Please help.

When we talk about general truth we use simple present. Here why we are using " its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean created by water layers of different temperatures and densities." the bold are all -ed form.

Hi thakurarun85.

Those -ed words are modifiers that describe how things are in the present. So, they communicate that, in the present, the "acoustic energy" IS "prevented from dissipating" and that the "boundaries in the ocean" ARE "created by water layers."

Thus, they do communicate general truths about the present.

Sound can travel through water for enormous distances, prevented from dissipating its acoustic energy as a result of boundaries in the ocean created by water layers of different temperatures and densities.


(A) prevented from dissipating its acoustic energy as a result of

(B) prevented from having its acoustic energy dissipated by

(C) its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by

(D) its acoustic energy prevented from being dissipated as a result of

(E) preventing its acoustic energy from dissipating by

Yes, option (C) has an absolute phrase (underlined)

Sound can travel through water for enormous distances, its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean created by water layers of different temperatures and densities.

Hello, lakshya14. We are getting to be virtual pals, as often as we are crossing paths. Choice (E) has a fatal flaw that does not make logical sense. Try inserting it into the shell of the sentence:

Sound can travel through water for enormous distances, preventing its acoustic energy from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean created by water layers of different temperatures and densities.

What, exactly, is preventing the acoustic energy of sound from dissipating? Would it make sense to say that sound prevents its own acoustic energy from dissipating? Is there some sort of built-in self-preservation mechanism that we need to be aware of? Are we then to understand that boundaries in the non-negotiable part of the sentence act as sound-dissipators? If so, that is actually the opposite of what the shell of the sentence would suggest. Would it not make more sense for a boundary to contain something? And if something is contained in water, then it does not dissipate, and that is what we are after. Compare to (C):

Sound can travel through water for enormous distances, its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean created by water layers of different temperatures and densities.

Aha, so straightened out, with the sentence in a more active voice, we understand that boundaries in the ocean prevent the acoustic energy of sound from dissipating, thereby allowing sound to travel through water for enormous distances. That makes perfect sense, and we did not get tangled up in any seaweed following the logic.

I hope that helps. If you need further clarification, just ask.

- Andrew

Hello, lakshya14. We are getting to be virtual pals, as often as we are crossing paths. Choice (E) has a fatal flaw that does not make logical sense. Try inserting it into the shell of the sentence:

Sound can travel through water for enormous distances, preventing its acoustic energy from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean created by water layers of different temperatures and densities.

What, exactly, is preventing the acoustic energy of sound from dissipating? Would it make sense to say that sound prevents its own acoustic energy from dissipating? Is there some sort of built-in self-preservation mechanism that we need to be aware of? Are we then to understand that boundaries in the non-negotiable part of the sentence act as sound-dissipators? If so, that is actually the opposite of what the shell of the sentence would suggest. Would it not make more sense for a boundary to contain something? And if something is contained in water, then it does not dissipate, and that is what we are after. Compare to (C):

Sound can travel through water for enormous distances, its acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by boundaries in the ocean created by water layers of different temperatures and densities.

Aha, so straightened out, with the sentence in a more active voice, we understand that boundaries in the ocean prevent the acoustic energy of sound from dissipating, thereby allowing sound to travel through water for enormous distances. That makes perfect sense, and we did not get tangled up in any seaweed following the logic.

I hope that helps. If you need further clarification, just ask.

- Andrew

(1) Subject only - Sound
OR
(2) the entire clause - Sound can travel through water for enormous distances
Or
(3) closest noun - distances

I believe absolute phrases MODIFY the the entire clause whereas appositives modify, just the closest noun.

Hi GMATGuruNY - while i agree (C) is the answer, what is the absolute modifier in (C) modifying ? Is the absolute phrase, modfiying



Absolute modifiers i think modify clauses but the subect of the clause is the closest noun i thought (which would be - distances)