In June of 1987, The Bridge of Trinquetaille, Vincent van Gogh's view

Thanks buddy, but It can be confusing when two moderators respond to the same post, so perhaps in future please be conscious of this as to someone who isn't at your level it comes across as offering two sets of advice.

My apologies. That was not my intention at all, and I did not mean to make the issue more confusing for you, if that is what happened here. I can make my previous response not directed at you, if you wish.

In general though, your opinion must remain your own. I firmly believe that multiple responses can help, especially when a particular explanation includes something new, or presents an explanation in a way that is more likely to "click" for someone out there, even if that someone is not here right now.
_________________

I really appreciate presence of all experts on gmatclub, but I totally agree with dcummins that it is really confusing and in some cases unprofessional in my opinion(as in the example below). Moreover when user tags an expert it means that that user wishes to have explanation from that particular expert and not from another expert. the reason for this is that users choose the best experts for themselves
And if other users still would have questions after explanation was posted, they would definately ask questions by postig them. I think it is unprofessional for example in the case below

https://gmatclub.com/forum/increased-po ... l#p2263151

the tag was directed at generis but other expert who was not mentioned in the post replied to it on the same day when question was posted intead of generis ...

Exceptions could be when the pending questions remain unanswered by that particular expert after some time and other users or experts, in other words other kind people, reply to it after some time

have a great weekend eveyone
Cheers,
Dave

Hi dave13,

The "other expert" bit wasn't exactly an example of extreme subtlety, so I'll respond to your post. You know, so that the "other expert" can have a say.

This is a public forum, and a public thread. Throwing words like "unethical" and "unprofessional" around in your original and edited responses (and no, editing your response before I could reply doesn't make it "okay" to use the word "unethical" in the first place) is not particularly nice. You're still welcome to do it though. After all, public forum, public thread.

My view is that my response did not prevent anyone from responding to a post. Nor did it prevent anyone from reading anyone else's response. Once the person who posted pointed out that he or she did not appreciate it, I did what I could, even though I did not really have to, and even though I do not agree with his or her position that no one else can respond to a post once someone else has been tagged in it.

Feel free to let me know why you feel my responses are morally incorrect, although I suggest you do so over PM (or report my posts directly to a moderator), as the last few posts are completely off-topic.

And yes, have a great weekend!

Ajitesh
_________________

To Whom It May Concern

your post above revolves mostly around the "unethical"

Do you know that when you try finding faults with the words of opponent, you admit that you dont have substantive arguments.

As for unethical, yes actually i wrote initially professionally unethical but then changed simply onto "unprofessional" because "unethical" and "unprofessional"

are synonyms, so i preferred simply to use one word "unproffessional" instead of two, plus it is not wordy

I do not throw words, I draw conclusions from what you wrote

And dcummins pointed out that when one experts post is followed by another expert`s, this is confusing, so i totally agree with dcummins

That being said its unprofessional because you not only prevent other experts who are much more conscious than you, from posting explanations

but you also dont don`t consider interests of regular users who tag (in this case) generis, and wanted explanations from generis, and not from you,

so you rather show what you "can".

As for "no one else can respond to a post once someone else has been tagged in it."

Again its not about "can" its about considering interests of regular user who prefers one expert over another (put up with it , like it or not ) so thats why we (users) tag. C`est la vie.

I hope you will understand some day (hopefully soon ) that acting so is professionaly unethical :grin:

I like open discussion, and if you suggest me to pm you, then why didnt you initially PM duumicus, but replied to him/her in this thread.

No need to thank me for this post, just give me kudos for this post Can you ? yes, you can. is it unethical ? who knows don't think hard

Cheers,
Dave
p.s.

Hi dave13,

As I said earlier, you are welcome to be as slanderous as you want. This is the internet, after all. That doesn't mean that anything you said about what was just an attempt to help someone else out is true though. And no, the "professionally unethical" is just "professionally unprofessional" line isn't very convincing.

I again urge you to avoid using this thread for whatever it is that you think you're doing. Feel free to PM.

Ajitesh
_________________

Here's a simpler view of the problem. ALL of the answers except C say that the painting was a price! I'll outline the simple structure of each:

(A) The painting sold for $20.2 million and it (the painting) was the second highest price.

(B) The painting, which sold for $20.2 million, was the second highest price.

(C) The painting was sold for $20.2 million, the second highest price. (Notice that here there is no verb before "the second highest price," so it can work as an appositive, which is a fancy name for a noun modifying another noun.)

(D) The painting was sold for $20.2 million, being the second highest price. (Here, "being" introduces an adverbial modifier that applies to the preceding clause. Since the painting is the subject of that clause, it has to be the price! Also, experience shows that when the GMAT throws "being" into the middle of a sentence, it's almost certainly wrong. You'd better have a lot of confidence to pick that answer!)

(E) The painting sold for $20.2 million, and was the second highest price. (This has the same problem as A and B, except that it adds a gratuitous comma between the two verbs: ", and was.")
_________________

In addition to all the wonderful points raised by other esteemed members, I there was another thing which was off-putting for me about the stem - Rhone sold for $20mn - didn't make sense to me because it made it seem as if the painting was doing the selling, which certainly isn't the case. There are two ways to rectify this error:

- either convert it into a modifier
- give it a bonafide verb (was sold) : The passive form makes it right as it turns the painting into an object/receiver (I didn't mean to objectify :P).

#Mytwocents

Cheers

[quote="GMATBLACKBELT"]In June of 1987, The Bridge of Trinquetaille, Vincent van Gogh's view of an iron bridge over the Rhone sold for $20.2 million and it was the second highest price ever paid for a painting at auction.


(A) Rhone sold for $20.2 million and it was ( deviation from intended meaning, it was not the Gogh's view, which was sold.)

(B) Rhone, which sold for $20.2 million, was ( again the same problem,The Bridge of Trinquetaille was not the second highest price)

(C) Rhone, was sold for $20.2 million, ( correct, clear)

(D) Rhone was sold for $20.2 million, being ( No verb for subject The Bridge of Trinquetaille, meaning change)

(E) Rhone, sold for $20.2 million, and was ( comma before and suggests that The Bridge of Trinquetaille was the second highest price.)


Option C is the correct choice.

Thanks
_________________

I have one doubt here.
Isn't "the second highest price...." an absolute phrase?
See when we use below syntax, we say it is an absolute phrase.
...noun1, noun2+past participle

No, it's a regular appositive. "Paid" is a modifier here, not a verb. In fact, the sentence would work the same if we simply omitted the word "paid." Also, it isn't situating/modifying any other action. It's only giving more information about a prior noun ($20.2 million).
_________________

Totally agree

C is more concise and comma is properly placed

Hi generis,

Thank you very much for such a detailed explanation. The part about appositives was very helpful. While browsing the link about “The Appositive”, I have noticed that an appositive is described as a noun or noun phrase that renames another noun right beside it. Though the concept is pretty clear, I have some difficulty applying it to the below problems. I would be grateful if you could shed some light on them.

1. In A.D. 391, as a result of the destruction of the library at Alexandria, the largest of the ancient world, later generations lost all but the Iliad and Odyssey among Greek epics

Most experts call the modifier …the largest of the ancient world… an appositive. However, it’s not a noun phrase but a noun modifier. I know that an appositive is a noun modifier, but shouldn’t it be in the form of a noun phrase that can replace the noun it modifies? (…the largest of the ancient world… is not a noun phrase but still called an appositive, how come?)


2. Over the past ten years cultivated sunflowers have become a major commercial crop, second only to soybeans as a source of vegetable oil.

In his explanation of the last problem, GMATNinja calls …second only to soybeans… an appositive. It is tough for me to understand WHY SO because that modifier is not a noun phrase. Moreover, that modifier seems to be not a noun but adverbial modifier because it refers to the whole clause, not just to the noun sunflowers. Any thoughts on this?

3. Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies—fewer than have been killed by bee stings.

4. Bihar is India’s poorest state, with an annual per capita income of $111, lower than that of the most impoverished countries of the world.

Both 3rd and 4th problems have similar modifiers: fewer than and lower than. Are they also appositives? The structure they have seem strange to me. Are there any omitted words in those modifiers? All the above problems were discussed to some extent in their respective threads and in other forums, but I didn’t find them definitive. I will look forward to your thoughts. Thank you very much in advance.

Kind regards,

Jon
_________________

Hi (also adding generis )

Is 'which sold' in (B) correct construction ? shouldn't it be ', sold for (without which, to work as a modifier)' or 'which was sold'. It seems as though a verb is missing here.

Thanks in advance.

Try to get on the meaning its important to link the parts.....

brilliant... just brilliant!

I have read all comments mentioned by experts to eliminate A.

But if we see logically "it" is referring to $20.2 million.

Sentence already mentioned "second highest price", Now you can't compare other noun with prices.

Hence "it" doesn't feel ambiguous here.

GMATNinja or any experts, kindly explain.

Hi Harsh2111s,

Pronoun reference is extremely resistant to rules, and often the most we can do is work with patterns and probabilities. This may seem like an incomplete answer, but if we go with anything else, we run the risk of making a mistake when we encounter an option in which whatever we thought would work suddenly doesn't.

If you're looking only to remove option A, remember that there is no comma after Rhone. The intended meaning needs Vincent van Gogh's view of an iron bridge over the Rhone to be a modifier set off by a pair of commas. Otherwise, it seems as if the subject of sold is view.

The Bridge of Trinquetaille, Vincent van Gogh's view of an iron bridge over the Rhone sold for $20.2 million...

This should instead be:
The Bridge of Trinquetaille, Vincent van Gogh's view of an iron bridge over the Rhone, sold for $20.2 million...
_________________

Ok I got your point.

Thanks for explaining.