown by the following two sentences. So I think there is not a real rule that "although" must be followed by a full clause, though many members stick to this "rule."

The patient, though getting stronger, is still not well enough to come off his medication.
Raymond, although very interested, didn’t show any emotion when she invited him to go for a walk.

Thank you so much for helping me clarifying this usage.

I noticed that in these two Cambridge sentences, the main subject and the implied subject is the same. I guess this is a requirement for this usage. On the other hand, this investment question has two different subjects, "limiting" and "the US stock market." Could I check further with you whether the following sentence would be considered correct?

Limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market, although certainly home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains.

I think that it might not be correct because of the subject issues and it would be great if you could share your thoughts when you have time.

Meanwhile, could I raise a follow-up question that also involves the use of "although"? (https://reurl.cc/annZml)
Many members said that because "although" must be followed by a full clause, the option (C) is gone, but I don't think that it is the right reason. I have no problem with the correct answer (A), but I am confused about what makes (C) incorrect.



PS. Sorry in advance if I am not supposed to discuss other question in this thread. I could continue this discussion in that thread if that is preferred. I have checked all the posts in that thread but I am still unclear about the reasons to eliminate (C).

Hello, GraceSCKao. It looks as though I am a little late to the party, and I am satisfied with the response that IanStewart provided to your earlier post, so I will restrict my observations to your follow-up queries.


The only thing that looks somewhat out of place in the above sentence is certainly, even if the adverb is not incorrect. Consider a barebones version:

Limiting investments to the U.S. stock market, although home to some [great] stocks, restricted their gains.

This reduced clause acts as a parenthetical, an aside that provides a personal view on the U.S. stock market, and just about anything can be present in a parenthetical. I would not expect the GMAT™ to blur the line between what was acceptable in written English and what a proper English sentence would say in this context. To be more conservative, the sentence would probably introduce a subject (in the form of a pronoun) and verb within the parenthetical, just as you see in the OA above. And this is the reason, I think, behind the Expert advice not to tinker too much with official SC questions: GMAC™ will always give you an out and will limit the pool of considerations. These questions are designed to be answered quickly if you know the fundamentals, so although, certainly as in this sentence should stand out as questionable, at the very least, almost as soon as you lay eyes on it. I find the comma curious as well. Notice that the two answer choices with which at the head, (B) and (D), could create a logical bridge within the sentence by removing the information between the double commas—which restricted their gains—something that does not work with although—although restricted their gains. Thought exercises, without boundaries, can get more nuanced than anything that will realistically be tested.


Even if we accept that the reduced clause is functional in the above sentence, it should still be placed closer to the subject for clarity, as in the following spinoff sentence. (I will add a word or two in bold for the sake of clarity.)

Sunspots, although never sighted on... are vortices of gas... and are visible as dark spots...

You may have seen my recent response in the As _____ As comparison thread I started on your behalf, in which I urged another member not to seek validation on the correctness of five spinoff iterations of the same line. The advice should sound familiar by now.


It is not as though some useful discussion could not spring from such a query, and I enjoy writing about language usage, but in the simple approach to SC that I advocate, exploring all possible angles is an inefficient use of your mental reserves. To draw on another comparison, you do not need to study calculus to do arithmetic. You could probably gain more from learning to quiet the voice of doubt that crops up in your mind.

- Andrew

This is a tricky one! Choice D is very close to being correct, in my opinion — however, it slightly changes the intended meaning of the sentence.

Why? It's not the U.S. stock market itself which was restricting their gains. Rather, it was the traders' policy of limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market only.

Consider these two sentences:

“Many amateur investors in the United States have set out to become cryptocurrency investors, convinced that limiting their investments to traditional forms, which, though certainly more reliable, restricted their gains.”

vs.

“Many amateur investors in the United States have set out to become cryptocurrency investors, convinced that limiting their investments to traditional forms, even though they are more reliable, restricted their gains.”

If you don’t state the verb in the modifying clause of the first sentence, then the modifying pronoun "which" makes it seem as if the verb "restricted" modifies the word “forms” instead of the word “limiting,” which is the intended and logical meaning.

Hope that helps.

If the first modifier (non-underlined portion) is in commas, doesnt that mean that it is an unnecessary modifier and that we can remove it from the sentence ? If so, what does "it" refer to ?

Hello bhavyasetia,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, in this sentence every modifier after the main clause "Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global investors" is a non-essential phrase, so the use of "it" is not an issue: if all non-essential information were to be removed from the sentence, "it" would be removed as well.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Help Needed GMATNinja AndrewN Please ....

This question is driving me nuts and I think it is partly my knowledge gap with modifiers. Thus, I have several confusions –

Q#1. What’s the structure of this sentence? Is this – IC, Modifier, Modifier, Modifier? I am just confused with so many back to back modifiers.

Q#2. When we have sentence between two commas they are non-essentials, does that mean the middle two modifiers are non-essentials? Can we take both out at the same time or just have to take one out at a time to test out, But this does not make sense either If I take out the past participle modifier –

Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global investors, convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market, even though it is certainly home to the stocks of some of the world's great corporations, restricted their gains.

Q#3. I guess my question is – “HOW DO I KNOW WHICH PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION TO TAKE OFF AND TEST THE MEANING” ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE’S [S1, S2, S3, S4] and 2 sentences are b/w the commas?

Q#4. For past participle phrase at the end of the sentence, It modifier the “Noun Immediately before the participle”. So, will “restricted their gains” modifies “Global Investors”, cause it is the nearest noun?

Also, does the past participle “convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market” modifies “global investors”?

Q#5. For choice D, I am just confused with the THAT clause, why does it needs its own verb?

Q#6. OG Explanation Says, option E is wrong because "restricted" do not have a subject. I originally thought "restricted their gains" is acting as a participle modifier and modifying the subject preceding, isn't that the case?

IN2MBB2PE Let me see if I can answer some of your questions.

1) The initial sentence core ends at the first comma. The "convinced that" part is technically an adverbial modifier that provides context for the main clause. However, the modifier itself contains a clause. So the basic structure is "Clause, mod (clause)": Traders have set out, convinced that limiting their investments restricted their gains.

In the second clause, "limiting" is the subject and "restricted" is the verb.

2) This kind of reasoning is a mistake. Just as in the physical world, "between" is all about your perspective. Commas are too common an occurrence for us to have consistent rules about what "between commas" means. For instance, what about this? "Impressed by her skills, the committee offered her the position, much to her delight." The part in the middle is the core of the sentence. It's not a modifier just because it happens to appear between commas.

3) We could write whole books about this, but my best advice is to start from the beginning. Identify the initial subject. Strip out text that seems to be modifying the subject or the action. Here's my process on this one in real time:

Many stock traders - this is the first noun I see, and it's right at the beginning, so it's the subject

in the United States - prepositional phrase modifying the subject

have set out - this is a verb phrase, and it's not within a modifier, so it's the main verb that goes with the subject. My core is "(Many stock) traders have set out."

to become global investors - after a verb, an infinitive ("to become") modifies the verb, showing purpose. What have traders set out to do? They've set out to become global investors.

,convinced - this *looks* like a past tense verb, but a) I'm not expecting a verb, since I already had one and haven't seen a conjunction (and/but), and b) the previous verb was in a different tense (past perfect), and c) it follows a comma. So this is a modifier for the previous action. It is VERY common for past participles like this to serve as modifiers rather than verbs.

that - After verbs and modifiers, THAT typically serves to introduce a new clause. If it were after a noun, it would make a noun modifier (e.g. "the soup that I ordered"), but here's it's telling us WHAT traders were convinced about that made them want to become global investors.

limiting their investments - "ing" words can have many uses, but since I'm starting a new clause, this must be the subject.

to the U.S. stock market - another infinitive used as a modifier. This just tells us what the investments were limited to.

, even though it is certainly home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, - I am still waiting for the verb for the subject "limiting." Since this is set off with a comma, I know the main verb won't be in here/. This is a modifier, even though it contains yet ANOTHER clause ("It is home."). I can read right past this for now.

restricted - Finally, the verb for "limiting." Okay, so limiting their investments restricted something.

their gains. - this is the object for the verb "restricted." Limiting investments restricted their [investors'] gains.

4) From the above, you can see that "restricted" is a verb, not a modifier. Again, there is no rule such as "noun + comma + past participle means the participle is a modifier." The noun in question is part of a modifier that interrupts the clause, so we are just picking back up and finally getting our verb. If you are reading correctly for the core, you will be WAITING for a verb, since we are in the middle of a clause in which only the subject has been seen.

5) The "which" in D is bad to begin with. But D is also adding yet ANOTHER complication. Again, the clause we're in the middle of is "Limiting . . . restricted their gains." Now, in the middle of that clause, we're sticking a modifier to the back of "stock market" that says "which, though . . . " This sets up a contrast WITHIN the modifier. For instance, I might interrupt the simple clause "Ramen is my favorite food" with a modifier: "Ramen, which, while made from relatively common ingredients, is difficult to prepare well, is my favorite food." This does not make for a very clear or well-written sentence, but at least the contrast started with "while" is complete. We cannot use WHILE inside the modifier to contrast with the main verb, because then we are nesting the clause inside the modifier of that clause. This way lies madness!

6) Hopefully by this point, the role of "restricted" is clear. Like D, E sets up a contrast that requires more structure than we are given.

I hope this helps. This was a lot, so let me know if I can clarify anything.

Wow ... what a phenomenal explanation .. I truly appreciated you taking the time DmitryFarber .... Taking Grammar rules literal is a problem for GMAT, I have to be flexible while trying to understand their intended use within the context I guess and try to keep things simple .... thanks again!

egmat

Thank you for your helpful explanation. What is the difference between "although" and "though"? I see "though" used in an answer choice here and was curious. Thanks again.

Hey woohoo921

You're welcome! Happy to be of help.

As conjunctions, the expressions "although", "even though", and "though" pretty much mean the same thing: "despite the fact that".
For example:

1. Although the sun was shining, it wasn't very warm.
2. Though the sun was shining, it wasn't very warm.
3. Even though the sun was shining, it wasn't very warm.

That said, "though" has an adverbial meaning as well. It is used especially at the end of a sentence or clause to add a fact or an opinion that makes the previous sentence less strong or less important. For example:

1. Our team lost. It was a good game though.
2. ‘Has she ever been to London?’ ‘No. She'd like to, though.’

So, the difference in meaning between these expressions does not play a role in determining the right answer to this official question. It's only the usage.

I hope this helps.


Happy Learning!
Abhishek

Hello,

I thought that the words highlighted below were redundant, that's why I didn't choose the correct answer. Could anybody explain whether it is relevant or not those two words?

"Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global investors, convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market, even though IT IS certainly home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains." I need to be not so closed.

Thanks in advance

Cristhian

Hello Crismore,

We hope this finds you well.

What you need to keep in mind is that redundancy and other stylistic elements are the least important factors in eliminating SC answer choices; one should only consider them when deciding between two otherwise entirely error-free options.

In this case, the only other error-free option is C, which is clearly less concise than A.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Many stock traders in the united states have set out to become global investors . but why they decided to become a global Investor? Because they are convinced that limiting their investments to the US market restricted their gains Am I wrong or right? can anybody GMAT wizards correct my understanding if I was wrong?

S1ny1s

That's right--the "convinced" portion is an adverbial modifier that provides context for why the investors took this action.