Of the thirteen samples of skin cells, only two, having intact cell wa

I am really confuse about option A,

The usage is somewhat uncommon, but i think "having...." is modifying skin cells and the correct usage.

I opted for A Because other options are not correct..
Waiting for the OA

Posted from my mobile device

I went with B, but it was a tough call between A and B.

In A, I felt it is not adequately clear what the +ing modifier refers to. It could refer to the entire set of thirteen samples in a confusing way. This could change the intended meaning.

But in B, there is no question of that as which only refers to the immediately preceding noun, that is "two" of the samples.

Posted from my mobile device

In A it having intact cells is modifying the complete set as only two is inside comma pair.

In B which is precisely modifying only two of the complete set.

So B should be the answer

Posted from my mobile device

A. Of the thirteen samples of skin cells, only two, having intact cell walls, : HAVING IS MOSTLY USED TO SIGNIFY TWO SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS
B. Of the thirteen samples of skin cells, only two, which had intact cell walls,: CORRECT
C. Only two of the thirteen samples of skin cells, with cell walls that were intact: 'THAT WERE INTACT' IS WORDY + MISPLACED MODIFIER 'WITH CELL...'
D. Only two of the thirteen samples of skin cells, which has intact cell walls: 'WHICH..' MISPLACED MODIFIER
E. Only two of the thirteen samples of skin cells, being that their cell walls are intact : AWKWARD CONSTRUCTION 'BEING THAT...'

Hi daagh

Couldn't understand your reasoning for option A being wrong. Would appreciate if you could elaborate.

I see "having intact cell walls" in option A as being in a comma pair, thereby modifying "only two".

But I still rejected this option since "could be used" helps us understand that the modify needs to be in past tense

Please correct me if my understanding not correct.

Posted from my mobile device

Akshay
It looks as though you are implying that 'having' is used in the present tense. Pl. remember that participles both present and past have no finite verb tense. "Having" though technically called a present participle can very well be used for past situations because the tense of the clause is always decided by the main verb i.e. 'could be' and not by the participle.
Of the thirteen samples of skin cells, only two, having intact cell walls, could be used
IMO, the clause with the subject ‘only two”, if not essentially followed by the modifying phrase ”having ..." lacks the desired meaning. As a parenthetical element, it is vulnerable to be discarded. That is the reason, A is flawed.

In (B), isn't "which" in modifying two"?

I am not able to decide why option A is wrong since
"having..." placed between comma pair modifies noun before it i.e "only two"
In option B usage of past perfect tense "had " doesn't make sense to me.
If had is not used as past perfect but simple past . how did we decide which is used here.?

The problem in A is not what the parenthetical element modifies. It does certainly modify ‘only two’. But the modifier portion is an inseparable and critical factor of ‘only two’. Putting the modifier within a pair of commas makes it inessential, as though one can drop it and still draw the original meaning. That notion is wrong. If you want to make it an essential modifier, you should not set it off with commas.

Point 2: Had is not a (V3) past participle here. It is a simple past tense (V2) verb meaning ‘possessed or owned’.
If it is used as a past perfect, then the ‘had’ part will be the auxiliary verb and there should be another main verb along with that. For example, He had indicated that he would leave the company due to poor health.

The word 'had' is not used alone as a participle. But one can say ‘had had’ and you may notice that the first 'had' is used as an auxiliary verb and another ‘had' is used as the main verb.

This point of grammar is often used at higher level GMAT questions.

@e-gmat
Please help me with this question.
Noun, verb-ing modifier, verb structure of sentence should be correct according to egmat study files. “Having...” is indeed modifying only two. Why is it wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

OE:

The underlined portion of the sentence contains the present tense verb having, so check that this verb matches the construction and intended meaning of the other verbs in the sentence. The verb having is not parallel to the past tense verb used in the non-underlined portion of the sentence, so eliminate choice A for a parallel construction error. Because no answer choice is constructed in the same way, there are no obvious repeaters. Now, evaluate the remaining answer choices individually, looking for reasons to eliminate each.

Choice B fixes the original parallel construction error by using the past tense verb had, which is parallel to the past tense verb used, and introduces no new errors, so keep choice B. Choice C moves the modifying phrase only two before the phrase of the thirteen samples of skin cells, which makes it unclear whether the two or the thirteen samples had cell walls that were intact, so eliminate choice C for a misplaced modifier error. Choice D also moves the modifying phrase only two before the phrase of the thirteen samples of skin cells, which makes it unclear whether the two or the thirteen samples had cell walls that were intact, and uses the present tense verb has, which is not parallel to the past tense verb used. Eliminate choice D for misplaced modifier and parallel construction errors. Choice E moves the modifying phrase only two before the phrase of the thirteen samples of skin cells, which makes it unclear whether the two or the thirteen samples had cell walls that were intact, and uses the present tense verb being that is not parallel to the past tense verb used. Eliminate choice E for misplaced modifier and parallel construction errors.

Alternatively, if it is difficult to spot which grammar rule the sentence is testing, another strategy is to try to identify an error from the answer by looking for either a 2/3 split or differences among the answers. Since three answer choices begin with the introductory phrase only two of the thirteen samples of skin cells and the others begin with the phrase of the thirteen samples of skin cells, this difference is an indication to look for a misplaced modifier error.

Choice A: No. The verb having is not parallel to the verb used. Parallel construction.

Choice B: Correct.

Choice C: No. The placement of the phrase only two of the thirteen samples of skin cells makes it unclear whether the two or the thirteen samples had cell walls that were intact. Misplaced modifier.

Choice D: No. The verb has is not parallel to the verb used and the placement of the phrase only two of the thirteen samples of skin cells makes it unclear whether the two or the thirteen samples had cell walls that were intact. Parallel construction; Misplaced modifier.

Choice E: No. The verb being is not parallel to the verb used and the placement of the phrase only two of the thirteen samples of skin cells makes it unclear whether the two or the thirteen samples had cell walls that were intact. Parallel construction; Misplaced modifier.

The correct answer is choice B.

Responding to a PM:

The main debate here is between (A) and (B), so I will address the split between these 2.

In both (A) and (B), the modifiers are non-essential modifiers referring to "only two (of the thirteen samples of skin cells)". However, the tense in the non-underlined portion of the sentence is simple past, "could be used". And while "could" could theoretically be used in the present tense to indicate a hypothetical, the more logical meaning and/or interpretation of this sentence is that the sentence is reporting [on] some event (analysis) performed by the team of researchers sometime in the past, as a result of which the (what would have been a) "can" in direct speech changes to "could" in indirect/reported speech. Hence, there should be concord with regard to the tense of the non-essential modifier as well. Option (B), by using a simple past tense in "had", accurately conveys this idea.

If, however, the non-underlined portion of the sentence were describing an event in the present day, then a present participle "having", as in Option (A), would have been preferable, as it makes it look as though the two cells are currently having intact cell walls. And while it is true that the present participle, in and of itself, does not indicate the tense as a finite verb does, in this case, the most logical interpretation is that "having" refers to the idea of the cells' possessing or owning something in the present day. Hence this is incorrect and can be eliminated.

The other options are fairly easy to eliminate -- among other things, option (C) should have a comma after "were intact" to ensure that there is an independent verb for the subject "Only two"; option (D) has a missing comma after the non-essential modifier, plus the "has" is incorrect as well (since "skin cells" are plural); and option (E) replicates the missing comma error in addition to, in this context, a hugely avoidable, awkward "being".

Therefore, for all the above-mentioned reasons, Option (B) is our best choice.

I would answer that if I remove the commas between the modifying phrase ' having ' ,then the orginal sentence is true? Please help me! .More , I am a new learner of English, so i am not sure what I am writing is correctly grammartical, if wrong, give me your advices.Last,send my best words to you all.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi daagh,

Could the same not be said about point B as well since "which had ...", the modifier is placed in-between commas.

I discarded B for the same reason, thinking that the modifier is being treated as a non-vital one, when in reality it is not. Also, I read somewhere that 'which' makes the modifier non-vital and 'that' is used for vital modifiers. Could you tell me if this understanding is correct?


Regards,
Shourya