Now generally regarded as a forgery, the Kensington Rune Stone, a 90-k

Answering a PM on this one .

I think the best split on this one is between those answer choices that are sentences and those that are fragments. For instance, if we take a look at (C), (D), and (E), none of them are sentences. Notice the clause beginning 'which' makes it so there is no verb that describes the Stone. Hence, (C), (D) and (E) can be eliminated. (B) has the dreaded 'being'. And just like that, we arrive at the correct answer, (A).

How do you identify that in option C said is past participle not past tense?

i chose "C" because i thought "said" and "cited" are past tense.

I am still not able to undertand why "A" is correct and why "C" is wrong?

Read this article to understand the difference between a verb-ed simple past tense and verb-ed modifier:
ed-forms-verbs-or-modifiers-134691.html

If you still have any question, let me know.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hi there,

Read the following article to understand the difference between verd-ed simple past tense and verb-ed modifier:
ed-forms-verbs-or-modifiers-134691.html
















If you still have questions, do ask me.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Choice D is part of the relative clause introduced by the relative pronoun which and a subordinate clause and was is the verb for the same; said and cited are past participles; The verb explored in the last part is the verb for the sub-clause introduced by the conjunction—that-- The main clause with the main subject – the Kensington Rune Stone— is just dangling whiteout a verb; Hence D is a fragment

I can also go to A.
but I have a problem
normaly, past simle tense which means a past action in the past is accompanies by a adverb, a specific time in the past. In A, the oa, there is no such adverb.
this question is not good.

pls, correct me if I am wrong? Thank you.

I am afraid that there is no such stipulation that a verb, ( be it past tense, or present or future, generally or compulsorily) needs to be accompanied or preceded by an adverb. If it is there take it if it is not there, forget it . One cannot call it ungrammatical; For example:

I ate - a simple two - word sentence, but a complete one; no need to know what I ate.
I ate mangoes – a verb followed by an object
I ate the mangoes slowly - a verb followed by an object and an adverb.

We can see all the above sentences are perfectly grammatical sentences.

Now, for the difference between a verb such as present perfect and an infinitive; “have recorded” is no doubt a present perfect but “to have recorded” is not a present perfect verb; it is as infinitive ( because of the addition of the word “to”) and called a verbal

Now generally regarded as a forgery, the Kensington Rune Stone, a 90-kilogram slab of inscribed rock discovered in Minnesota in 1898, was said to have recorded an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362 and thus was cited as evidence that Europeans explored North America in pre-Columbian times.

(A) was said to have recorded an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362 and thus was cited as evidence that Europeans explored

(B) was said to record an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362, thus being cited as evidence for European exploration of

(C) said to have recorded an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362, and thus cited as evidence for European exploration of

(D) which was said to record an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362, and thus cited as evidence that Europeans explored

(E) which, said to have recorded an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362, was thus cited as evidence for Europeans exploring

Source: GMAT Prep Question Pack 1

Mike Mc Garry Sir,

This is one of a difficult question of its type and has so many thing participial vs verb form, in correct structure. Normally whenever I have posted a SC question i have had a doubt in a particular option , but this time I am requesting you sir to analyze all the options.

OA: A, But I have doubt in Option A also -
(A) was said to have recorded an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362 and thus was cited as evidence that Europeans explored
My Doubt: Here don't we have structure issue? and should be preceded by a comma and the subject should be introduced before the verb after that comma.

Dear crunchboss,
I'm happy to respond.

First of all, in the OA, (A), there is no punctuation problem. We have a single subject and two verbs + predicates in parallel. Here's a diagram of the sentence:

Now generally regarded as a forgery, = modifying phrase, modifying the subject
the Kensington Rune Stone, = the MAIN SUBJECT, subject of both verbs
a 90-kilogram slab of inscribed rock discovered in Minnesota in 1898, = appositive phrase, modifying the subject
// was said to have recorded an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362 = first branch of parallelism
and thus = conjunction joining two parallel branches
//was cited as evidence that Europeans explored [/u]North America in pre-Columbian times. = second branch of parallelism

Typically, when we have a single subject and two verbs with predicates in parallel, we don't separate the two verb phrases with a comma. That is typical, although if the predicates are both long, sometimes a comma is used to help organize the sentence flow. It wouldn't be "wrong" to include a comma before the "and," but it's not necessary. That's (A), the OA, and it's both correct and elegant.

(B) was said to record an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362, thus being cited as evidence for European exploration of
I think "to have recorded" sounds a little better than "to record," in this context, although technically, either is correct. Notice, rather than a parallel structure, this version chooses another structure. It's grammatically correct but awkward. The phrasing "thus being cited as evidence . . ." is particularly awkward and clumsy and not particularly direct. Passive participles of this form are always a bit awkward, the "being" + [past participle] form; it's hard to think of an example where this would be desirable, especially because it always would be correct to use the past participle without the word "being." Also, instead of the direct subject-verb construction of "that Europeans explored North America . . .", this congeals the action into a noun, "European exploration," which is less direct, less active, and less powerful. None of this is definitively wrong, but it all leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Choice (A) is clearly superior.

(C) said to have recorded an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362, and thus cited as evidence for European exploration of
This is wrong. This commits the famous missing-verb mistake. The structure of this answer is: [noun modifier][subject][appositive][participial phrase #1]"and thus"[participial phrase #2]. Lots of information, but no verb. Grammatically, this is 100% wrong.

(D) which was said to record an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362, and thus cited as evidence that Europeans explored
This is wrong. This also commits the famous missing-verb mistake. Here, we have nothing but a subject and bunch of noun modifiers. The last is a gigantic "which" clause, with two verbs in parallel inside, but there's no full verb for the subject. This is also 100% wrong.

(E) which, said to have recorded an encounter between Native Americans and Norse explorers in 1362, was thus cited as evidence for Europeans exploring
This is wrong. Yet again, this commits the famous missing-verb mistake. Now, inside the "which" clause, we have a participial phrase, then a verb, but all that is inside the which clause, and there's no verb in the independent clause. This is 100% wrong.

Choices (C), (D), and (E) are just plain wrong, dead-where-they-stand wrong. I could see that (B) could be a nasty tricky one for the non-native speaker, because it's hard to give a clear and well-defined rule about what makes something awkward. Choices (C) + (D) + (E) are like three cars with their engines removed: we can't drive those. Choice (B) is like a twelve-year old, beat-up smelly clunker of a car: we could drive this if we had to, if we had no other choice. Choice (A) like a brand new BMW. Which would you choose?

Does this make sense?
Mike

Thank you so much sir. You have helped me so much I am really thankful from the bottom of my heart. Your answers are very explanatory and very detailed. I again thank you so much for all your help. As I am not a native speaker of English some time few questions trouble me so much, without your guidance I would have lost in this complicated world of GMAT.

I have one more question sir,

As far as I know the distinction between verb form and participial form is based on the fact whether the action is performed by the subject or action is performed over the subject.

Action Performed by the Subject: Verb Form
Action Performed over the Subject: Participial Form

Shall we Conclude here that -

was said: Verb Form - But again I could not see How action here "was said" is performed by the main subject.
said: Participial Form

Dear crunchboss,

My friend, I am sad to say that this rule that you provided is a total disaster, not true in the least. A full verb can occupy the center of an independent clause: it can be the heart of a stand-alone sentence. For example, "buys," "is buying," and "has bought" are all full verbs, in different tenses. Any of those can be the center of a complete sentence, and the subject is performing the action.
The man is buying the book.
The man has bought this book already.
The man buys a new book each week.

For a full verb that is in the passive, the subject is the recipient of the action. This also can be the center of an independent clause, the heart of a stand-alone sentence:
The copies of this novel are bought frequently.

Those are full verbs. Every clause, whether an independent clause or a subordinate clause, needs a full verb.

Participles are noun modifiers, and they indicate something about the target noun. The present participle, [verb] + ing, is always active, and indicates that the target noun is doing the action. The target noun may or may not be the subject of the sentence.
The man buying this book is the author of another book.
The photographer took a photo of the man buying the book.
Past participles, the -ed form of regular verbs, are always passive. The target noun is the recipient of the action, and this target noun may or may not be the subject of the sentence.
The book bought by all the professors has been written by a teenager.
The angry columnist wrote a scathing review of the book bought for questionable reasons.

Do NOT use the word "subject" to refer to the target noun of a participle. The target noun of a participle or of any noun modifier may or may not be the subject of the sentence.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Dear Mahim,
My friend, there's no formal rule about that. The word "thus" always indicates a logical consequence, and this logical consequence often involves an important progression in the logic of the sentence, so I would guess that the word "thus" more often than not has a comma in front of it. The presence or absence of the comma does not depend on the word "thus"----it depends on logic and meaning.

Does this make sense?
Mike

I'm so happy to see your reply Mike! Thankyou.
I'm sorry my question got misinterpreted. I meant to ask whether "comma+ thus being" is wrong.
Here's how I think about it-
If I think of "being" as present participle, a comma + present participle would always enforce simultaneity; whereas thus indicates a consequence. So, I was concerned whether this leads to a contradiction that "comma + thus being" gets awkward in the sense that a consequence is thought of as simultaneous.

P.S.- BIG FAN Sir!

Dear Mahim,

I'm happy to respond. My friend, you are asking the wrong question to ask. I would say: forget about the comma + "thus," which is usually correct. Be suspicious of "being" wherever this word appears. It's not always wrong, but it's wrong far more frequently when it is right. The "being" + [participle] is particularly disastrous.

Does this make sense?
Mike

GMATNinja @EmpowerGmat

Could do you do the analysis of this question, please?

I have followed your posts and I think that your explanations are the best I have found at the GmatClub. Thanks

In choice A, what is the subject of "have recorded"? If the subject is Kensington Stone and we apply the subject-verb agreement rule, itwould be "has recorded". Can someone please explain?

In was said to have recorded, was said is the verb. To have recorded is an infinitive. There is no singular/plural call to be taken with infinitives.

Thanks Mystery123 for the kind words, and I apologize for the delayed response!

I'm not sure I have a whole lot to add on this one, though. As already discussed, choices (C), (D), and (E) are all sentence fragments. The subject of each sentence is "the Kensington Rune Stone", but none of those options gives us a main verb for that subject:


Here we essentially have, "... the Kensington Rune Stone, a slab of rock, said to have recorded {...} and thus cited as evidence." If we strip out the modifiers, we basically have: "The Kensington Rune Stone... said to have recorded and cited as evidence."

In this sentence, "said" and "cited" are just modifiers (specifically participles, if you like grammar jargon) that modify "the Kensington Rune Stone".... so we basically have the subject of the sentence ("Kensington Rune Stone") and a whole bunch of modifiers.

In other words: there is no main verb for the subject, so we have a sentence fragment. Eliminate (C).


(D) has a similar issue. We have, "... the Kensington Rune Stone, a slab of rock, which was said to record {...} and thus cited as evidence." Stripping out the modifiers, we're left with, "The Kensington Rune Stone, which was said to record and cited as evidence."

The phrase beginning with "which" is just a noun modifier (modifying the "Kensington Rune Stone"), so we basically have the subject of the sentence ("Kensington Rune Stone") and a bunch of modifiers. Again, there is no main verb for the subject, leaving us with another sentence fragment. Eliminate (D).


You can probably guess what I'm going to say about (E). This time, we have "... the Kensington Rune Stone, a slab of rock, which, said to have recorded {...}, was thus cited as evidence." Stripping this down further, we have, "The Kensington Rune Stone, which was cited as evidence."

Again, we have the subject and a bunch of modifiers, but we do not have a main verb. (E) is another sentence fragment, so it can be eliminated.

So we're left with (A) and (B). mikemcgarry did an excellent job explaining why (B) is wrong in this post, but I'll add a few additional thoughts:


We could probably drive ourselves nuts discussing the difference between "was said to have recorded" or "was said to record" -- honestly, I'm not sure that either of those is clearly WRONG, exactly.

The bigger issue is that (A) uses "thus was cited" while (B) uses "thus being cited". In (A), we have a parallel list of verbs: "... the Kensington Rune Stone 1) was said... and 2) was cited..." The parallelism looks great, because it's clear that the stone accomplished two things: it "was said to have recorded an encounter" and it "was cited as evidence that Europeans explored North America..." Cool.

I can't make any sense of the phrase beginning with "being" in (B), though. There are cases when "being" is completely fine, but in this case, I think it's trying to modify the entire previous clause, and that's generally not an acceptable use of "being" on the GMAT. (More on "being" in this article.) Besides, it just doesn't make a lot of sense meaning-wise: I'm having a hard time understanding how the phrase "...being cited as evidence for European exploration..." modifies the previous clause "...the Kensington Rune Stone... was said to record an encounter..."

That seems like a pretty solid reason to ditch (B) and stick with (A).

I hope that helps!