The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its

There is a rule in modification that if a modifier is inessential, then it has to be set off with a comma, in which case the clause should complete the intended meaning in full without considering the modifier. In D and E, the prepositional modifiers are separated by a comma, but the intended meaning of the passage can not be completed without considering the modifiers. Therefore, the use of comma before the preposition ‘with’ is grammatically incorrect. Hence D and E can be dropped.

Dear honchos,

I'm happy to respond. There is a lot to say about this, my friend.

First of all, a prepositional phrase beginning with "with" can be either a noun modifier (a.k.a. an adjectival phrase) or a verb/clause modifier (a.k.a. an adverbial phrase). The nature of the role depends on context.

When we have
[noun] "with X" [verb]
then it's clear that the "with" phrase probably modifies the noun and is adjectival in nature.

When we have
[noun] [verb] "with X"
then it's clear that the "with" phrase probably modifies the verb or whole clause and is adverbial in nature.

But when we have
[noun] [verb] [direct object] "with X"
then we can't specify a general rule. The "with" clause may be a noun modifier modifying the direct object or last noun in the clause, or it may be a verb modifier modifying the action of the entire clause.
I bought a car with leather seats. = noun modifier
I bought a car with the money I earned at that special assignment. = verb/clause modifier

Typically, the "with" modifier would not be separated from the rest of a sentence by a comma break: that really introduces a curveball.

This official SC question is brilliant and particularly subtle. Choice (A) & (B) are out for the pronoun problem ("its" referring to "profits"). There's nothing wrong with (C).

In (D) or (E), if the rest of the sentence after the comma were different, it could be conceivable that "with" might be an adverbial modifier modifying the adjective "evident," answering the question "how evident?" or "why was it evident?"
... cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a stunning clarity that makes all the company's previous moves seem ambiguous"
Not the best sentence, and certainly not what they would discuss in the business world, but it's a grammatical example.

The trouble is, that entire section after the comma is talking about the profits. If we are going to use a modifying phrase/clause to talk about the profits, then "profits" is the word we have to be modifying. It is not good logical design to have a modifier grammatically point to one word but to use the modifier to discuss another world. I would argue that the primary problem with the adverbial interpretation in (D) & (E) is a logical one, not a grammatical one.

If the "with" preposition were going to modify the noun "profits," again, it would be extremely unusual to have a comma-break between a noun and the prepositional phrase that modifies it. More importantly, it's awkward and illogical---even without a comma. Consider a simplified sentence.
"The company's profits with a 5% increase during the first 3 months of this year were notable because . . . "
There, there's no ambiguity: the "with" clause has to be a noun modifier modifying "profits." Even without a comma, this is awkward, and the comma only makes it worse.

Part of this is the verb/noun/adjective issue. The entire construction "X with an increase" is an extremely poor way to say "X increased."

This is what is so brilliant about this official question, and why as a question-writer, I am so jealous of the amazing quality of the official questions. We absolutely do have a choice of looking at the "with" construction in (D) or (E) as either an adverbial phrase or an adjectival phrase---it's just that either option produces a complete trainwreck. It's not so much about a rule knowing which option to choose: it's that we potentially have both options, but neither works in this particular sentence!

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Dear Akhil,
Thank you for your query.
You are correct. Structurally speaking, the difference between C and D is the difference between their respective uses of “which” and “with”. However, logically speaking, choice C is any day a lot clearer in conveying the intended meaning of the author than either choice D or E is. Let’s see why:

In choice D or E, it is not clear exactly how the prepositional phrase starting with “with” relates back to the sentence. Now, the whole phrase starting with “with” is a prepositional phrase, which can modify either a noun or a verb. Accordingly, the two possible things that could be modified with this modifier are (ref: underlined sections) :

a. The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits…
or
b. The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits…

Now, the context of the sentence dictates that the “with” phrase modify “profits” as, logically speaking, the profits have increased after falling for two years. So let’s test whether this meaning comes across clearly with the “with” modifiers :

(D) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years.
(E) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen over the last two years.

Now, do you think that the “with” modifiers in the above two sentences clearly refer back to the profits?! The answer is NO! This is because these phrases could be deemed as modifying the action in the previous clause. In other words, it could be taken to suggest that:

The results are evident because of a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years.

The above meaning makes logical sense. However, is this sense compatible with the intended meaning of the author? The answer is NO! Also, besides the fact that choices D and E form rather awkward sentences, in the “with” modifying phrases, we are just told about a five percent increase, but we are not told exactly what entity has increased during the first three months of this year. The same goes for the “falling” bit. We do not know exactly what fell over the last two years.

Accordingly, it makes more sense to use “which” here. This is because “which” is typically used to convey extra-information about the noun preceding it. In the correct choice, “which” unambiguously refers back to “profits”. A simple example of the same usage is explained below:

The green shoes, which I tried on, are designed by the famous shoe designer Romano Ray.

In the above sentence, the noun “shoes” is already described as “green” in color. Therefore, the “which” clause- which I tried on- gives us extra information about the shoes.

To solidify your understanding of the topic and to learn the nuances of the same, please visit our in-depth article on the subject: https://gmatclub.com/forum/noun-modifier ... 35868.html

Please also revise the concept of “Types of modifier” if you are an e-GMATer.

Hope the above discussion helps!

Regards,

Neeti.

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 core meaning of this sentence is that the company's profits have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Tenses + Pronouns

• The present participle verb form ("verb+ing") is most commonly used to modify nouns, commonly used (preceded by comma) to express cause-effect relationships, and moderately used to refer to ongoing events in any time frame.
• The simple past continuous tense is used to refer to an action that was ongoing over a period of time in the past.
• The present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to event that concluded in the past.
• The past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past".

A: This answer choice incorrectly uses the singular pronoun "it" to refer to the plural noun "profits". Further, Option A incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "increased" to refer to an action that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; please remember, present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present, and the simple past tense is used to refer to event that concluded in the past. Additionally, Option A incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "fell" to refer to an action that was ongoing over a period of time in the past; please remember, the simple past continuous tense is used to refer to an action that was ongoing over a period of time in the past, and the simple past tense is used to refer to an event that concluded in the past.

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses the past perfect tense verb "had increased" to refer to an action that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; please remember, present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present, and the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past". Further, Option B incorrectly uses the past perfect tense verb "had fallen" to refer to an action that was ongoing over a period of time in the past; please remember, the simple past continuous tense is used to refer to an action that was ongoing over a period of time in the past, and the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past".

C: Correct. This answer choice correctly modifies "its profits" with "which have increased", conveying the intended meaning - that the company's profits have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years. Further, Option C correctly uses the present perfect tense verb "have increased" to refer to an action that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present. Additionally, Option C correctly uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "falling" in this sentence) to refer to an action that took place over a period of time in the past; please remember, the present participle ("verb+ing" - "falling" in this sentence) is used to refer to ongoing events in any time frame. Besides, Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

D: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "with a five percent increase"; the construction of this phrase leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the company's profits have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years.

E: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "with a five percent increase"; the construction of this phrase leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the company's profits have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years. Further, Option E uses the passive voice construction "having fallen", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

Hence, C 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 "Past Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Present Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

thank you nilesh376 for your initiative, but here is what I think:
"uummm.. Not sure how to answer ur question but theres another reason why 'D' is wrong. First in second clause two events are happening 5 pc increase in first three months nd 'fall' in previous 2 years and the main clause is talking in present.. 'are evident'. When two things are said in past, its imp to distinguish which occurred earlier."

that's what I said but there is preposition "after" in the second phrase(I dont think the second statement which you refer to it as a second clause is infact a clause because there is no a clear subject and there are only partial predicate therefore the whole phrase which is long is acting as a adverb that is modifying the main verb in the main clause) back to what I was saying the word "after" indicates the time sequence so again why do we need to use tense.

<using 'with' as second clause wud make it a stand alone independent clause, you can flip and test.. this makes 'D' and 'E' out.>

am not sure about this, "with" is actually a preposition therefore it is not used to introduce a n independent clause, also "with" is sometimes used to introduce an absolute phrase but there is no way that it can introduce an independent clause because it actually would not have a complete meaning.

further clarification please.

OG says the underlined part need to clarify the sequence by using verb tenses.
Here are the explanation for the choices:

A The verb tenses do not distinguish between the times at which these indicators occurred; the singular it does not agree with the plural profits.
B The verb tenses do not distinguish between the times when the indicators occurred; the singular it does not agree with the plural profits.
C Correct. The verb tenses clearly indicate the sequence of events.
D It is not clear what connection is being described by with; the prepositional phrase makes the sentence wordy and unclear.
E It is not clear what connection is being described by with; the prepositional phrase makes the sentence wordy and unclear.

IF the sequence is the first priority, I think E best resolves this problem "having fallen..." clearly indicates that the action falling happened before the action increase.
Why is E wrong?
1) because it starts with "with+ing" pattern?
I've noticed that OG seems to avoid this "with" pattern. But could anyone tell me why is it wrong? if it's a noun modifier, then it makes perfect sense to modify "profits".
2) because it contains "having"? GMAT seems to avoid this form too.

Please explain~~~Thanks

My question is why is D or E not correct and C correct - is it because of the use of with in choices D and E or do they contain any additional error.
The only difference between C and D is the usage of with and which.
Can someone please guide on the usage of these words.

Couple of question:
1. I have question regarding the 'tense' used in A & B. Please find below choice by eliminating the pronoun error. please let me know if they are correct.

a. which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling
b. which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling


2. Question regarding 'with'
d. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling
e. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen
In both cases 'with' is incorrect.
Is 'with' always incorrect to start a modifier ? Or can 'with' used to start modifier is any case ? Is there any example that shows correct usage of 'with' ?

I will offer kudos to every satisfactory answer

Hi umeshpatil,


I have already answered your first question in my reply to russ9’s post. You can find it on the same page, right next to your post:


Regarding question number 2, I will say that a modifier can be started with ‘with’. Let’s take a look at a couple of official examples:

OFFICIAL EXAMPLE I

• Diabetes, together with its serious complications, ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer.

In this sentence, the modifier doesn't exactly start with 'with', but still it serves the purpose. If a modifier can start with 'together with', it can also start with 'with'. Right?

OFFICIAL EXAMPLE II

• The intricate structure of the compound insect eye, with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, helps explain why scientists have assumed that it evolved independently of the vertebrate eye.





Hope this helps!
Manyu

Hi E-gmat,

Content taken from the latest post of e-gmat on this thread.

The results are evident because of a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years.

The above meaning makes logical sense. However, is this sense compatible with the intended meaning of the author? The answer is NO! Also, besides the fact that choices D and E form rather awkward sentences, in the “with” modifying phrases, we are just told about a five percent increase, but we are not told exactly what entity has increased during the first three months of this year. The same goes for the “falling” bit. We do not know exactly what fell over the last two years.

My questions:

How the above makes logical sense.

The results are evident because of a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years.

What has increased by 5% and what had fallen previously , we don't know from the above sentence then how can it be logical?

Plz suggest !

Hi Sahil,

Thank you for posting the entire question along with the answer choices.

Choice D and E are incorrect because the prepositional phrase with a 5 percent increase seems to modify the preceding clause the result's... are evident.... We are aware that the clause modifiers associate with the subject of the modified clause. Hence, it seems that the information presented in the with phrase associates with the results and not with profits. This is the reason why we say that role of falling is ambiguous in Choices D and E.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell over the last two years.

a. which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell
b. which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen
c. which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling
d. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling
e. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen


This is what I know till date. I might be having Knowledge Gap -

[Clause] + [comma]+ [with] → WITH modifies the action (verb). It answers the questions how that action was performed.
[Noun] + [Comma] + [With] → WITH Modifies the noun.

I scored a century, with a special bat
Clause + comma + with modifies the verb and answers the question how the action was performed.

Starfish, with an innate ability to reproduce, reproduces very fast.
Noun + Comma + With -> modifies the noun.

Is my Knowledge correct or their is something that I am missing?

Some one has challenged me that my this information is incorrect -
[Noun] + [Comma] + [With] → WITH Modifies the noun.

This was his opinion -

used to follow the above rules, but I'm afraid only the first one is correct.

I had the same doubt ,which was finally resolved by an expert from Manhattan (Dmitry Farber).

As per Dmitry,

"Careful, folks. Adverbial modifiers don't modify nouns at all. That's why they're called adverbial modifiers. Adverbs generally modify verbs, but can also modify adjectives or other adverbs. They can even modify an entire preceding clause. However, they cannot modify nouns."

Now you can see why option D is incorrect .Because the adverbial phrase doesn't make any sense with the verb (or the previous clause), something that you deduced yourself - "Second,"with..." phrase modifies verb "are evident"; this construction doesn't make any sense. "

We did some more research sir and find something else -

Good description of the use of "adverbial modifiers" Arun, but in this particular sentence we will have to be careful. Let's discuss some grammar here

Fact 1-
"with..." phrase is a prepositional phrase in option D here.
Fact 2-
Prepositional phrase can act both as an adverbial phrase and as an adjective phrase.

Application 1-
If "with..." is intended to modify noun( profits), then the phrase acts as an adjectival phrase.

Application 2-
If "with..." is intended to modify verb( are evident), then the phrase acts as an adverbial phrase.

Now the discussion is not about the correct usage of "adverbial phrase", but to identify how the prepositional phrase("with...") has been used here - Is it Application1, or Application2?

__________________________________


I am so much confused with the application of "with" Help will be appreciated.

Source: OG13

The results of the company’s cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell over the last two years.
A. which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell
B. which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen
C. which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling
D. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling
E. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen

My problem in this question is I agree that profits vs it filters A and B.
with phrase filters D and E leaving C.
but i could not understand after falling over last two years part. Can someone explain?

Dear Nevernevergiveup,

I'm happy to respond.

First of all, I am going to mention several pieces of etiquette about posting questions.
1) When you post a SC question, always always always underline the relevant portion. I did that for you here.
2) Always cite the source as a specifically as possible. This is from the OG13, SC #90.
3) When you discuss the text in your question, always set off words from the text in quote mark. For clarity, I prefer to use quote marks and a different color.

For #3, here's what I mean. You wrote:
My problem in this question is I agree that profits vs it filters A and B.
with phrase filters D and E leaving C.
but i could not understand after falling over last two years part. Can someone explain?
That is extremely hard to understand because you did not punctuate correctly. Here's how it should look:
My problem in this question is I agree that "profits" vs "it" filters A and B.
"with" phrase filters D and E leaving C.
but i could not understand "after falling over last two years" part. Can someone explain?
You see, it's actually considered rude to ask someone a question but then make mistake that requires the person helping you to expend additional effort. When you are asking for help, it's appropriate to be as respectful and as accommodating as possible.

Finally, I am going to say that your question is a poor question, simply because it is not clear. Any question that says no more than "I don't understand X" is not a thoughtful question. You did tell me what you understood about the rest of the SC question: that's good. What about the phrase "after falling over last two years" do you not understand? What do you think it means? How do you think it ought to be said? Are you asking for the meaning? Are you asking for the grammatical form and why it's right? What exactly is your question?

I will suggest this blog:
Asking Excellent Questions
Asking excellent question is one of the habits of excellence that will accelerate your GMAT studies.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

I agree the profits is the subject which increases/decreases here and is a plural word. Therefore pronoun it cannot refer to to profits as per subject-verb rule. thereby options A and B are incorrect.

with phrase is appropriate here removing options D and E leaving out C as the remaining correct choice.

but in option C, I could not understand how we can define a past event(that too which happened before profits increased in verb+ing form i.e., present continuous tense form)
Is there anything specific regarding time period mentioned as over last two years.

Now did you understand my query? Sorry for troubling you earlier.

Dear Nevernevergiveup,

Thank you! Now I understand your question.

This is a subtle point about the present particle, the -ing participle. If there is a main verb and then a phrase with a present participle modifies this main clause, the action in the present participle is understood to occur at the same time as the main verb.
1) Obama serves as US President, enacting policies to benefit citizens.
All in the present.
2) Grant served as US President, enacting policies to benefit citizens.
Grant's service was in the past (1869-1877), and the "enacting" matches this, also in the past.
3) Mike McGarry will serve as US President, enacting policies to benefit citizens.
In this extremely unlikely scenario, my hypothetical service is in the future, and the "enacting" matches this, also in the future.

Thus, the "present participle" is not always present--it is "present" to the time of the main verb, and thus can represent a past or future action.

Now, if we want to indicate that the secondary action took place at a time other than the time of the main verb, we would have to use a perfect participle (e.g. "having enacted") or use a subordinate clause rather than a participle.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Note that pronouns in possessive forms can refer to possessive nouns.

In this sentence -
"The results of the company’s cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits"
"its" can refer to "company's". However, we cannot use the pronoun "it" to refer to "company's".

Option A - Incorrect.
the usage of "it" is incorrect as it cannot refer to the possessive noun "company's".

Option B - Incorrect.
the usage of pronoun "it" is incorrect.
"which had increased during the first three months of the year ..." - the usage of past perfect is incorrect. We can either use the simple past or present perfect.

Option C - Correct Answer.
"which have increased 5 percent during the fi rst 3 months of this year after falling over the last two years."

both the things in bold refer to "profits".
Also, note the usage of present perfect - "have increased". this implies that the statement was made at the end of the three month period.
the usage of past tense "increased" implies that the statement was made After the end of the three month period.

Option D - Incorrect.
Note that prepositional phrases generally serve as adverbial modifiers.
In this case, "with a 5 percent increase during the first 3 months ..." seems to describe How "the results of the company's cost cutting measures Are evident ..."
WHEREAS "a 5 percent increase" and "after falling" should clearly refer to "profits".

Hence, we need a noun-modifier such as "which".

Option E - Incorrect.
Same error as D.
Also, note that "after + having fallen" is redundant.

"having + past participle" already describes a prior action in a sequence of events.
For example -
Having watched the movie, I went to the restaurant.
Here, "watched" happened before "went".