Dear intheend14,
I'm happy to respond. This is a very subtle issue. It depends very much on context. It's perfectly correct if the "with" expresses the ordinary uses of "with" --- accompaniment, means, or manner:
accompaniment: I went to town with my friend writing a book.
mean: He dug the first scoop of earth with a spade once used by 19th century railroad workers.
manner: He strut into the room with a gait simply broadcasting his confidence across the room..
Those constructions are not problematic.

The problem occurs when a writer replaces a valid subordinate clause structure with this "with" structure.

Since the shipment from Uzbekistan was late, the salesman was unable to close the deal. = correct
With the shipment from Uzbekistan being late, the salesman was unable to close the deal. = atrociously incorrect

Since our infantry has overrun most of the city, aerial attacks would not be effective at this time. = correct
With our infantry having overrun most of the city, aerial attacks would not be effective at this time = atrociously incorrect

Does this distinction make sense?
Mike
_________________

Official Explanation Magoosh:

Split #1: the placement of "only". What do we wish to show is limited? The most natural phrasing is "was the only other": what is limited is the fact that, after the first, there's only one more. The phrase "only was the other" is awkward, as if the thing that needs to be qualified as limited is the verb, not the other. The answer choices that have "only" before some form of the verb, choices (A) & (C) & (D), are awkward.

Split #2: the "with" + [participle] mistake. The GMAT does not like expressing an action by following the word "with" with a participial phrase. That's too much action inside a preposition: if you want to talk about that much action, construct another [noun] + [verb] clause! The choices that include "with" + "being", choice (A) & (B), are awkward, and never would be correct on the GMAT.

Split #3: common words in parallel. All the common words can be omitted, even the verb. Even just the words "Electroweak in 1961 the only other" are enough to constitute the clause in the second branch, because the verb is implied by the first branch. Thus, (E) is the most concise, and it is perfectly correct.

The only possible answer is (E).
_________________

Hi Mike,

In the above we can clearly rule out A,B and C. In option D, If the sentence was " and Electroweak in 1961 being the other, as " could we pick D then over E as " being" is continuous verb form of "to be" indicating that it is still true.

Normally I don't select ans choice with being but it does make sense here. Please correct me if I am wrong

In OG, do we have Questions with this kind of structure.

Thanks
_________________

Dear Wounded Tiger,
I'm happy to respond.

You're correct that while "being" is usually not correct, it can appear in some correct answers. There are a couple problems with (D) though.

Problem #1 is that we have the form
[noun][verb]"and"[noun][participle]
That structure is wrong 100% of the time on the GMAT. Without the word "and", it could be correct ----
Maxwell’s theory of Electromagnetism in 1865 was the first “unified field theory”, Electroweak in 1961 being the only other, ...
although even there, the word "being" is not necessary. That would be an absolute phrase: see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/absolute-p ... -the-gmat/
Once we stick the "and" in, though, the structure becomes incorrect, a violation of parallelism. We can't put an independent clause in parallel with an absolute phrase.

Problem #2: consider this split:
(1) Electromagnetism in 1865 was the first, Electroweak in 1961 being the only other, ...
(2) Electromagnetism in 1865 was the first, Electroweak in 1961 only being the other, ...
The first correctly place the word "only" to indicate what is limited is that there aren't any more of these theories --- besides the first, there was just one more. The second awkwardly misplaces the word "only" --- by putting it in front of the participle "being", it seems to imply that there should be another action, another participle, more exalted or more powerful than "being." That's crazy --- that's not what the sentence is trying to say! The word "only" is suppose to indicate that there are just two of this kind of theory, so it properly belongs before the word "other."

Those are the two lethal problems with (D). This is why (E) is the best answer. Does this make sense?

Mike
_________________

Mike, a quick query for you. I read through your linked post on Magoosh about Dropping Common Words in Parallel on the GMAT. I understood all the explanations except this one.

As I read it, if you have "with + noun/phrase + participial phrase," this is incorrect on the GMAT. You should have a regular noun + verb phrase instead? Can you please clarify if I have misunderstood.

Hi Mike

Thanks for your post!!

Can you help me with the following GMAT Prep Problem( with regard to the use of with)-



OA is B;

Please clarify what is the use of with in choice B-one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating and

Is with being used to convey accompaniment or manner.?

Also as I understand,the first with that appears in the original sentence means accompaniment.

But what about the use of with in choice B??

Thanks!!
_________________

Hi Mike,

I have two quick questions on this that I'd really appreciate some help on. The first is whether the '..., and ...' is being used to connect two Independent Clauses. Is option E the equivalent of "and Electroweak in 1961 [was] the only other ["unified field theory"], as" with the bracketed portions omitted due to parallelism?

My second question is about the "because"/"as" split. I was under the impression that "because" is used to modify clauses, as it does in answers A, B, and C. Is this split an opportunity for eliminating answer choices? If so, would you mind explaining why?

Thanks

Dear andersonr95,

I'm happy to respond.

I don't know whether you read the linked article, but if you had, you would see that your "reconstructed" version of (E) is perfectly correct.

In this context, "because" and "as" are almost completely synonymous. Both are subordinating conjunctions that begin verb-modifying clauses that explain the cause of something or reason for something. They are essentially interchangeable here, so this does not constitute a split of any kind. This is a "false split": the GMAT loves to pepper SC questions with these.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Hi mike,
As per my understanding, the word "and" when used as subordinate conjunction joining two distinct ideas we use a "," and These two joined clauses must have a valid S-V pair. but, In E i observe that there is no proper verb. Can you please explain me this construction and correct my understanding of concept by throwing some light on it.
daagh Sir, please help me out here.

hey mike,
I selected E as an option but why is C wrong ?

Dear Nightmare007,

I'm happy to respond.

First of all, the word "and" is NOT a subordinate conjunction, one that introduces a dependent clause. Instead, "and" is a "coordinating conjunction," joining two items of equal grammatical categories.

Also, I am going to point out that the very point of the question, and what you failed to understand about (E), is explained in the blog linked at the top of this page. Read that blog carefully, and let me know if you have any further questions after doing so.

Does all this make sense?

Dear saarthak299,

I'm happy to respond.

The word "only" has an odd placement in (C). The phrasing "was the only other" is 100% correct. The phrasing "only was the other" is terribly awkward and odd sounding. In general, the word "only" direct precedes the word it limits. When it comes before "other," it correct signifies that there was not more than one other. When it comes before "was," though, it is puzzling: it seems as if the verb "was," a form of the verb "to be," was too limiting as an action, as if we were expecting something more than the act of being (?). Because what it would imply is so contorted and bizarre, this phrasing sounds awkward and off. That's what's wrong with (C).

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Maxwell’s theory of Electromagnetism in 1865 was the first “unified field theory”, with Electroweak in 1961 only being the other, because no further theory has united the electroweak field with either the Strong (Hadronic) force or Gravity.

A. with Electroweak in 1961 only being the other, because
B. with Electroweak in 1961 being the only other, because
C. and Electroweak in 1961 only was the other, because
D. and Electroweak in 1961 only being the other, as
E. and Electroweak in 1961 the only other, as
_________________

Maxwell’s theory of Electromagnetism in 1865 was the first “unified field theory”, with Electroweak in 1961 only being the other, because no further theory has united the electroweak field with either the Strong (Hadronic) force or Gravity.

-->shouldn't the "comma (,)" be included in the underlined section??

Hey naveens222 ,

No, if we remove the comma before "and", we may have to remove the comma after "the only other" as well. Since we are using a comma after "the only other", the comma before "and" is required.

You need to understand the construction of the sentence properly.

Maxwell’s theory of Electromagnetism in 1865 was the first “unified field theory”, and Electroweak in 1961 the only other, as no further theory has united the electroweak field with either the Strong (Hadronic) force or Gravity.

The purpose of using two comma and the information "and Electroweak in 1961 the only other" between them IS to emphasis the fact that "and Electroweak in 1961 the only other" is the extra information that has been used to explain the sentence.

If we remove this information, our sentence MUST still make sense as shown below. Our emphasis is on telling the fact that his theory was the first as we don'thave any other theory before his theory. The extra information is just adding information that we have one more after his theory.

Maxwell’s theory of Electromagnetism in 1865 was the first “unified field theory” as no further theory has united the electroweak field with either the Strong (Hadronic) force or Gravity.

Does that make sense?
_________________

daagh sir, please help on this. I am unable to eliminate choices based on what GMAT likes or dislikes. I'd rather stick to resolving it grammatically

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________