Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 19:03 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 19:03
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
avatar
dbcjr66
Joined: 23 Sep 2012
Last visit: 04 Dec 2013
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
1
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Products:
Posts: 5
Kudos: 1
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,531
 [13]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,531
 [13]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
8
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
tushain
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Last visit: 14 Apr 2015
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
228
 [1]
Given Kudos: 34
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
WE:Medicine and Health (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Posts: 30
Kudos: 228
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,531
 [3]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,531
 [3]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tushain
Hey Mike!
"with" + "noun" + "present participle"
X have seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
Although it is the best possible choice among the options, i thought i should discuss it.
If we drop the present participle,
X have seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs.

I am not able to decide whether this makes sense..
Dear tushain,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

This is a very subtle distinction, which is precisely why the GMAT absolutely loves it. The structure:
"with" + "noun" + "participle"
is wrong when the participle encapsulates an action, when the "doing" of the action is itself important. In this example, dropping the participle "hanging" does leave us with a somewhat awkward sentence. Nevertheless, "hanging" is clearly not an "action" --- no one is trying "to hang" or engaging in the action of "hanging." It is very clearly a simple description. It's a distinction that is extremely clear, but it's hard to explain it in a way that makes the rule explicit. Dropping the participle to see if it changes the meaning is a "trick" that is somewhat reliable, but the point is to develop a sense for the underlying logical distinction. Don't be too attached to the tricks. Don't be too literalistic in your interpretation of grammar rules. Language is living, and through experience, one can develop a sense for it. Nothing can replace this experience. That's why it's crucial to develop a habit of reading.

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
tushain
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Last visit: 14 Apr 2015
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 34
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
WE:Medicine and Health (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Posts: 30
Kudos: 228
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Haha Mike! Okay! :) , though it feels like, after reading your explanation, that it has something to do with whether present participle is made from transitive or an intransitive verb. :P
User avatar
rohitmanglik
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Last visit: 22 May 2025
Posts: 127
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 93
Location: India
GMAT 1: 570 Q50 V19
GMAT 2: 650 Q49 V28
GMAT 3: 690 Q50 V34
WE:Information Technology (Finance: Investment Banking)
Products:
GMAT 3: 690 Q50 V34
Posts: 127
Kudos: 116
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Mike ( mikemcgarry ),

Consider this sentence: Because of a law passed in 1993 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them. (Source: GMAT Prep)

In this sentence we have "of a law passed". Here as I understood doing of "passed" is important over here. Can you please explain why this construction is correct.

Thanks
Rohit
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,531
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rohitmanglik
Hi Mike ( mikemcgarry ),

Consider this sentence: Because of a law passed in 1993 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them. (Source: GMAT Prep)

In this sentence we have "of a law passed". Here as I understood doing of "passed" is important over here. Can you please explain why this construction is correct over here.

Thanks
Rohit
Dear Rohit,
I'm happy to respond. :-) See the distinction I explain in this blog article:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2015/with-noun- ... orrection/
Mike :-)
User avatar
rohitmanglik
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Last visit: 22 May 2025
Posts: 127
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 93
Location: India
GMAT 1: 570 Q50 V19
GMAT 2: 650 Q49 V28
GMAT 3: 690 Q50 V34
WE:Information Technology (Finance: Investment Banking)
Products:
GMAT 3: 690 Q50 V34
Posts: 127
Kudos: 116
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Wow! Thanks Mike. You are a savior.

Can we reproduce this concept with other prepositions as well?

e.g.: Because of a law passed in 1993 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them. (Source: GMAT Prep): Correct

Part under discussion: of a law passed

Above rule(mentioned in the link) seems working over here as well, can we generalize above rule to other prepositions (at least to a few) as well?


mikemcgarry
rohitmanglik
Hi Mike ( mikemcgarry ),

Consider this sentence: Because of a law passed in 1993 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them. (Source: GMAT Prep)

In this sentence we have "of a law passed". Here as I understood doing of "passed" is important over here. Can you please explain why this construction is correct over here.

Thanks
Rohit
Dear Rohit,
I'm happy to respond. :-) See the distinction I explain in this blog article:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2015/with-noun- ... orrection/
Mike :-)
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,531
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rohitmanglik
Wow! Thanks Mike. You are a savior.

Can we reproduce this concept with other prepositions as well?

e.g.: Because of a law passed in 1993 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them. (Source: GMAT Prep): Correct

Part under discussion: of a law passed

Above rule(mentioned in the link) seems working over here as well, can we generalize above rule to other prepositions (at least to a few) as well?
Dear Rohit,

I'm happy to respond. :-) Yes, we can generalize. The preposition "with" is a particularly common one, in both the correct & incorrect constructions, but we can say the same thing for the compound preposition "because of." For some other prepositions, the analogous structure would never be used, and with still others, the situation is more nuanced. But yes, we draw the same distinction for these two: for "with" and for "because of."

Mike :-)
User avatar
sumit411
Joined: 07 Oct 2017
Last visit: 28 Jan 2019
Posts: 214
Own Kudos:
230
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 214
Kudos: 230
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
rohitmanglik
Wow! Thanks Mike. You are a savior.

Can we reproduce this concept with other prepositions as well?

e.g.: Because of a law passed in 1993 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them. (Source: GMAT Prep): Correct

Part under discussion: of a law passed

Above rule(mentioned in the link) seems working over here as well, can we generalize above rule to other prepositions (at least to a few) as well?
Dear Rohit,

I'm happy to respond. :-) Yes, we can generalize. The preposition "with" is a particularly common one, in both the correct & incorrect constructions, but we can say the same thing for the compound preposition "because of." For some other prepositions, the analogous structure would never be used, and with still others, the situation is more nuanced. But yes, we draw the same distinction for these two: for "with" and for "because of."

Mike :-)
Hi Mike

Many daring vacationers who participate in guided boat tours on the Tarcoles River *encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses are peaking out* from the 
surface of the murky water. 

• encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows,whose eyes and noses are peaking out 
• encountered native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses peak out 
• had encountered native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses peak out 
• encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows,with eyes and noses peaking out 
• encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows,with eyes and noses that are peaking out

The OA is D.
But when I drop *peaking* in D, it is not making sense to me.

Please help me in this.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
User avatar
jabhatta2
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
dbcjr66
Dear Mike,

In OG-13 SC-7 and SC-133 show with + noun+ participle construction as correct.

I understand why these answers are correct after reading the explanation, but I eliminated these answers on basis of this construction.

OG-13 SC-7

The intricate structure of the compound insect eye,with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, helps explain why scientists have assumed that it evolved independently of the vertebrate eye.

with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia
Preposition + Noun + Participle

OG-13 SC-133

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's Ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

with laws requiring
preposition + noun + participle

Kindly let me know where I am making the mistake.

Regards
Dear dbcjr66,
I'm happy to respond. :-) This is a very tricky issue here.

The structure "with" + [noun] + [participle] is not acceptable when it contains an action that would more appropriately be expressed as a subordinate clause.
..... with stocks rising in the fourth quarter ....
should be
....when stocks rise in the fourth quarter ...
or
... as stocks rise in the fourth quarter ...
or
... because stocks rise in the fourth quarter ...

Notice, first of all, that, in order to create the incorrect structure, we have to have an active participle --- that is, the present -ing participle. If the participle is a past participle, i.e. an passive participle, such as "called", then this is not going to be a problem at all. Thus, SC13 SC #7 is irrelevant to this discussion.

Now, a couple things are going on in OG13, SC #133. First of all, the words "compliance" or "comply" idiomatically take the preposition "with", so we have no choice --- the laws of idiom demand that we use "with" in this context. The other issue is more subtle, and concerns: what exactly is the object of the preposition "with"? If the object is genuinely a noun, and then we are merely modifying the noun, that is 100% acceptable, but if the object is the entire action of the participial phrase, that's unacceptable. Here's the way to tell. Drop the participial phrase, and see if the sentence makes sense:
... saying that their compliance with laws protects adult sea turtles.
That makes perfect sense. We don't really know what "laws", but this sentence is meaningful as is. This means that object of "with" is genuinely just the noun "laws", and the participial phrase just fills in detail --- what laws? what kind of laws?

This is very different from the mistake construction:
With stocks rising in the fourth quarter, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits.
There, the object of "with" is not simply the noun "stocks" but the entire action, the fact hat stocks will rise. If we drop the participial phrase ...
With stocks, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits.
... this has a different meaning. It's not just stocks that will help the brokers --- it's the fact that stock will rise. We need a full [noun]+[verb] subordinate clause to contain a full-blown action.
Because stocks rise in the fourth quarter, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits.

As always in GMAT SC, you cannot rely purely on the mathematical relationships of the parts of speech. You always have to think about meaning. People think that the GMAT SC is only a test of grammar --- it does test grammar, but more importantly, it tests meaning. That's where your focus must be if you want to be successful with this question type.

Do all these distinctions make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :-)

Hi Mike- thank you making this post ...

Question though on the highlighted
User avatar
jabhatta2
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta@umail.iu.edu
mikemcgarry
dbcjr66
Dear Mike,

In OG-13 SC-7 and SC-133 show with + noun+ participle construction as correct.

I understand why these answers are correct after reading the explanation, but I eliminated these answers on basis of this construction.

OG-13 SC-7

The intricate structure of the compound insect eye,with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, helps explain why scientists have assumed that it evolved independently of the vertebrate eye.

with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia
Preposition + Noun + Participle

OG-13 SC-133

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's Ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

with laws requiring
preposition + noun + participle

Kindly let me know where I am making the mistake.

Regards
Dear dbcjr66,
I'm happy to respond. :-) This is a very tricky issue here.

The structure "with" + [noun] + [participle] is not acceptable when it contains an action that would more appropriately be expressed as a subordinate clause.
..... with stocks rising in the fourth quarter ....
should be
....when stocks rise in the fourth quarter ...
or
... as stocks rise in the fourth quarter ...
or
... because stocks rise in the fourth quarter ...

Notice, first of all, that, in order to create the incorrect structure, we have to have an active participle --- that is, the present -ing participle. If the participle is a past participle, i.e. an passive participle, such as "called", then this is not going to be a problem at all. Thus, SC13 SC #7 is irrelevant to this discussion.

Now, a couple things are going on in OG13, SC #133. First of all, the words "compliance" or "comply" idiomatically take the preposition "with", so we have no choice --- the laws of idiom demand that we use "with" in this context. The other issue is more subtle, and concerns: what exactly is the object of the preposition "with"? If the object is genuinely a noun, and then we are merely modifying the noun, that is 100% acceptable, but if the object is the entire action of the participial phrase, that's unacceptable. Here's the way to tell. Drop the participial phrase, and see if the sentence makes sense:
... saying that their compliance with laws protects adult sea turtles.
That makes perfect sense. We don't really know what "laws", but this sentence is meaningful as is. This means that object of "with" is genuinely just the noun "laws", and the participial phrase just fills in detail --- what laws? what kind of laws?

This is very different from the mistake construction:
With stocks rising in the fourth quarter, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits.
There, the object of "with" is not simply the noun "stocks" but the entire action, the fact hat stocks will rise. If we drop the participial phrase ...
With stocks, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits.
... this has a different meaning. It's not just stocks that will help the brokers --- it's the fact that stock will rise. We need a full [noun]+[verb] subordinate clause to contain a full-blown action.
Because stocks rise in the fourth quarter, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits.

As always in GMAT SC, you cannot rely purely on the mathematical relationships of the parts of speech. You always have to think about meaning. People think that the GMAT SC is only a test of grammar --- it does test grammar, but more importantly, it tests meaning. That's where your focus must be if you want to be successful with this question type.

Do all these distinctions make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :-)

Hi @mikemcgarry- you mentioned the following statement is wrong : With stocks rising in the fourth quarter, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits

The reason you said above is

If we drop the participial modifier, the statement is instead : With stocks, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits

My question is why drop the participial modifier ...isn't the participial modifier a essential modifier
User avatar
MagooshExpert
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Last visit: 15 Jan 2020
Posts: 231
Own Kudos:
436
 [1]
Given Kudos: 20
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 231
Kudos: 436
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta@umail.iu.edu

Hi @mikemcgarry- you mentioned the following statement is wrong : With stocks rising in the fourth quarter, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits

The reason you said above is

If we drop the participial modifier, the statement is instead : With stocks, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits

My question is why drop the participial modifier ...isn't the participial modifier a essential modifier
Hi jabhatta@umail.iu.edu!

Mike is using this to show that we can't drop the participial modifier here, because it changes the meaning of the sentence. The relevant object of "with" here is not just "stocks", it is "stocks rising". The idea is that the object of "with" has to be just a simple noun, not a noun plus an active participle. We can prove that the object of "with" is not simply "stocks" by removing "rising", which changes the meaning. "Rising" is not simply an essential modifier here -- it is a key part of the object itself, and that's why this is an incorrect use of "with".

I hope that helps! :-)
-Carolyn
User avatar
jabhatta2
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MagooshExpert
jabhatta@umail.iu.edu

Hi @mikemcgarry- you mentioned the following statement is wrong : With stocks rising in the fourth quarter, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits

The reason you said above is

If we drop the participial modifier, the statement is instead : With stocks, the brokerage house expects to reap substantial profits

My question is why drop the participial modifier ...isn't the participial modifier a essential modifier
Hi jabhatta@umail.iu.edu!

Mike is using this to show that we can't drop the participial modifier here, because it changes the meaning of the sentence. The relevant object of "with" here is not just "stocks", it is "stocks rising". The idea is that the object of "with" has to be just a simple noun, not a noun plus an active participle.We can prove that the object of "with" is not simply "stocks" by removing "rising", which changes the meaning. "Rising" is not simply an essential modifier here -- it is a key part of the object itself, and that's why this is an incorrect use of "with".

I hope that helps! :-)
-Carolyn

Hi @mikemcgarry/ Carolyn - is the yellow highlight a function of only "With" or is the highlight true for other prepositions as well (with / of / in / by / from / to .....)

Thank you !
User avatar
MagooshExpert
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Last visit: 15 Jan 2020
Posts: 231
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 20
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 231
Kudos: 436
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta@umail.iu.edu

Hi @mikemcgarry/ Carolyn - is the yellow highlight a function of only "With" or is the highlight true for other prepositions as well (with / of / in / by / from / to .....)

Thank you !
Hi jabhatta@umail.iu.edu!

This is generally true for other prepositions as well, especially in the case of "because of", which is probably the most common case that you will encounter :-)

Hope that helps!
-Carolyn
avatar
BAILITY
Joined: 24 May 2019
Last visit: 28 May 2019
Posts: 5
Posts: 5
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tushain
Haha Mike! Okay! :) , though it feels like, after reading your explanation, that it has something to do with whether present participle is made from transitive or an intransitive verb. :P
to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare
Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on
shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.
avatar
BAILITY
Joined: 24 May 2019
Last visit: 28 May 2019
Posts: 5
Posts: 5
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I understand why these answers are correct after reading the explanation, but I eliminated these answers on basis of this construction.