Sunspots, vortices of gas associated with strong electromagnetic

I read one of the articles from magoosh in which it said that Although needs a clause(subject and a verb) but there are many instances in OG where such conjunctions have not been followed by a clause.
Eg-
Q48 from OG13: Though called a sea, the landlocked Caspian is actually the largest lake on Earth, covering more than four times the surface area of its closest rival in size, North America's Lake Superior.
(choice c and it is the correct answer).

OG13 - Q36: Along with the drop in producer prices announced yesterday, the strong retail sales figures released today seem like it is indicative that the economy, although growing slowly, is not nearing a recession.
(although portion is not underlined)

But in one explanation it says that it is needed.
OG 13 Q 17:
Sunspots, vortices of gas associated with strong electromagnetic activity, are visible as dark soots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on the Sun's poles or equator.
(A) are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on
(B) are visible as dark spots that never have been sighted on the surface of the Sun
(C) appear on the surface of the Sun as dark spots although never sighted at
(D) appear as dark spots on the surface of the Sun, although never having been sighted at
(E) appear as dark spots on the Sun's surface, which have never been sighted on

here the official guide explanation for although(option c &d) says:

C. Although typically introduces a subordinate clause, which has a subject and a verb,but here there is no subject and sighted is not a complete verb.
D. Although usually introduces a subordinate clause,but there is no subject of the clause and having been sighted is not a complete verb phrase.

What is the correct way ? Please explain.

Hello arvind910619,

I will be glad to help you with this one.

Use of although never sighted is incorrect in Choice C. The original sentence says that the Sunspots have not been seen so far on the Sun’s poles or equator. But the way Choice C is worded, it seems to convey that Sunspots never sighted anything on the equator.

Also, use of at is not correct. The preposition on should be used in the context of the sentence as the sentence says that Sunspots are visible on the surface of the Sun, but have not been seen on the Sun's poles.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Dear OreoShake,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, remember that parallelism is primarily a logical structure, and the grammar is secondary to the logic. Remember that we always can create parallel structures that are grammatically flawless and logically absurd.
I cooked dinner with fresh carrots, with enthusiasm, and with my friend Chris.

The short answer to your question is "yes"---of course "are" and "have" can be parallel. In fact, "is/are" can be parallel with any other verb. The caveat, as with all parallelism, is that the parallelism must be logically sound.
He is a brilliant scientist and has several honorary degrees from universities around the world.
She is an authority on submarine warfare and has written several award-winning books on the topic.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Hi ydmuley ,

Can I explain you please?

We have

Sunspots, vortices of gas associated with strong electromagnetic activity, are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on the Sun’s poles or equator.



Okay, this sentence implies the sun spots were not seen in the past and not even now. But still they are visible as dark spots. Hence, Correct answer.



This choice is run on. Try to connect this choice with the original sentence. You will find the error as highlighted below:

Sunspots are visible as dark spots that never have been sighted on the surface of the Sun the Sun’s poles or equator.

Did you notice what I am saying? Sun the Sun's poles?? What is this? Hence, Incorrect.



Okay, here is the catch. It says never sighted at. So, this happened in the past. Does that mean they are sighted now? We don't know, right?

Now, you could ask me which is the correct idiom "sighted at" or "sighted on". My answer will be I don't care about idioms unless I don't have any other option than to care about it. Technically, I believe sighted on means I have an object on which I am having something while sighted at means at some place? Again, I don't care about it.

Hence, it is not giving the intended meaning. Hence, out.



The usage of having been is incorrect here. Although should have a clause with it. But when I am saying 'never having been..', I am missing the correct usage.



It implies Surface of the sun have been sighted on the pole. Lol. This cannot happen. Hence, Incorrect.

Does that make sense?
_________________

Consider the following case:
At 10am today, sunspots appear as dark spots on the surface of the sun.
Let's call these dark spots A, B and C.
Since A, B and C have ONLY JUST APPEARED, they DID NOT EXIST before their appearance at 10am.
Moreover -- since A, B and C did not exist before 10am -- they clearly have never been sighted on the Sun's poles.
For this reason, the information conveyed by the red modifier seems superfluous.
_________________

The usage of never does not convey a contradictory meaning.
Whereas appear (present tense) refers to the PRESENT, have been sighted (present perfect) refers to a PAST action that affects the present.
Conveyed timeline:
-----have never been sighted [in the past]------appear on the Sun's surface [in the present]-----
It is certainly possible for spots that have never been sighted IN THE PAST to appear on the Sun's surface IN THE PRESENT.
_________________

Hi, GMATGuruNY

While looking through your elucidations, I encountered your post in another form: you said that

a VERBless clause invariably serves to modify a main clause that is in the PRESENT TENSE. Since the Magoosh sentence is not in the present tense, it is not viable.
The Magoosh sentence: Although opposing slavery on philosophical grounds, jefferson owned plantations with several hundred slaves.


I also wrote that While[I was] looking through your elucidations, I encountered your post in another form.
Does this rule also apply for While?
I always write a subordinate conjunction + present participle with a main clause that is in another tense, not present.
Now, I have a doubt about writing so!

Could you please explain why the main clause must be in the present tense?
Is it just a rule that we have to remember or is there some logic behind it?

Thank you very much beforehand!

Hi mSKR,

Option B can absolutely be taken out for the reason you mentioned.
_________________

Hi sarthakaggarwal,

We can read the original sentence like this:

1. Sunspots... are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on the Sun’s poles or equator. ← But joins two verbs, are and have been sighted.

Generally speaking, the rule that a comma must be used before a coordinating conjunction that joins two ICs isn't particularly reliable, and I don't recommend using it.
_________________

Hii Shraddha.
I had been through the SC course in which I was told that unless there is some quantity word, the subject cannot reside inside a prepositional phrase.
So as per that, I feel why shouldn't the "which" modifies the dark spots and not "Sun's surface".
Consider the example:
Most of the Indians, who are generally good at quant, prefer taking CAT.
IMO, I am talking about Indians in general and not about 80% of the Indians.

Now consider this"
The box of nails, which is black in color, is kept upon the table.
IMO, here which refers to "the box" and not "nails".

Please clarify.
Regards.

Hi e-gmat,

Please can you answer my queries below regarding the above OG question.

1. When compared to sighted at equator, sighted on equator sounds good and I feel we must say sighted on equator and not sighted at equator as equator is not a place like an area in a city. Please can you let me now if my understanding above is correct and can I eliminate an option based solely on this one?

2. Consider the sentence, Sunspots appear on the surface of the sun as dark spots although never sighted at equator. Can I assume sighted is a verb - ed modifier which modifies the previous noun Dark Spots? or the presence of although would restrict sighted as a verb-ed modifier?

3. Consider the below two sentences:
a. Sunspots are visible as dark spots on the surface of the sun but have never been sighted on equator. (X but Y)
b. Sunspots appear on the surface of the sun as dark spots although never sighted at equator. (X although Y).

In sentence (a) can I say the parallelism rules allow the sunspots to be the subject in both X and Y clauses? If the answer is yes for the above question I assume then the same holds true for (b) also. Is my understanding correct?

While attempting this question I felt the construction X but Y is not appropriate (for I think X, but Y is the correct form) and hence eliminated option A and selected C thinking that the "sighted" is acting as verb-ed modifier for dark spots. However, I was wrong. Please could you elaborate your answer for my 3 queries above?

Hi there,

1. I would say this is a question of usage rather than of application of logic. The sentence says that sunspots have been sighted on the surface of the sun but not on the poles or equator. So, I would pick 'sighted on' based on the context of the sentence rather than the meaning that you've applied.

For questions 2 and 3, the only correct use of 'although' that I've seen in such a context in official questions is when the meaning is completely unambiguous. For example, in the sentence "Although small, the conference room suits our needs," it is clear that "small" can refer only to the conference room. In a context in which it's possible for the modifier to refer to more than one item, it makes more sense to replace the modifier with a verb that is parallel to the verb in the previous clause, so that the meaning is absolutely clear.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Meghna
_________________

Hi sayantanc2k,

Does it mean add a comma as following,
Sunspots, vortices of gas associated with strong electromagnetic activity, are visible as dark spots that never have been sighted on the surface of the Sun , the Sun’s poles or equator.

it confused me a lot if add comma like this,

so the part after the added comma is noun phrase, right?
in an another word, the surface of the sun is the same as the sun's poles or equator, hm.. feel strange,
that's my confusion and sorry for my implicit previous post.

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

I chose option C
appear on the surface of the Sun as dark spots although never sighted at
But the second part of option C is suspicious .
The second part of the sentence tells a universal fact , but the original sense of the sentence is not a universal fact .
Also what will come at the end of the sentence at or on?

Can 'have' and 'are' be parallel? They are brilliant but have never practiced the sport. Seems funny.

Hello GMATNinja - I solved this question for the second time and unfortunately got it wrong both the times. Your detailed analysis on this question would be highly appreciated.

Let me try my hands on this one.

INTENDED MEANING --
Sunspots are the vortices of gas associated with the strong electromagnetic activity. These sunspots are visible as dark spots on the surface of the sun but these sunspots are till date never sighted on the sun's poles or equator.


The intended meaning is perfectly clear. Correct!
Plural verbs “are” and “have never been sighted” agree in number and make sense with the plural Subject “Sunspots”. The verbs are both logically and gramatically parallel.


There are overall 4 errors in this choice,
1. The VERB CONSTRUCTION -- "never have been sighted" is INCORRECT. (Note : Here, never is an adverb). The correct construction is -- "have never been sighted", which is not used in this choice though.
2. MEANING ERROR -- If the dark spots are never sighted on the surface of the sun, then how are these sunspots visible as dark spots. Therefore, the meaning implied in the current form of this option is NON-SENSICAL. Also, as per the intended meaning it was that those sunspots are never sighted at the sun's poles or equator but not the sun's surface.
3. There is NO CONTRAST MARKER (eg, but) in this choice, thus the intended contrast is lost in this choice.
4. The sentence construction is even awkward for this option choice, just notice at the last part of this choice and try to connect it with the non-underlined part of the sentence, it will be as follows,
Sunspots are visible as dark spots that never have been sighted on the surface of the Sun the Sun’s poles or equator”. This construction is ungrammatical.


This option choice is NOT as clear as option A. Also,
This option choice violates parallelism because the verb “appear” is not parallel to the adjective “sighted”. "sighted" is a VERB-ed modifier here, as the action of sighting is not performed by the sunspots themselves. INCORRECT.


The structure, "never having been" is incorrect. The correct structure is -- "having + never + been".
Also, the usage of "HAVING + Verb-ED" is incorrect in this choice. HAVING + VERBed is used to denote the previous of the two causally related actions but there is no need of such logical sequencing as per the intended meaning of the sentence. INCORRECT.


"Sun’s surface” has never been sighted is not what the sentence wants to convey. It’s the Sunspots that have never been sighted on the Sun’s surface. So the placement of clause “which have…” makes this choice incorrect. Also, there is NO CONTRAST MARKER present to show the intended contrast. INCORRECT.

NOTE : The usage of "although" is NOT wrong either in choice C or D. Its correct!

Hi
Do we need a comma before the FANBOYS?

Yes, but would suggest you don't select/reject an option just based on the presence or absence of comma before FANBOYS.
_________________