Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 13:09 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 13:09
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
avatar
miiicho
avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2019
Last visit: 21 Dec 2024
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
35
Given Kudos: 34
Posts: 6
Kudos: 35
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 02 Jul 2020, 12:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle
miiicho
Question:

Can a modifier (such as a present participle acting as an adjective) modify a pronoun?

Stem: Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the cities of Maya as an achievement,
Answer C: it took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to create an army of terra-cotta warriors more than 2,000 years ago that would protect Qin Shi Huang, China's first emperor, in his afterlife.

What I don't understand is why can't "Rivaling" modify a pronoun "it"?
What I also don't understand is why it is not the case that the only logical antecedent for "it" is "army"?

"it" (singular) can't be artisans (plural), years (plural), warriors (plural), years (plural), Qin Shu Huang (doesn't make logical sense).
"it" seems to HAVE to refer to army.
Hi, let's look at option C (that uses it):

Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, it took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to create an army of terra-cotta warriors more than 2,000 years ago that would protect Qin Shi Huang, China's first emperor, in his afterlife.

Notice the construct: it took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years.

What took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years?

Answer: to create an army of terra-cotta warriors took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years.

So, in C, it is not intended to refer to army, but to the infinitive phrase to create an army of terra-cotta warriors.

This is the major problem with C: the present participial phrase Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement is modifying to create an army of terra-cotta. This is clearly non-sensical.

Note that this is one of those rare cases where the pronoun (it) is used before the antecedent (to create an army of terra-cotta).

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses cases where Pronoun is used "before" the antecedent, its application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section..
Show more

Hi EducationAisle,

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question. I really appreciate it!

I am, though, still confused. How can the antecedent of "it" be "to create an army of terra-cotta warriors" when "to create" (the infinitive) is used as an adverb? It seems that the infinitive "to create" is not acting as the subject, direct object, or an adjective.

"to create" seems to be functioning as an adverb because it is similar to the following logic/grammatical structure:

Richard braved the icy rain to throw the smelly squid eyeball stew into the apartment dumpster.
To throw functions as an adverb because it explains why Richard braved the inclement weather.

What piece of knowledge am I missing here?

Thanks in advance!

Also, tried looking up your book on Amazon and couldn't find it. Can you only buy it from Amazon India?
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 02 Jul 2020, 23:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
miiicho

I am, though, still confused. How can the antecedent of "it" be "to create an army of terra-cotta warriors" when "to create" (the infinitive) is used as an adverb? It seems that the infinitive "to create" is not acting as the subject, direct object, or an adjective.

"to create" seems to be functioning as an adverb because it is similar to the following logic/grammatical structure:

Richard braved the icy rain to throw the smelly squid eyeball stew into the apartment dumpster.
To throw functions as an adverb because it explains why Richard braved the inclement weather.
Show more
Hi miiicho, in your example on Richard, the infinitive is answering a why and hence, acts as an adverb.

However, in the question under consideration, the infinitive answers what (what took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years?) and hence acts as a noun.

Similarly, in the sentence:

To excel in GMAT is my motivation.

The infinitive phrase to excel in GMAT is the noun-subject.

p.s. Yes, our book is available on Amazon.in.
avatar
miiicho
avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2019
Last visit: 21 Dec 2024
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
35
Given Kudos: 34
Posts: 6
Kudos: 35
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 02 Jul 2020, 23:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle
miiicho

I am, though, still confused. How can the antecedent of "it" be "to create an army of terra-cotta warriors" when "to create" (the infinitive) is used as an adverb? It seems that the infinitive "to create" is not acting as the subject, direct object, or an adjective.

"to create" seems to be functioning as an adverb because it is similar to the following logic/grammatical structure:

Richard braved the icy rain to throw the smelly squid eyeball stew into the apartment dumpster.
To throw functions as an adverb because it explains why Richard braved the inclement weather.
Hi miiicho, in your example on Richard, the infinitive is answering a why and hence, acts as an adverb.

However, in the question under consideration, the infinitive answers what (what took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years?) and hence acts as a noun.

Similarly, in the sentence:

To excel in GMAT is my motivation.

The infinitive phrase to excel in GMAT is the noun-subject.

p.s. Yes, our book is available on Amazon.in.
Show more


EducationAisle Apologies, I don't mean to keep holding you hostage to this thread but I have hopefully one last follow up question. If "to create" is an infinitive acting as a subject, then it is functioning as a noun. So in "to create an army" you basically have two nouns placed right next to each other? "to create" (noun) "an army" (another noun).

Also, I feel like I can apply a "why" to explain the infinitive phrase by:
Why "it took 700 artisans more than 36 years"?
"to create an [extremely large] army of terra cotta warriors"

I understand your point about "what" but still feel like I don't have the full picture.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 03 Jul 2020, 00:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
miiicho
If "to create" is an infinitive acting as a subject, then it is functioning as a noun. So in "to create an army" you basically have two nouns placed right next to each other? "to create" (noun) "an army" (another noun).
Show more
Basically, the phrase to create an army of terra-cotta warriors acts as a Noun-phrase.

Quote:
Also, I feel like I can apply a "why" to explain the infinitive phrase by:
Why "it took 700 artisans more than 36 years"?
"to create an [extremely large] army of terra cotta warriors"
Show more
Don't believe that in this case, the question why is answered.
User avatar
goaltop30mba
User avatar
Joined: 04 Dec 2015
Last visit: 18 Oct 2025
Posts: 188
Own Kudos:
68
Given Kudos: 407
Posts: 188
Kudos: 68
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 21 Jul 2020, 15:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Great explanations by great experts.

There is something I need to ask.

Why can’t the emperor rival the pyramids or the ancient cities of maya? Why does it have to be the army who did that? —

example : What is the difference between “Alexander the great conquered almost the entire continent” and “Alexander’s army conquered almost the entire continent” ???

Why are we being so specific that the army did all the fighting, not the emperor himself after all the emperor does it or his army does it, isn’t it the same?

Secondly, I don’t think that “it” in option B is redundant, we need “it” in option B.. w/o “it”, the meaning changes I mean artisans who took more than 36 years to complete is illogical.

AjiteshArun GMATNinja please help

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [1]
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 21 Jul 2020, 18:57
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
INSEADIESE
Great explanations by great experts.

There is something I need to ask.

Why can’t the emperor rival the pyramids or the ancient cities of maya? Why does it have to be the army who did that? —

example : What is the difference between “Alexander the great conquered almost the entire continent” and “Alexander’s army conquered almost the entire continent” ???

Why are we being so specific that the army did all the fighting, not the emperor himself after all the emperor does it or his army does it, isn’t it the same?

Secondly, I don’t think that “it” in option B is redundant, we need “it” in option B.. w/o “it”, the meaning changes I mean artisans who took more than 36 years to complete is illogical.

AjiteshArun GMATNinja please help
Show more
Hi INSEADIESE,

I think the difference is that this is not an actual army. But as for what we can get from the question itself, let's focus on the opening modifier:

Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, X... ← X must be something that can rival the pyramids as an achievement.

We now need to check which of the following is more likely:
1. Qin Shi Huang = achievement
2. the army of terra-cotta warriors = achievement

The sentence tells us that the army of terra-cotta warriors took "700,000 artisans more than 36 years" to make, whereas Qin Shi Huang was a person, so "the army of terra-cotta warriors" seems to be a better fit for "achievement".
User avatar
goaltop30mba
User avatar
Joined: 04 Dec 2015
Last visit: 18 Oct 2025
Posts: 188
Own Kudos:
68
Given Kudos: 407
Posts: 188
Kudos: 68
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 22 Jul 2020, 06:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun
INSEADIESE
Great explanations by great experts.

There is something I need to ask.

Why can’t the emperor rival the pyramids or the ancient cities of maya? Why does it have to be the army who did that? —

example : What is the difference between “Alexander the great conquered almost the entire continent” and “Alexander’s army conquered almost the entire continent” ???

Why are we being so specific that the army did all the fighting, not the emperor himself after all the emperor does it or his army does it, isn’t it the same?

Secondly, I don’t think that “it” in option B is redundant, we need “it” in option B.. w/o “it”, the meaning changes I mean artisans who took more than 36 years to complete is illogical.

AjiteshArun GMATNinja please help
Hi INSEADIESE,

I think the difference is that this is not an actual army. But as for what we can get from the question itself, let's focus on the opening modifier:

Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, X... ← X must be something that can rival the pyramids as an achievement.

We now need to check which of the following is more likely:
1. Qin Shi Huang = achievement
2. the army of terra-cotta warriors = achievement

The sentence tells us that the army of terra-cotta warriors took "700,000 artisans more than 36 years" to make, whereas Qin Shi Huang was a person, so "the army of terra-cotta warriors" seems to be a better fit for "achievement".
Show more

Hey Ajitesh,

Thank you for your quick response as always.

Understood, but I still have my doubts over option B... why is option B incorrect? Passive voice?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 22 Jul 2020, 22:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
INSEADIESE
Hey Ajitesh,

Thank you for your quick response as always.

Understood, but I still have my doubts over option B... why is option B incorrect? Passive voice?
Show more
In these structures (with an introductory participle modifier), we must lead with a noun that makes sense with that modifier.

Rivaling X as an achievement, _____ ← whatever goes here has to be the thing that is "rivaling X as an achievement".

Now because we don't want to imply that Qin Shi Huang himself was the achievement, we cannot mark option B (in fact all the options apart from A can be removed for this reason).
User avatar
ldlefebvre
User avatar
Joined: 27 May 2020
Last visit: 30 Aug 2022
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 13
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 06 Oct 2020, 15:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old

Sounds like a run-on sentence by omitting the comma after 'afterlife', so for that reason, I went with B even though A made more sense as the subject was closer to the comparisons. The sentence (A) just felt and looked wrong.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 06 Oct 2020, 21:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ldlefebvre
(A) in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old

Sounds like a run-on sentence by omitting the comma after 'afterlife', so for that reason, I went with B even though A made more sense as the subject was closer to the comparisons. The sentence (A) just felt and looked wrong.
Show more
Hi ldlefebvre,

In case it helps, that part of the sentence can be read like this:
... the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China's first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old...
or
... the army is more than 2,000 years old...
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 06 Oct 2020, 23:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ldlefebvre
(A) in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old

Sounds like a run-on sentence by omitting the comma after 'afterlife', so for that reason, I went with B even though A made more sense as the subject was closer to the comparisons. The sentence (A) just felt and looked wrong.
Show more
Hi ldlefebvre, in addition to what Ajitesh has already mentioned, I would also like to mention that run-on is when two Independent clauses are connected by just a comma.

in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old is not two Independent clauses. So, the question of this construct being a run-on construct, does not arise.

Also, the core of the sentence is:

the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old

So, in his afterlife is just a prepositional phrase.

You can watch our video on Independent and Dependent Clauses.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses run-on construct, its application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
User avatar
Vatsal7794
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 17 Mar 2021
Last visit: 12 Oct 2025
Posts: 249
Own Kudos:
127
Given Kudos: 123
Location: India
Schools: IIMB EPGP'25 Schulich Sep'24 intake Fisher '26 ISB '25
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V36
GPA: 3.5
Schools: IIMB EPGP'25 Schulich Sep'24 intake Fisher '26 ISB '25
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V36
Posts: 249
Kudos: 127
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 11 Jan 2022, 22:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Experts

GMATNinja @VeritasKarishma EducationAisle ChrisLele mikemcgarry AjiteshArun egmat sayantanc2k RonPurewal DmitryFarber MagooshExpert avigutman EMPOWERgmatVerbal MartyTargetTestPrep ExpertsGlobal5 IanStewart
other experts AnthonyRitz

Just wanted to confirm if my reasoning is correct or not.

Que 1)Verbing could modify either the subject of the subsequent clause or the whole clause?
So it depends upon the sentence what purpose does Verbing Performs.
I have seen so many posts by the experts in which they have removed all the incorrect options just on the basis of below reason
"Verb-ing must modify the army of terracotta"
But according to me verbing performs two functions and we can't reject the options only on the basis of above reasoning. So why experts have rejected the other options only on the basis of verbing? and when can verb-ing modify the subject or the subsequent clause?

Que 2)Reason for rejecting option A - "the army of terra-cotta warriors took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete" . It thought something was missing here .

Que 3)I selected option C . What all other things are wrong in option C if I consider "It" in option C as placeholder?

Que4) When we say Verb-ing modify the subsequent clause , it means that verb-ing modify the main verb of the subsequent clause. Right?

Can experts please answer all my queries?
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [1]
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya Updated on: 12 Jan 2022, 06:19
Originally posted by AjiteshArun on 11 Jan 2022, 23:16.
Last edited by AjiteshArun on 12 Jan 2022, 06:19, edited 1 time in total.
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Vatsal7794
Hi Experts

GMATNinja @VeritasKarishma EducationAisle ChrisLele mikemcgarry AjiteshArun egmat sayantanc2k RonPurewal DmitryFarber MagooshExpert avigutman EMPOWERgmatVerbal MartyTargetTestPrep ExpertsGlobal5 IanStewart
other experts AnthonyRitz

Just wanted to confirm if my reasoning is correct or not.

Que 1)Verbing could modify either the subject of the subsequent clause or the whole clause?
So it depends upon the sentence what purpose does Verbing Performs.
I have seen so many posts by the experts in which they have removed all the incorrect options just on the basis of below reason
"Verb-ing must modify the army of terracotta"
But according to me verbing performs two functions and we can't reject the options only on the basis of above reasoning. So why experts have rejected the other options only on the basis of verbing? and when can verb-ing modify the subject or the subsequent clause?

Que 2)Reason for rejecting option A - "the army of terra-cotta warriors took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete" . It thought something was missing here .

Que 3)I selected option C . What all other things are wrong in option C if I consider "It" in option C as placeholder?

Que4) When we say Verb-ing modify the subsequent clause , it means that verb-ing modify the main verb of the subsequent clause. Right?

Can experts please answer all my queries?
Show more
Hi Vatsal7794,

I've seen different opinions on this issue on GMAT club. I'll tell you how I advise my students to think about this concept, but I also want to make it clear that I don't consider other ways of looking at the issue to be incorrect.

1. You're asking about a present participle that is used before a clause. When we lead with these "-ing" structures, we should generally assume that we're dealing with an adverbial participle. However, it is worth noting that the official guides don't agree with this position. That is, the OG also follows the "it must modify the subject" approach in such situations. The more important point here is that we need a logical noun as the subject of the modified clause. That's what the GMAT is looking to test. It won't ask us to classify the modifier as an adjective or an adverb.

2. We can look at option A like this:
2a. the army of terra-cotta warriors (a) is more than 2,000 years old and (b) took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete

700,000 artisans makes it difficult to see this, but all A is saying is "{something} took more than 36 years to complete".

3. The overall construction of C is not very good. Specifically, more than 2,000 years ago is almost an afterthought in C, whereas in A it is presented as a significant piece of information about the army. That is also not too close to the noun it refers to, but the main problem remains the use of a dummy it as the subject.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [1]
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 12 Jan 2022, 00:51
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Vatsal7794

Que 1)Verbing could modify either the subject of the subsequent clause or the whole clause?
Show more
There is no "or the whole clause". Participial phrases that appear at the beginning of a clause, necessarily modify the subject of the clause.

So, "Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt ..." will correctly modify "the army of terra-cotta warriors" (subject of the clause) in the original sentence.
User avatar
AnthonyRitz
User avatar
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 238
Own Kudos:
427
 [2]
Given Kudos: 169
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 238
Kudos: 427
 [2]
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 12 Jan 2022, 01:11
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Vatsal7794
Hi Experts

GMATNinja @VeritasKarishma EducationAisle ChrisLele mikemcgarry AjiteshArun egmat sayantanc2k RonPurewal DmitryFarber MagooshExpert avigutman EMPOWERgmatVerbal MartyTargetTestPrep ExpertsGlobal5 IanStewart
other experts AnthonyRitz

Just wanted to confirm if my reasoning is correct or not.

Que 1)Verbing could modify either the subject of the subsequent clause or the whole clause?
So it depends upon the sentence what purpose does Verbing Performs.
I have seen so many posts by the experts in which they have removed all the incorrect options just on the basis of below reason
"Verb-ing must modify the army of terracotta"
But according to me verbing performs two functions and we can't reject the options only on the basis of above reasoning. So why experts have rejected the other options only on the basis of verbing? and when can verb-ing modify the subject or the subsequent clause?

Que 2)Reason for rejecting option A - "the army of terra-cotta warriors took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete" . It thought something was missing here .

Que 3)I selected option C . What all other things are wrong in option C if I consider "It" in option C as placeholder?

Que4) When we say Verb-ing modify the subsequent clause , it means that verb-ing modify the main verb of the subsequent clause. Right?

Can experts please answer all my queries?
Show more

Vatsal,

The rule, again, for participles, is as follows:

In general, a participle phrase must modify what it is directly next to.

The main exception is that a participle phrase, at the end of a sentence, set off by a comma, does not modify what it is next to and instead modifies the preceding clause as a whole.

Please learn this rule. I think it's really important, and it feels like you keep coming back to the same issue over and over.

In this sentence, "rivaling" is an active participle that is not at the end of the sentence. It is meant to describe "the army of terra-cotta warriors." So any answer choice that does not begin the underlined portion with "the army of terra-cotta warriors" is pretty much guaranteed wrong.

Your Que1 and Que4 are simply wrong, in light of the above rule for participle phrases.

Regarding your Que3: The participle phrase cannot properly modify the dummy pronoun "it" in answer C.

As a bonus, the relative clause "that would protect Qin Shi Huang" is also incorrect in this answer -- it must modify what it is next to, but that's "more than 2,000 years ago," and of course this makes no sense. It means to modify the too-distant "army of terra-cotta warriors."

If I wanted to nitpick, I might even jump on the logic of "would protect Qin Shi Huang... in his afterlife." This implies an underlying truth to the idea that Qin Shi Huang was or is in some sort of afterlife and the army was or is actually protecting him. But this is highly debatable at best, from a logical perspective. (Sorry to step on anyone's religious views here, but the GMAT doesn't generally deal in metaphysics!) Note that answer A only claims that this was the purpose of the army, "to protect Qin Shi Huang." This answer remains agnostic (get it? agnostic? :lol:) on the question of whether any such afterlife actually exists and whether the army actually serves some protective role there. Now, please don't go to war with me over this one. It's rather hair-splitting. I'd have long since killed C for the other reasons above. But you asked for everything, and this is a worthwhile throw-in issue in my view.

Your Que2 is problematic. What, exactly, is missing from answer A? Of course, nothing is missing; this is the right answer. But the point is that you need a real, rule-based or logic-based reason to eliminate an answer, and "I thought something was missing" is too vague and imprecise to truly qualify.
User avatar
Vatsal7794
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 17 Mar 2021
Last visit: 12 Oct 2025
Posts: 249
Own Kudos:
127
Given Kudos: 123
Location: India
Schools: IIMB EPGP'25 Schulich Sep'24 intake Fisher '26 ISB '25
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V36
GPA: 3.5
Schools: IIMB EPGP'25 Schulich Sep'24 intake Fisher '26 ISB '25
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V36
Posts: 249
Kudos: 127
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 13 Jan 2022, 23:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thank you all for helping me out!!!!


gmatclub.com/forum/in-assessing-the-problems-faced-by-rural-migrant-workers-the-question-282290.html#p2177672

From the above link I got to learn few things. Let me mention the point where I was struggling.

→ → 2 types of intro phrases must modify either the subject of the subsequent clause
OR the whole clause:

• phrases that begin with present participles (___ING or verbING)
Weeping with relief, the refugee handed his child to the rescue workers.

• phrases that begin with a preposition and a participle, such as in assessing
In refusing to be cowed, the American press has played a pivotal, perhaps decisive, role in defending democracy.

Please see the bold part. It was given that Verb-ing can modify either the subject of the subsequent clause or the clause .

But now I got to know that when they modify the subject and when they modify the clause.

When verb-ing is at the start of the sentence then they will modify the subject of the subsequent clause and when they are at the end the sentence and separated by comma then they will modify the whole clause.(Please free to add if I have left any point)

Am I correct now? AjiteshArun EducationAisle AnthonyRitz
?

Also can you please give me few example when the modifiers modify the verb of the sentence?
And which modifier modifies the verb?
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 14 Jan 2022, 02:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Vatsal7794

Also can you please give me few example when the modifiers modify the verb of the sentence?
And which modifier modifies the verb?
Show more
That's easy. Most adverbs modify the verb.

Peter ran quickly.

Here the modifier (adverb) quickly, modifies the verb ran.
User avatar
Vatsal7794
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 17 Mar 2021
Last visit: 12 Oct 2025
Posts: 249
Own Kudos:
127
Given Kudos: 123
Location: India
Schools: IIMB EPGP'25 Schulich Sep'24 intake Fisher '26 ISB '25
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V36
GPA: 3.5
Schools: IIMB EPGP'25 Schulich Sep'24 intake Fisher '26 ISB '25
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V36
Posts: 249
Kudos: 127
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 14 Jan 2022, 03:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle
Vatsal7794

Also can you please give me few example when the modifiers modify the verb of the sentence?
And which modifier modifies the verb?
That's easy. Most adverbs modify the verb.

Peter ran quickly.

Here the modifier (adverb) quickly, modifies the verb ran.
Show more

Thanks for replying. I know this that adverbs modify the verbs but I want example in which verb-ed , verbing - ing , or prepostional phrase modifies the verb?

Just want to know can they modify the verbs or not?
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [1]
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 14 Jan 2022, 03:48
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Vatsal7794

Thanks for replying. I know this that adverbs modify the verbs but I want example in which verb-ed , verbing - ing , or prepostional phrase modifies the verb?

Just want to know can they modify the verbs or not?
Show more
Well, one instance that comes to mind readily, is prepositional phrases at the beginning of a clause. Such prepositional phrases are usually adverbial modifiers.

For example:

During lunchbreak, Michael had lunch.

"During lunchbreak" is a prepositional phrase, answering the question: When did Michael have lunch.

Hence, this prepositional phrase is adverbial modifier.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses such prepositional phrases, their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
User avatar
winved1992
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2022
Last visit: 24 Mar 2024
Posts: 2
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 108
Posts: 2
Kudos: 1
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya 17 Jan 2023, 00:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I agree with " Rivaling the Pyramid " modifies "tera quota army '
IMO sentence " the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang," should be written as "the army of terra-cotta warriors was created to protect Qin Shi Huang, as former sounds grammatically incorrect
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts