Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 08:53 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 08:53
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4 
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 15 Apr 2023, 20:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Crismore

I'm not sure what you mean by "redundant" in this context. Can you explain? Generally, using more words is not a problem unless they actually create an error in grammar or meaning. That's also why we don't just want to pick A because it is "more concise." Concision isn't necessarily the deciding factor we want to use. In this case, C is actively wrong. The simplest reason for that is that "despite that" is not the correct idiom.
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
 [1]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
 [1]
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 16 Apr 2023, 00:46
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
S1ny1s
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?
Show more

Hello S1ny1s,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, yes; your reasoning is correct; "convinced" serves as a modifier that provides context for the actions of the investors by describing their state of mind.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
Keshav1404
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2022
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 64
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 44
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V32
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V32
Posts: 64
Kudos: 18
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 08 Jun 2023, 01:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DmitryFarber
S1ny1s

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

Hi Experts DmitryFarber KarishmaB

Is below mentioned modifier is an absolute phrase/modifier?

"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."

Or I am making any mistake while ascertaining the sentence structure?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 08 Jun 2023, 06:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Keshav1404
DmitryFarber
S1ny1s

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

Hi Experts DmitryFarber KarishmaB

Is below mentioned modifier is an absolute phrase/modifier?

"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."

Or I am making any mistake while ascertaining the sentence structure?
Show more

It is a past participle modifier modifying 'many stock traders,' the subject of the previous clause.
'convince' is a verb and we have used its past participle form here, 'convinced.' It is acting as a modifier.
User avatar
Keshav1404
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2022
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 64
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 44
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V32
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V32
Posts: 64
Kudos: 18
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 08 Jun 2023, 06:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
Keshav1404
DmitryFarber
S1ny1s

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

Hi Experts DmitryFarber KarishmaB

Is below mentioned modifier is an absolute phrase/modifier?

"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."

Or I am making any mistake while ascertaining the sentence structure?

It is a past participle modifier modifying 'many stock traders,' the subject of the previous clause.
'convince' is a verb and we have used its past participle form here, 'convinced.' It is acting as a modifier.
Show more


Isn't it like that, when the past participle is modifying the subject of the main clause. The modifier should be in the beginning of the main clause?
KarishmaB
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 08 Jun 2023, 06:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Keshav1404

Isn't it like that, when the past participle is modifying the subject of the main clause. The modifier should be in the beginning of the main clause?
KarishmaB
Show more

Mostly, yes! But it does appear at the end too.
User avatar
heilaryan
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2022
Last visit: 11 Mar 2024
Posts: 7
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 7
Kudos: 0
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 19 Jul 2023, 11:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow it down to the correct answer quickly! To begin, let's take a quick scan over the options, highlighting any major differences between the options in orange:

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.

A. even though it is certainly
B. which, while it is certainly
C. despite that that market is certainly
D. which, though certainly
E. although, certainly as

After a quick scan over the options and the original sentence, it looks like we're dealing with MODIFIERS. The best way to tackle modifiers is to plug each option into the sentence and check for a few things:

1. Are the modifiers clearly referring to the right antecedents?
2. Are there any unclear or vague pronouns?
3. Does the sentence still work with the modifier taken out?

Let's take a look at each option with the underlined portion plugged in and eliminate any that don't work:

A. 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.

This is CORRECT! There aren't any issues with how this modifier is worded, and it's clear that the pronoun "it" is referring to the United States stock market.

B. 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, which, while it is certainly home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains.

If we read what's left over, it doesn't really work. Parenthetical statements - statements wedged between commas - are considered non-essential clauses, which means they can be removed from the sentence without changing meaning or creating grammatical errors. If we take out the modifier here and leave the "which," it sounds like the clause was cut off mid-thought. Therefore, we can eliminate this option because the word "which" chops in half the modifier "convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market restricted their gains."

C. 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, despite that that market is certainly home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains.

This is INCORRECT because the construction is confusing and overly wordy. The modifier and the phrase after it ("restricted their gains") both sound like verb phrases, which is confusing. It should be clear to readers that "limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market" is how they restricted their gains, NOT that the market has some of the world's biggest corporations. The way this is worded makes it hard to follow what the writer is trying to say.

D. 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, which, though certainly home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains.

This option has the same problem as option B - it chops up the modifier into two parts, instead of leaving it as one statement when you remove the parenthetical phrase.

E. 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, although, certainly as home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains.

Again, this option splits the modifier into two parts, which doesn't work.


There you have it - option A was the correct choice all along! It's the only one that uses clear wording and correct modifiers to convey meaning.


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
Show more


EMPOWERgmatVerbal

can you please clarify a doubt I had regarding the original sentence -> 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.

The part in italics is a verb-ed modifier so what is it modifying here and how is it that it is not modifying "global investors" (modifying this does not seem logically correct anyway).


Thanks
Abhishek
User avatar
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
User avatar
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Last visit: 17 Feb 2025
Posts: 1,694
Own Kudos:
15,175
 [1]
Given Kudos: 766
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,694
Kudos: 15,175
 [1]
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 20 Jul 2023, 10:48
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
heilaryan
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow it down to the correct answer quickly! To begin, let's take a quick scan over the options, highlighting any major differences between the options in orange:

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.

A. even though it is certainly
B. which, while it is certainly
C. despite that that market is certainly
D. which, though certainly
E. although, certainly as

After a quick scan over the options and the original sentence, it looks like we're dealing with MODIFIERS. The best way to tackle modifiers is to plug each option into the sentence and check for a few things:

1. Are the modifiers clearly referring to the right antecedents?
2. Are there any unclear or vague pronouns?
3. Does the sentence still work with the modifier taken out?

Let's take a look at each option with the underlined portion plugged in and eliminate any that don't work:

A. 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.

This is CORRECT! There aren't any issues with how this modifier is worded, and it's clear that the pronoun "it" is referring to the United States stock market.

B. 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, which, while it is certainly home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains.

If we read what's left over, it doesn't really work. Parenthetical statements - statements wedged between commas - are considered non-essential clauses, which means they can be removed from the sentence without changing meaning or creating grammatical errors. If we take out the modifier here and leave the "which," it sounds like the clause was cut off mid-thought. Therefore, we can eliminate this option because the word "which" chops in half the modifier "convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market restricted their gains."

C. 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, despite that that market is certainly home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains.

This is INCORRECT because the construction is confusing and overly wordy. The modifier and the phrase after it ("restricted their gains") both sound like verb phrases, which is confusing. It should be clear to readers that "limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market" is how they restricted their gains, NOT that the market has some of the world's biggest corporations. The way this is worded makes it hard to follow what the writer is trying to say.

D. 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, which, though certainly home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains.

This option has the same problem as option B - it chops up the modifier into two parts, instead of leaving it as one statement when you remove the parenthetical phrase.

E. 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, although, certainly as home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains.

Again, this option splits the modifier into two parts, which doesn't work.


There you have it - option A was the correct choice all along! It's the only one that uses clear wording and correct modifiers to convey meaning.


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.


EMPOWERgmatVerbal

can you please clarify a doubt I had regarding the original sentence -> 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.

The part in italics is a verb-ed modifier so what is it modifying here and how is it that it is not modifying "global investors" (modifying this does not seem logically correct anyway).


Thanks
Abhishek
Show more

Hi Abhishek,

Great question! The "-ed" modifier in the sentence does indeed appear to modify "global investors," but in fact, it refers to the action in the main clause of the sentence - that is, the traders "setting out" to become global investors. Here's the breakdown:

The "verb-ed" modifier (also known as a past participle modifier) can modify the preceding clause when it conveys the result of the action in the preceding clause. In this case, "convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market...restricted their gains" is giving the result or the reason for why "Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global investors." They are convinced of this fact, and this conviction is what propels them to become global investors.

Let's look at another example to clarify this further:

"Dressed in a pirate costume, John attended the party."

Here, "Dressed in a pirate costume" is the past participle modifier. While it seems to modify "John" (which it does), it also gives additional information about the action, i.e., John attending the party. We understand that John was dressed in a pirate costume at the time he attended the party, hence giving more context to the action.

So, in the original sentence, the traders are "setting out to become global investors," with the additional context being that they are "convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market...restricted their gains."
User avatar
heilaryan
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2022
Last visit: 11 Mar 2024
Posts: 7
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 7
Kudos: 0
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 20 Jul 2023, 11:20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
heilaryan
EMPOWERgmatVerbal


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.



EMPOWERgmatVerbal

can you please clarify a doubt I had regarding the original sentence -> 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.

The part in italics is a verb-ed modifier so what is it modifying here and how is it that it is not modifying "global investors" (modifying this does not seem logically correct anyway).


Thanks
Abhishek

Hi Abhishek,

Great question! The "-ed" modifier in the sentence does indeed appear to modify "global investors," but in fact, it refers to the action in the main clause of the sentence - that is, the traders "setting out" to become global investors. Here's the breakdown:

The "verb-ed" modifier (also known as a past participle modifier) can modify the preceding clause when it conveys the result of the action in the preceding clause. In this case, "convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market...restricted their gains" is giving the result or the reason for why "Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global investors." They are convinced of this fact, and this conviction is what propels them to become global investors.

Let's look at another example to clarify this further:

"Dressed in a pirate costume, John attended the party."

Here, "Dressed in a pirate costume" is the past participle modifier. While it seems to modify "John" (which it does), it also gives additional information about the action, i.e., John attending the party. We understand that John was dressed in a pirate costume at the time he attended the party, hence giving more context to the action.

So, in the original sentence, the traders are "setting out to become global investors," with the additional context being that they are "convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market...restricted their gains."
Show more


Hi EMPOWERgmatVerbal

Thank you for your reply. can you please help me with one counter example that I am sharing below so that I guess this doubt is forever done for. :)


example: Chicken mean can cause serious food poisoning, contaminated with salmonella bacteria.

This sentence does seems a bit weird and seems incorrect too however I have two different arguments for this sentence based on your previous reply.

1. If we say that the modifier "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" is the outlining the reason why chicken meat can cause food poisoning, then can we also say that this modifier should modify the action/verb "can cause". Given that in the example in the previous post, the modifier "convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market" was giving the reason why many stock traders were setting out to become global investors and hence modifying the verb in that sentence.
In this case it seems like that even though the sentence looks weird, it is still logically and grammatically correct (which I think it is not and I am missing something here).

2. If we say that the modifier is modifying the preceding noun "food poisoning" then obviously it is logically incorrect.


Thanks again :)
User avatar
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
User avatar
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Last visit: 17 Feb 2025
Posts: 1,694
Own Kudos:
15,175
 [1]
Given Kudos: 766
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,694
Kudos: 15,175
 [1]
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 20 Jul 2023, 15:28
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Abhishek


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.


EMPOWERgmatVerbal

can you please clarify a doubt I had regarding the original sentence -> 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.

The part in italics is a verb-ed modifier so what is it modifying here and how is it that it is not modifying "global investors" (modifying this does not seem logically correct anyway).


Thanks


Hi EMPOWERgmatVerbal

Thank you for your reply. can you please help me with one counter example that I am sharing below so that I guess this doubt is forever done for. :)


example: Chicken mean can cause serious food poisoning, contaminated with salmonella bacteria.

This sentence does seems a bit weird and seems incorrect too however I have two different arguments for this sentence based on your previous reply.

1. If we say that the modifier "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" is the outlining the reason why chicken meat can cause food poisoning, then can we also say that this modifier should modify the action/verb "can cause". Given that in the example in the previous post, the modifier "convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market" was giving the reason why many stock traders were setting out to become global investors and hence modifying the verb in that sentence.
In this case it seems like that even though the sentence looks weird, it is still logically and grammatically correct (which I think it is not and I am missing something here).

2. If we say that the modifier is modifying the preceding noun "food poisoning" then obviously it is logically incorrect.


Thanks again :)

Abhishek
Show more

No problem! Let's take a look at your follow up:

Your example sentence: "Chicken meat can cause serious food poisoning, contaminated with salmonella bacteria."

The sentence is awkward and also grammatically incorrect. The reason is that the participle modifier "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" should logically refer to "chicken meat" not "food poisoning". Here, the modifier is misplaced and creates confusion, making the sentence seem like "food poisoning" is "contaminated with salmonella bacteria," which is not the case.

To correct the sentence, the modifier should be placed next to the noun it's modifying:

"Chicken meat, contaminated with salmonella bacteria, can cause serious food poisoning."

In this corrected sentence, the phrase "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" correctly modifies "Chicken meat," making it clear that it's the chicken meat that is contaminated, and this contamination can lead to food poisoning.

Regarding your points:

1. In the corrected sentence, "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" doesn't modify the verb "can cause". Rather, it's giving additional information about the "Chicken meat", explaining why it can cause serious food poisoning.

2. In your original sentence, "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" seemed to modify "food poisoning," but logically it should modify "Chicken meat". It's the misplaced modifier that's causing confusion.

Modifiers should be placed as close as possible to the words they modify to prevent any confusion or misinterpretation.

Let me know if you have any more questions!
User avatar
heilaryan
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2022
Last visit: 11 Mar 2024
Posts: 7
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 7
Kudos: 0
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 21 Jul 2023, 04:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Abhishek


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.


EMPOWERgmatVerbal

can you please clarify a doubt I had regarding the original sentence -> 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.

The part in italics is a verb-ed modifier so what is it modifying here and how is it that it is not modifying "global investors" (modifying this does not seem logically correct anyway).


Thanks


Hi EMPOWERgmatVerbal

Thank you for your reply. can you please help me with one counter example that I am sharing below so that I guess this doubt is forever done for. :)


example: Chicken mean can cause serious food poisoning, contaminated with salmonella bacteria.

This sentence does seems a bit weird and seems incorrect too however I have two different arguments for this sentence based on your previous reply.

1. If we say that the modifier "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" is the outlining the reason why chicken meat can cause food poisoning, then can we also say that this modifier should modify the action/verb "can cause". Given that in the example in the previous post, the modifier "convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market" was giving the reason why many stock traders were setting out to become global investors and hence modifying the verb in that sentence.
In this case it seems like that even though the sentence looks weird, it is still logically and grammatically correct (which I think it is not and I am missing something here).

2. If we say that the modifier is modifying the preceding noun "food poisoning" then obviously it is logically incorrect.


Thanks again :)

Abhishek

No problem! Let's take a look at your follow up:

Your example sentence: "Chicken meat can cause serious food poisoning, contaminated with salmonella bacteria."

The sentence is awkward and also grammatically incorrect. The reason is that the participle modifier "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" should logically refer to "chicken meat" not "food poisoning". Here, the modifier is misplaced and creates confusion, making the sentence seem like "food poisoning" is "contaminated with salmonella bacteria," which is not the case.

To correct the sentence, the modifier should be placed next to the noun it's modifying:

"Chicken meat, contaminated with salmonella bacteria, can cause serious food poisoning."

In this corrected sentence, the phrase "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" correctly modifies "Chicken meat," making it clear that it's the chicken meat that is contaminated, and this contamination can lead to food poisoning.

Regarding your points:

1. In the corrected sentence, "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" doesn't modify the verb "can cause". Rather, it's giving additional information about the "Chicken meat", explaining why it can cause serious food poisoning.

2. In your original sentence, "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" seemed to modify "food poisoning," but logically it should modify "Chicken meat". It's the misplaced modifier that's causing confusion.

Modifiers should be placed as close as possible to the words they modify to prevent any confusion or misinterpretation.

Let me know if you have any more questions!
Show more


Thank you for your explanation.

I now understand that the modifier "contaminated with salmonella bacteria" is describing sort of a property of "chicken meat" and so it is more logical for it to modify the subject (which it can not because of it's placement), whereas in the previous example, the modifier convinced that limiting their investments to the U.S. stock market...." is not describing any such property of "stock traders", rather it is simply outlining the reason why they are setting out to become global investors.

This was bugging me and it feels good have this cleared out. Thanks for helping out :)
User avatar
arry232
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jun 2021
Last visit: 14 Oct 2024
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 7
Location: India
Schools: Booth '24 Columbia CBS '24 Haas '24 Kellogg '24
Schools: Booth '24 Columbia CBS '24 Haas '24 Kellogg '24
Posts: 15
Kudos: 1
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 16 Aug 2023, 15:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
For the -ed/ing modifiers, how do we assess if it modifies an action or a subject? Also, how do we determine the verb in a noun clause. I am really confused in regards to this question.

Other than that can which act as a modifier and can it create a new clause? Here in option C, which does create a relative clause, but isnt which supposed to be a modifier?

Please help GMATNinja
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
 [1]
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 18 Aug 2023, 09:08
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
arry232
For the -ed/ing modifiers, how do we assess if it modifies an action or a subject? Also, how do we determine the verb in a noun clause. I am really confused in regards to this question.

Other than that can which act as a modifier and can it create a new clause? Here in option C, which does create a relative clause, but isnt which supposed to be a modifier?

Please help GMATNinja
Show more
If we temporarily remove the extra modifier between the commas in (B) and (D), the "which" in both of those options boils down to this:

    "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, which restricted their gains."

The phrase starting with "which" seems to modify "stock market", but that doesn't really make sense, as explained in this post.

There's no quick trick for determining what is modified by an "-ed" or "-ing" modifier, unfortunately. For more on that, check out this post.

In this case, the fact that "convinced" is separated from the main clause by a comma seems to indicate that it modifies the entire clause and NOT just the preceding noun ("global investors") -- and that makes perfect sense because the "convinced" part gives us more information about the stock traders who "have set out" to become global investors.

If you're wondering whether "convinced" modifies "stock traders" alone (just the subject) or "stock traders have set out" (the entire clause, including the action taken by the stock traders), then the answer is... does it matter? The stock traders are the ones who have set out to become global investors, and the meaning doesn't change regardless of how we label the modifier.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
mobeen711
User avatar
Joined: 09 Nov 2020
Last visit: 19 Nov 2024
Posts: 11
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 5
Location: Pakistan
Schools: INSEAD Jan'24 intake (WA$) IMD Jan'24 intake (A$$) Ross '25 (A) SDA Bocconi "24 (A$$) Stern Tech '24 (WL)
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V34
GPA: 2.75
Schools: INSEAD Jan'24 intake (WA$) IMD Jan'24 intake (A$$) Ross '25 (A) SDA Bocconi "24 (A$$) Stern Tech '24 (WL)
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V34
Posts: 11
Kudos: 8
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 20 Aug 2023, 16:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja

Can you share the proper use of "Despite" and "Inspite" along with a couple of easy and one or two pretty difficult examples.
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 17 Oct 2023, 14:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
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.

(A) even though it is certainly
(B) which, while it is certainly
(C) despite that that market is certainly
(D) which, though certainly
(E) although, certainly as
Show more
Hello Experts,
Q1: For D and B, WHICH can jump over the preposition. So why we won't consider 'limiting their investments' is a the 'subject' for the verb 'restricted'?

Q2: what is the difference between A and C?
User avatar
Kratosgmat
User avatar
Joined: 26 Sep 2022
Last visit: 07 Mar 2025
Posts: 91
Own Kudos:
13
Given Kudos: 44
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Other
GRE 1: Q164 V158
GRE 2: Q170 V163
GRE 1: Q164 V158
GRE 2: Q170 V163
Posts: 91
Kudos: 13
Many stock traders in the United States have set out to become global 17 Oct 2023, 21:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
this is a verb missing in relative clause issue
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, which, though certainly home to the stocks of some of the world’s great corporations, restricted their gains.

In this choice, there is no verb for the subject "which" that starts a new clause as restricted is the verb for the subject "limiting their investments."
   1   2   3   4 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts