The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the

I’ll be honest: I don’t immediately see any completely horrible problems with (A). So I wouldn’t eliminate it immediately... but I would immediately think of beer, because Pliny the Elder is pretty tasty. The beer, not the Roman philosopher. Maybe he was tasty too, but judging by the pictures, he wasn't really my type.

This explanation is already off the rails. Let's keep (A) for now, and we’ll line it up with the other tempting choice before we pick a final answer.


(B) is basically a diaper fire. (Not that I’ve ever seen or smelled a diaper fire. But I’ve been around a lot of diapers lately, and a diaper fire can’t be good.)

For starters, I can’t figure out why the phrase “to the historian Tacitus” would appear before “the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters.” Why not just say that the nephew “wrote two letters to the historian Tacitus”…?

The bigger problem is the phrase beginning with “being.” It’s a hot mess: I guess “being” is trying to act as a modifier for “two letters.” But since it comes after a comma, “being” is acting as an “-ing” modifier for the previous clause, “the nephew… wrote two letters”, and that doesn’t make any sense, since the nephew is the subject of the clause, and the nephew can’t possibly be “the only eyewitness accounts.”

In other words: why not just say “two letters that were the only eyewitness accounts”, instead of messing with that ugly “being” modifier?

So (B) is out.


(C) is also pretty darned confusing. The biggest problem is that “the only eyewitness account” is the subject of the sentence, and it’s nowhere near the phrase “an account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.” So now the sentence arguably says that the only eyewitness account – like, of anything, EVER – was in the two letters. And that makes no sense.

A smaller issue is the phrase “… in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder writing to the historian Tacitus…” For starters, you could argue that it sounds like the letters are doing the writing, and that doesn’t make sense. And even if you’re not sure about that part, there’s absolutely no reason to use the word “writing” there at all – of course the letters were written by somebody.

So we can ditch (C).


This isn’t completely horrible, but it’s not great, either. For starters, the “eyewitness account” is a long way from the phrase “eruption of Vesuvius”, and that makes the sentence much less clear: as you read the beginning of the sentence, it sounds like Pliny’s nephew might have written the only eyewitness account of anything, EVER. Or at the very least, it’s not clear what event the “eyewitness account” is describing until we’re much deeper into the sentence.

I’m also uncomfortable with the phrase “Pliny the Elder’s nephew accounted for the great eruption of Vesuvius…” That literally sounds like Pliny’s nephew might have somehow caused the eruption (consider the phrase “poor planning accounted for the firm’s failure to achieve profitability”, for example). You definitely wouldn’t use the phrase “accounted for” just to say that he wrote a description of the eruption.

So it’s safe to eliminate (D), especially since (A) and (E) are better options.

Speaking of (A) and (E)…


Both of these do a nice thing: they make it clear that the eyewitness account is of the great eruption of Vesuvius, and that makes them better options than the other three answer choices.

The only difference between (A) and (E) is the placement of the phrase “in two letters to the historian Tacitus” – and that phrase should logically describe “the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote…” And the sentence is just a little bit clearer if the modifier “in two letters to the historian Tacitus” appears right at the beginning of the sentence. In (A), the modifier is just too far away from phrase “the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote…”

So (E) is our winner.
_________________

Since you have posted a doubt on C and E, lets consider choices A, C, and E only:

Meaning Analysis - (Choice A)

• The sentence talks about a person X - who is nephew of Pliny the Elder
• Person X wrote the only eyewitness account.
• This account is of the great eruption of Vesuvius
• He wrote the account in two letters
• The letters were written to the historian Tacitus

Errors Analysis of Choice A

The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.

Logically the modifier in “red” should provide additional information about the action – wrote – where did he write this only eyewitness account. But its placement after “eruption of Vesuvius” implies that the “eruption took place in two letters”. This is illogical. This is the error in choice A.

Answer Choice Analysis – Choice C

The only eyewitness account is in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder writing to the historian Tacitus an account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

First of all this choice only communicates partial meaning:
• It is not clear that the “only eyewitness account” is of the great eruption of Vesuvius”. This sentence seems to imply that the ONLY eyewitness account is in the letters that contain an account of the eruption of Vesuvius. This is clearly not what we want to communicate. We want to talk specifically about the ONLY eyewitness account of eruption of Vesuvius.

Secondly, the expression “nephew …writing to the historian Tacitus..” non-sensically describes the nephew and somehow gives the sense that the nephew is still writing the letters. This should instead express a one- time action done by the nephew.

Answer Choice Analysis – Choice E

In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
This sentence correctly communicates the meaning.

Your statement that "nephew of Pliny the Elder" seems to refer to historian Tacitus.” is not correct. Note that the modifier is not “historian Tacitus”. The complete modifier is “in two letters to the historian Tacitus”. Now this prepositional modifier provides more information about the action – wrote. Where did the nephew write? In the 2 letters to historian Tacitus.

I hope this answers your questions.

Take-away

– Focus on the meaning of the sentence and pay close attention to how the sentence structure of the sentences.

Payal
_________________

OK, I'll trust the OG explanation here, and I think I can clarify.

Think about this sentence:

I play musical instruments for a living in Carnegie Hall.

The phrase "in Carnegie Hall" can describe one of three things:
(1) where I play
(2) where the musical instruments are located
(3) where my living is

(1) is legal, and is my intended meaning: that I play musical instruments for a living, and that I do so in Carnegie Hall.

(2) is apparently legal, and is the real issue I'm getting at. Could the instruments be located in Carnegie hall? Well technically, yes they could. So I might be trying to say "There are musical instruments in Carnegie Hall, and those are the ones I play for a living."

(3) is not legal! Meaning eliminates #3! My living is an intangible concept, not a real thing, and so it can't be in Carnegie Hall.

Now think about this sentence:

I play musical instruments for an audience in Carnegie Hall.

The phrase "in Carnegie Hall" can describe one of three things:
(1) where I play
(2) where the musical instruments are located
(3) where the audience is located

Now, (3) is legal! The audience could be located in Carnegie Hall, so I might be saying that I play musical instruments, but only for one particular audience found in Carnegie Hall.

My point is that you can't decide whether a prepositional phrase is OK just by looking at structure. You have to look at meaning too!

OK, now let's look at the question:

(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.

The phrase "in two letters..." can describe one of three things:
(1) where Pliny's nephew wrote something
(2) the location of the account
(3) where Vesuvius is located

(1) is the meaning that we want - that Pliny wrote, in two letters, the only eyewitness account.

(2) is, according to the GMAT, the problem - we are saying that Pliny's account is the only eyewitness account in these two letters, but there might be other eyewitness accounts out there in someone else's letters!

(3) is eliminated by meaning, as per the earlier example: Mount Vesuvius cannot be located within a letter.

Now I think it's arguable that you could eliminate (2) based on meaning as well, but the GMAT clearly disagrees. However, since there's another answer choice that completely eliminates the ambiguity by using a comma, we should probaby pick that choice. That choice is (E).
_________________

What does the sentence tell us? That the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account (so presumably, he saw it happen and he wrote about what happened) of the eruption of Vesuvius. He wrote the account in two letters to the historian Tacitus. These two letters seem to be the only eyewitness account.

(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
There isn’t any big problem that jumps out right away. If I really want to be a bit nit-picky, I would say that ‘in two letters…’ seems to modify ‘great eruption of Vesuvius’. Looks like the great eruption happened in these two letters! We know that that logic is non-sensical and that ‘in two letters …’ is a prepositional adverbial modifier that should modify ‘wrote’ so option (A) can’t really be called incorrect but a better way of expressing would be to start with the prepositional modifier
‘In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote …’
Here the prepositional phrase clearly modifies the verb ‘wrote.’ Fortunately, we have this exact presentation in option (E) and hence (E) is correct.
But, let’s look at the other options too.

(B) To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters, being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
We use ‘being’ to show a temporary state. But the letters were not ‘being’ the only eyewitness accounts temporarily. They are the only eyewitness accounts. Hence this option is incorrect.
Something like this would be better:
‘To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters, which are the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius.’
Though still not as direct and clear as option (E).

(C) The only eyewitness account is in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder writing to the historian Tacitus an account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
Here, ‘the only eyewitness account’ does not specify an account of what? It is the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius but Vesuvius appears much later and it is not clear whether the ‘only eyewitness account’ is this account of the great eruption of Vesuvius. The prepositional phrase ‘by the nephew of …’ needs to modify ‘two letters’ and hence needs ‘written by the nephew of …’
Consider the three structures:
The account is in two letters written by A to B. (Looks good)
The account is in two letters by A. (would be acceptable since A is the object of preposition ‘by’ and we would assume that letters by A means letters written by A)
The account is in two letters by A writing to B. (This is very convoluted. Is A the object of the preposition ‘by’ and ‘writing to B’ the modifier for A? Then it is not clear that A wrote the two letters to B.)
Hence this option is incorrect.

(D) Writing the only eyewitness account, Pliny the Elder’s nephew accounted for the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
Again, it starts with ‘the only eyewitness account’ without giving what the eyewitness account is of. We need to say ‘the only eyewitness account of the eruption of Vesuvius.’
The use of ‘accounted for’ is incorrect here. Either it can mean ‘to give reasons for’ or ‘to be responsible for destroying.’ The nephew could have neither given reasons for the eruption nor been responsible for them. What we mean to say is ‘gave an account of’ which means ‘wrote about’ or ‘explained.’
Hence this option is incorrect too.

Answer (E)
_________________

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters to the historian Tacitus, and in these letters, he wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Verb Forms + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past
• The introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “being” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

A: This answer choice uses the needlessly indirect phrase "wrote the only eyewitness account...in two letters...", leading to awkwardness.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "being" in this sentence)" incorrectly implies that the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters because he was the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius; the intended meaning is that the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters, and these two letters were the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “being” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

C: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the clause "The only eyewitness account is in two letters"; the construction of this clause illogically implies that the only eyewitness account of anything is in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder; the intended meaning is that the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius is in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "writing" in this sentence) to refer to an action that concluded in the past; remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

D: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "Writing the only eyewitness account"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that the only eyewitness account of anything was written by the nephew of Pliny the Elder; the intended meaning is that the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius was written by the nephew of Pliny the Elder. Moreover, Option D further alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "accounted for"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that the nephew of Pliny the Elder explained the great eruption of Vesuvius; the intended meaning is that the nephew of Pliny the Elder described the great eruption of Vesuvius.

E: Correct. This answer choice uses the clause "the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius", conveying the intended meaning - that the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters to the historian Tacitus, describing the great eruption of Vesuvius, and these letters are the only eyewitness account, specifically, of the great eruption of Vesuvius. Further, Option E correctly uses the simple past tense verb "wrote" to refer to an event that concluded in the past. Additionally, Option E is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Comma + Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

jallenmorris , in terms of concisesness ,both are equally worded ,if you see you ll find an extra "," in E ,but as per my understanding the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus. ,is trying to sense it like the eruption occured in two letters !!,whereas in E it is clearly stated that it is the first object ,subject wrote ,make sense ??

This question is based on Modifiers and Construction.

The subject of this sentence is “the nephew of Pliny the Elder”. The sentence also conveys the information that he wrote the only eyewitness account of something.

The modifiers - of the great eruption of Vesuvius and in two letters to the historian Tacitus – can cause confusion if not placed properly in the sentence.

In Option A, the placement of the two modifiers conveys the meaning that the eruption took place in two letters to the historian Tacitus. Since the meaning conveyed is illogical, Option A can be eliminated.

In Option B, the placement of the modifier “To the historian Tacitus” is awkward, since it should ideally be placed after the clause “the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters”.
Furthermore, the participle phrase “, being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius” is separated from the previous clause by a comma. When a participle phrase is separated by a comma, it modifies the subject of the previous clause, which in this case is “the nephew of Pliny the Elder”. Since “the nephew…Elder” cannot be described as “the only eyewitness accounts” as the modifier states, the sentence is illogical. So, Option B can also be eliminated.

In Option C, it is not clear what the only eyewitness account refers to as the appropriate modifier is not placed next to it. Furthermore, the subject of the participle phrase “writing to the historian Tacitus an account of the great eruption of Vesuvius” is not clear. So, Option C can also be eliminated.

Option D repeats the error in Option C. There is no dangling modifier in this option as the subject “the nephew…Elder” is placed immediately after the modifier “writing….account”. However, the modifier is not complete as it should also provide information about what the eyewitness account is of. The phrase “the eruption of Vesuvius” is placed far away from it, causing some confusion about the meaning. So, Option D can also be eliminated.

Option E corrects the construction error in Option B by using a more detailed phrase at the beginning of the sentence “In two letters to the historian Tacitus”. This sentence also makes it clear that the eyewitness account was of the eruption of Vesuvius. Therefore, E is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

I don't think there is anything technically wrong with A. It has proper subject-verb agreement, there are not any issues with plural / singular nouns and verbs. The problem I have with A is that it is so wordy. Look at how many prepositional phrases are used. "of Pliny the Elder", "of the great eruption", "of Versuvius", "in two letters", "to the historian Tacitus." That's a lot of prep phrases. E has about the same number, but the phrases are better organized.

I like the way E uses the appositive in the beginning to "set the stage".

E seems like a more consice, clear sentence as opposed to A. Once you narrow it to A or E, it's not an easy choice.

The problem here is the awkward placement of the phrase - the eruption of Vesuvius in two letters, - giving the feeling that the eruption took place in two letters; on this count, the A and D can be eliminated.
B has the untouchable participle – being - ; in addition - the only eyewitness accounts - should be - the only eyewitness account-
C. - nephew of Pliny the Elder writing to – as if he is just now writing. Wrong diction

E is the best, bringing out in simple terms the intended meaning
_________________

Hey egmat
In Choice E, I came to conclusion that the phrase "In two letters to the historian Tacitus" is modifying "the nephew of Pliny the Elder", which is the subject of next clause as well. I scratched the choice E while answering this and now I am scratching my head wondering the principle behind prepositional Modifier logic used here. MGMAT explicit says that a modifying phrase should pair up with the closest noun it is associated with. WIth that in mind, I visualized that "the nephew is in two letters" and selected A upon E. What am I missing here?

Hi @joshnsit,

Prepositional phrases are very versatile modifiers. They can modify nouns as well as verbs. When a prepositional phrase modifies a noun, then it must be placed as close to the noun it modifies as possible. This is important to avoid any ambiguity in modification and to keep the intended meaning of the sentence clear.

So whenever we come across a prepositional phrase, we must first ascertain whether it is modifying a noun or a verb. So let’s bring in the OG question here and identify the entity the prepositional phrase should modify.

The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.

The sentence says that the nephew of Pliny the elder was the only eyewitness to the great eruption of Vesuvius. So he wrote this eyewitness account in two letters to the historian Tacitus.

The meaning of the sentence helps us determine which identity the prepositional phrase should modify. Here the prepositional phrase “in two letters” should modify the verb “wrote”. Where did the nephew of Pliny the Elder write his eyewitness account? He wrote it in two letters. So this prepositional phrase is modifying the verb “wrote”.

Now notice that “in two letters” is placed close to “the great eruption of Vesuvius”. Since prepositional phrases can also modify nouns, in choice A it seems that this modifier is actually modifying “eruption”. The modification seems to suggest that the eruption actually took place in two letters. Hence, the placement of “in two letters” is not correct in choice A.

Now let’s analyze choice E:

In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

The opening modifier in this choice is correctly modifying the following main clause. It is correctly modifying that what happened in tow letters. In two letters, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote what he saw. Hence, choice E is the correct answer.

Take Away:
1. Prepositional phrases can modify both nouns and verbs.
2. First ascertain the entity the prepositional phrase should modify and then see if their placement is correct.
3. If the prepositional phrase should modify a noun entity then place it after that noun entity.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hey egmat/Shraddha
This was certainly helpful. I found something which is worth sharing and I can draw a parallel with what you describe. I found it on https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/prepositionalphrase.htm

A prepositional phrase will function as an adjective or adverb. (This becomes parallel with your first take away: Prepositional phrases can modify both nouns and verbs because they modify by qualifying verbs and nouns in the sentence.)

What explained next is really good.
As an adjective, the prepositional phrase will answer the question Which one?
The book on the bathroom floor is swollen from shower steam.
Which book? The one on the bathroom floor!

The sweet potatoes in the vegetable bin are green with mold.
Which sweet potatoes? The ones forgotten in the vegetable bin!

As an adverb, a prepositional phrase will answer questions such as How? When? or Where?
Freddy is stiff from yesterday's long football practice.
How did Freddy get stiff? From yesterday's long football practice!

Before class, Josh begged his friends for a pencil.
When did Josh do his begging? Before class!

The second example for prepositional phrase here explains the choice E here.

Your example has definitely reinforced what I found. The method of splitting sentence as used by you for choice A is really a good approach for identifying the nature of preposition(noun/adjective or verbal/adverb). Thanks a lot for explaining this.

The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacit us.

(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacit us. ---- The eruption of Vesuvius in two letters is wrong word order; After all, the eruption did not occur in two letters


(B) To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters, being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius. ---- is it the accounts or account? The plural term -accounts - is wrong in this context. In addition, the letters being called as eyewitness accounts distorts the meaning. Do letters witness?

(C) The only eyewitness account is in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the elder writing to the historian Tacitus an account of the great eruption of Vesuvius. ----- The shift of tense to present –is- is not acceptable. In addition, if a present participle does not have a comma before it, it is supposed to modify the noun it touches. If the writing refers to Pliny the Elder, who actually wrote the letters?


(D) Writing the only eyewitness account, Pliny the Elder’s nephew accounted for the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.---- same error as in A; In addition - accounted for –is wrong diction: It may also mean be responsible for and that the nephew took responsibility for the eruption


(E) In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius; the best


Very often, in convoluted and complex structures, You will find some easy grammar clues to tide over the jumble. You can keep this in mind as a handy tool
_________________

What kind of modification does being in Option b plays.
OG Says"the verb phrase that begins
being the only eyewitness accounts modifies the subject of the preceding clause, suggesting nonsensically that the nephew of Pliny the Elder himself was the eyewitness accounts"
Can u give an example of comma+being modifying subject of the clause.

Hi @abid1986,

Thank you for posting your question. You are correct in stating that the usage of "being" as a modifier in this sentence is incorrect.

I hope you have read our article on correct uses of "Being". If not then please take some time to review that article here. In this article, we have outlined how "being" is used correctly in GMAT sentences.

Do let us know if you have any other doubts.

Happy Learning!

Regards,

Payal
_________________

The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.

(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
(B) To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters, being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
(C) The only eyewitness account is in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder writing to the historian Tacitus an account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
(D) Writing the only eyewitness account, Pliny the Elder’s nephew accounted for the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus
(E) In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

Source: OG V2 SC Q#109
Correct Answer: Option E.

Before I ask my question let me present my opinion and Understanding.
The biggest mistake in Option A and Option D is of meaning because of a Mis-Placed Modifier.
the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters
The misplaced modifier in two letters gives a wrong conclusion that eruption occurred in two letters and this is 100% nonsensical.

Option C is Horrible. If Donald Trump would have seen this question he would have said Option C is Fired.

My Question is regarding Option B -
Before I move ahead with the question let me tell you my understanding about adverbial modifier i.e. VERB+ING -

When you use a COMMA -ING modifier after a clause**, you should actually satisfy TWO requirements:

1. the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause, as you have stated;
2. The subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.

This sort of modifier should additionally satisfy TWO requirements:

1) It should apply most nearly to the subject of the preceding clause (as you've said); and, even more importantly,
2) It should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:
* Immediate consequence
* Simultaneous, but lower-priority, action

VERB + ING Modifiers also take the tense of the Preceding clause.

____________________________________________________________

(B) To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters, being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

I believe being here is an adverbial modifier i.e. VERB+ING. In the light of what I mentioned above being is modifying the whole clause not just the Noun The Nephew and therefore its usage is justified here. However Official explanation has some other story according to the being is a verb phrase that modifies the nephew. This is the Point of confusion?

Being is a verb phrase or a Verb+ING modifier here? And if it is a verb phrase then how to distinguish between a verb phrase and a VERB+ING modifier.

What is a behavior of verb phase in general?

I have also read the discussion here -
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/participle ... -the-gmat/

But that was not about comma+verb+ing.
_________________

Dear crunchboss,
I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I am going to begin by chiding you for using imprecise language. Imprecise language leads to imprecise thinking. If you want to understand all the nuances of grammar, it's necessary to use the most rigorous language. Using precise and rigorous language at all times is one of the habits of excellence. The imprecise phrase you used is "VERB + ING Modifiers." As you may understand, the so-called -ing form of a verb has three uses:
1) part of a progressive tense verb construction, as a full verb
2) a present participle, which can be a noun-modifier or a verb-modifier
3) a gerund. which takes noun roles

Participles as modifiers are extraordinary. As noun modifiers, they are bound by the Touch Rule and so forth. As verb modifiers, that is, as adverbial phrases, they have tremendous freedom. I would say: don't be too attached to your long list of rules for participles as verb-modifiers---think of them more as guidelines than mathematical rules. Any verb-modifier, insofar as it modifies the action of a clause, essentially modifies the entire clause: there's at best a blurry line between clause modifiers and verb modifiers.

Now, in this question, I agree that (A) has a subtle but awkward misplaced modifier problem. Choice (D), in addition to the misplaced modifier, is a complete disaster: both (C) and (D) should be taken out back and shot.

Option (B) is interesting. As a general rule, when you see the participle "being," a dozen red flags should go off in your head. It's not automatically wrong, but more than 95% of the answer choices that have the participle "being" in them are wrong. Here, (B) is a trainwreck.

I actually would say that the participle "being" is used as NOUN modifier here. What is "the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius"? Those two letters. This is a noun-modifying participial phrase dutifully obeying the Modifier Touch Rule, touching the noun it modifies, "two letters." What's particularly awkward about using "being" to open a noun-modifier is that one almost always could replace it with a more elegant appositive phrase.

Here, very technically, the two letter are not coextensive in their existence with the "only eyewitness account." Technically, the two letter contain or convey or provide the "only eyewitness account." One of those verbs or a similar verb, used as a noun-modifying participle, would enormously improve (B)

(B2) To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters conveying the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

That's not ideal, but it's correct enough to be a right answer on the GMAT SC.

Now, what the OE said. My friend, keep in mind that each official question in the OG or GMAT Prep is of the highest caliber---I would argue among the finest standardized test questions on planet Earth. Think of each official question as the equivalent of the Crown Jewels of England. By contrast, the official explanations are the equivalent of some reasonably nice jewelry from Walmart. The difference is simply embarrassing. I write questions all the time: at my very best, I write questions almost as good as the official questions, but even if I were deprived of sleep for three days I could write better explanations of questions that the OG has. The official questions have been rigorously vetted in several formal psychometric procedures over the course of years. The OEs were written years later, probably by tired starving graduate students on contract work: from what I can tell, the OEs have undergone almost no feedback. It's like the difference between Shakespeare and a cheap paperback thriller, and as it's if the two have been bound together in the same book and packaged as if they are of the same worth. Don't be fooled. Here's a page with Magoosh explanations for all the questions in the OG13:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/forum/books/13- ... at-13th-ed

Here's what I would say about the OE's description. Infinitives and participles and gerunds are all called "verbals"---that is, verb forms that are acting in some "non-verb" capacity in the sentence. All three of them can take direct objects & modifiers to form phrases: infinitive phrases, participial phrase, and gerund phrases. We could call all those "verbal phrases," or as the OE says, "verb phrases." That's imprecise language, typical of the OE, and of the sort I would urge you to avoid.

BTW, the "nephew of Pliny the Elder" was Pliny the Younger. On the day of the eruption of Vesuvius, the former was on the volcano itself, inspecting the geological changes that had been happening leading up the eruption, and the latter was across the bay at a kind of base camp, observing the volcano from afar. When the eruption suddenly took place, the uncle was killed instantly, and the nephew de facto was an eye-witness of the event. A very educated man, Pliny the Younger wrote to his very intelligent friend Tacitus about the eruption.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.

Issues: Structure | Meaning

Analysis:
1. This sentence is talking about multiple things, so let's break them apart.
- The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters
- Those letters were written to the historian Tacitus
- Those letters are the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius
The correct choice should connect these thoughts so that proper meaning is conveyed without any ambiguity.


(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
- Illogical as it implying that "great eruption of Vesuvius" occurred "in two letters to the historian Tacitus"

(B) To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters, being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
- "To the historian Tacitus" - fragment
- ", being" incorrectly modifies the whole clause. It should only modify the letters.


(C) The only eyewitness account is in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder writing to the historian Tacitusan account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
- less preferred passive voice "by the nephew" (however this is not a error which alone can eliminate this option)
- "writing" is incorrect verb form
- "an account...." is connected with previous clause without a conjunction which is ungrammatical

(D) Writing the only eyewitness account, Pliny the Elder’s nephew accounted for the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
- "accounted for" has a different meaning than intended in the sentence.
- Illogical as it implying that "great eruption of Vesuvius" occurred "in two letters to the historian Tacitus"

(E) In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius

Answer: (E)

Hi Experts,

I have a question on verb tense in choice C. In some of the posts here, it says that "writing to the historian Tacitus an account of the great " -- use of this participle phrase make it seem like the nephew is still writing. Could you tell me how we check tenses in the present participle phrases? My understanding is that if present participle comes with a helping verb then it means it's a present continuous tense, but if it doesn't (example in this question), how do we determine when its usage is correct and when it's not? Thank you!

GMATNinja, sayantanc2k

Thanks much!