michaelksti wrote:
GMATNinja Quote:
(A) at some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event, greatly reducing their numbers
Is the -ing modifier "greatly reducing" really a make-or-break issue here?
I think, present participles can be used as verb modifiers and as noun modifiers. In this case, if one assumes that "greatly reducing" is a verb modifier, then it has to be logically connected to the subject of the main clause, namely "our ancestors". But this connection is, as already mentioned, illogical.
If one assumes that "greatly reducing" modifies the preceding noun "event", then this meaning issue is resolved. And I think it is actually grammatically correct.
Example: "Charles fed some chocolate to the neighbor's cat, sleeping on the rug"
I don't think you are sleeping on the rug, are you?
Maybe I am missing something. Can you please help me out with this?
You're right that -ing modifiers can describe either nouns or full clauses, but context will usually make it clear how the -ing should operate. Consider two examples:
1) Tim waved to his toddler, tripping over the strategically positioned cat.
In this case, because "tripping" follows a comma and a full clause, it makes sense to assume that the entire clause is modified. In other words, "tripping" is a consequence of Tim waving to his kid, and it's Tim who is taking a tumble here.
2) Tim waved to his toddler tripping over the strategically positioned cat.
Now, because "tripping"
doesn't follow a comma, it seems to modify the noun it's right next to, so it's the toddler who's falling over. (And Tim is callously waving to the kid instead of checking on the little guy.)
In your example, "sleeping" follows a full clause and a comma, so it seems to modify the entire previous clause. But, as you noted, that wouldn't make any sense, as it seems as though Charles is asleep on the rug and, while he's out cold, he's also feeding the neighbor's cat. Can a reader figure out what the writer meant? Eventually, sure. But because the default interpretation is an illogical one, the GMAT wouldn't want a construction like this.
Back to the problem. In (A) we have the following:
Quote:
At some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event, greatly reducing their numbers
Notice that this is more like the first case, in which the "-ing" appears after a comma and a full clause, so most readers will default to assuming that the "-ing" is describing the entire preceding clause, as opposed to modifying the noun "event." If "reducing" is modifying the entire preceding clause, it certainly sounds as though it's the ancient ancestors who are reducing their own numbers. At best, this construction is confusing and requires multiple reads to land on a logical interpretation.
Contrast that construction with (B):
Quote:
an event that greatly reduced their numbers
There's only one way to interpret this. "That'" has to refer to "event," and it's the event that's responsible for population decrease.
So rather than agonize over whether (A) is technically wrong, it's enough to see that (B) is clearer, and therefore better.
I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @
www.gmatninja.com (
hiring!) |
YouTube |
Articles |
IG Beginners' Guides:
RC |
CR |
SC |
Complete Resource Compilations:
RC |
CR |
SC YouTube LIVE webinars:
all videos by topic +
24-hour marathon for UkraineQuestion Explanation Collections:
RC |
CR |
SC