As discussed in our previous article named “Noun + Noun Modifiers: The most “versatile” modifiers” (modification-by-noun-noun-modifiers-137292.html#p1112971), these modifiers can modify the preceding noun, a noun in the middle of the sentence, or the entire preceding clause. They share a commonality with Verb-ing modifiers preceded by a comma in that both these modifiers modify the preceding clause. They also act like Verb-ed modifiers when they modify the preceding noun.

Despite these similarities, Noun + Noun Modifiers remain distinct from Verb-ing and Verb-ed modifiers in their function and structure both. Let’s delve into these dissimilarities between Noun + Noun Modifiers and other modifiers.
So now we know that there are two modifiers that can refer to entire preceding clause:
1. Noun + Noun Modifiers
2. Verb-ing modifiers preceded by a comma.



Even though these modifiers perform similar job of modifying the preceding clause, they are quite different in the way they perform their jobs.
The difference between these two kinds of modifiers is that when the verb-ing modifier preceded by a comma modifies the preceding clause, it presents either additional information or the result of the preceding clause by associating itself with the subject and the verb of the preceding clause. The verb-ing modifier preceded by a comma has to modify the subject and the verb together.

However, the noun + noun modifier has no such restriction. It can simply modify just about any aspect of the preceding clause, without being restricted to modify the subject and the verb. A noun + noun modifier can zoom into any entity in the preceding clause to modify it.
Another thing to notice here is that, when noun + noun modifier modifies the entire preceding clause, then it can present any kind of additional information about the preceding clause. This information can be the result, the reason, the HOW aspect, just about any information about the modified clause.
 

OFFICIAL EXAMPLE: GMAT Prep



So let’s first understand the meaning of the sentence. The sentence says that one automobile manufacturer has announced plans to increase the average fuel efficiency of its SUVs by 25% over the next five years. This increase will amount to roughly five miles per gallon and will represent the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost 20 years.

Now the way this sentence uses the verb-ing modifiers “amounting” and “resulting”, both preceded by comma, these modifiers seems to present the result of the preceding clause “One automobile manufacturer has announced plans…”. Here, both the modifiers are referring to the subject and the verb of the preceding main clause. Logically, this does not make sense because announcement of plans cannot amount to five miles per gallon. The act of mere announcement cannot even represent first significant change. Hence, the use of verb-ing modifiers is incorrect in this sentence.



Now let’s analyze the sentence with correct answer choice D:



In this sentence, verb-ing modifiers “amounting…” and “representing…” have replaced with noun + noun modifiers “an increase that would amount to…” and “(an increase) that would represent…”. Here,

an increase = noun
“that would amount…” and “that would represent…” = noun modifiers (relative pronoun clauses)

By converting the verb-ing modifiers into noun + noun modifier, we are able to rectify the modification error easily because now, unlike the verb-ing modifiers, the noun + noun modifier need not modify the subject and the verb of the preceding clause. It can easily zoon into “increase” to present more information about this aspect of the preceding clause. This is the beauty of such modifiers.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hi Shraddha,

Nice work again, e-Gmat rocks!!

One question regarding the topic, as Verb-ing after comma can represent either additional information or result.
In the above sentence I am still confused why we should not think 'amounting' and 'representing' as additional information instead of result?
_________________

Just Brilliant Sraddaha!!!!

As previous posted I have also doubt regarding Verb-ing working as result.
When Verb-ing is showing the result of previous clause should it also modify the the subject of the previous clause...or if the it is modifying the clause then it should modify the subject.

Is the below sentence correct:

One manufacturer took steps to increase the average fuel efficiency of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over the next five years, resulting roughly five miles per gallon gain.


One manufacturer has announced plans to increase the average fuel efficiency of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over the next five years, amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, and representing the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost two decades
Also i believe that as it is planned not yet done can we say in the above statement V1-ing is the result. I believe it is just modifying the previous clause.
_________________

Hi Shraddha,
Your statement "The difference between these (verb-ing/verb-ed and noun+noun modifiers) is that when the verb-ing modifier preceded by a comma modifies the preceding clause, it presents either additional information or the result of the preceding clause by associating itself with the subject and the verb of the preceding clause. The verb-ing modifier preceded by a comma has to modify the subject and the verb together" - This contradicts what Manhattan GMAT's SC book page 91 says. MGMAT'S SC says that "ing is the most flexible form and can be used to modify the entire preceding clause as long as the entire preceding clause can act as the subject. Use "ing" form when you want to express the result of the preceding clause""

Hi

Not sure if this is the right place to pose my query, but here goes. I have a query regarding prepositional phrase used as modifiers:

Do prepositional phrase modifiers modify the closest noun or the whole clause???

Consider below eg.

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but in attributing criminal or
delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.
Source: OG 12 Q.No. 78
(This is a incorrect choice)

The reason cited in OG says that the modifier "in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy" modifies "perpetrators" which is illogical.

I thought that the modifier was modifying the whole clause.

Am I missing something over here? Do prepositional phrase modifiers modify the closest noun or the whole clause???

Will be thankful if you can give eg.

Thanks,
Soumen

Loads of Thanks Shraddha.

Could not have hoped for a better explanation..

Hello egmat thanks again for such a beautiful article.
But I am getting confused after this in one OG problem
Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else.
A. Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering

E. Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber

Why A is not correct ?? if you can help with that (Magosh you tube solution says "outnumbering incorrectly modify 1886 with which i don't agree)

@sarcastic: Please check the response here

emily-dickinsons-letters-to-susan-huntington-dickinson-were-10142-100.html

-Shraddha
_________________

Hi I have some doubts regarding this question. Outnumbering is wrong but isn't this modifier presenting a result?
And in the example you gave The film, shot in a small town of Guthernberg, exceeded the expectations of the producers, doesn't exceeded modify the closest noun i.e Guthernberg? So how does this make sense? Guthernberg isn't responsible for exceeding the expectations of the producers, rather the film is responsible.
Please help.

Hi eGMAT,
Could you please provide an update on this ? It's pretty long pending!

Would appreciate your feedback.
_________________