The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce

Why not C? 'Creating' is an verb+ing modifier that modifies the preceding clause 'lying produces emotional reactions in an individual'. Please explain.

Your statement would be true if there were a comma before "creating" - without a comma, the verb-ing modifier cannot work as a clause modifier.

Dear sayantanc2k and NitJ,

I have a few observations to share about this conversation.

First of all, with all due respect to sayantanc2k's intelligence & experience on this site, I would caution both of you on the use of the term "verb-ing." This is a sloppy, imprecise term, and I believe sloppy terminology leads to sloppy thinking. In fact, the -ing form of a verb can have three mutually exclusive roles in a sentence:
1) part of a present progressive verb,
e.g. He was creating a new model for the sale department even as the folks working under the old model were floundering.
2) a gerund
Creating a diverse stock portfolio is the best way to avoid tremendous losses in a crisis.
3) a present participle
The man creating the disturbance was arrested.
The president died unexpectedly, creating a power vacuum.
I think making the distinctions in terminology forces us to notice and understand more deeply these grammatical distinctions. Also, I think the imprecise terminology can be very confusing to non-native speakers who are still trying to make sense of all these complex forms.

I agree with what sayantanc2k about this question, but I would add: the participial modifier poses some profound challenges. It is the only modifier that can be either a noun or a verb modifier, depending on context & usage. Thus, if the rest of the sentence is not perfectly clear, the participle modifier is ripe for logical ambiguity, only because it has so many potential uses.

Here's (C) as it, without the comma.
The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses.
Here, without a comma between "individual" and "creating," the Modifier Touch Rule creates the strong expectation that the participle is acting as a noun modifier, modifying the noun it touches, "individual." The "in turn" after this is jarring, and makes this reading of the modification more ambiguous. The first reading is logically incorrect, and the the second interpretation is ambiguous. Either wrong or ambiguous---not a good choice either way. That's why (C) is wrong.

Here's (C1) as it, with the comma added.
The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual, creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses.
Here, it's clear that the participle does not apply to the noun "individual." That much is clear. Here, we could interpret the participle as a verb-modifier modifying the action of the preceding clause, or we could view it as a noun-modifier modifying the subject of the clause, "lying." In fact, there's not a sharp distinction in meaning between these two, so this distinction is not helpful. Overall, this could be a plausible correct answer, but the question doesn't give us this.

Remember that if we have
[subject][verb][comma][participle]
then it may be that the participle is a verb-modifier modifying the action of the clause, or it may be that the participle as a noun-modifier modifies the subject. In this sentence, there is essentially no difference meaning, but that's not always the case.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Responding to a PM:
The concept that "that" / "which" cannot refer to a noun within a prepositional phrase is wrong.

I am sitting on a chair, which is broken.
I have searched inside the bookshelf that I bought last week.

In both sentences "which" / "that" refers to a noun within prepositional phrase.

Option A above is an example of an exception to modifier touch rule. A list of such exceptions are listed in the Manhattan SC guide.

Your second query:
"Which" is used for a non-essential modifier and "that" for an essential modifier.

Essential modifier: mandatory- required to define the noun it refers to - no comma - removal of the modifier changes the meaning of the sentence.
example: I hate dogs that bark.
meaning: Say there are 100 dogs and 30 of them bark. I hate only those 30 barking ("selectively").
Removal of the modifier would imply that I hate all 100 dogs rather than just those 30 barking dogs - meaning changes.

Non-essential modifier:
not mandatory - says something extra about the noun it refers to - comma required - removal of the modifier does not change the meaning of the sentence.
example: I hate dogs, which bark.
meaning: Say there are 100 dogs. I hate all 100 of them. Extra information- those 100 dogs bark.
Removal of the modifier would still imply that I hate all 100 dogs - the meaning does not change.

awesome explanation.

thanks in advance for your further explanation on my fault

[quote = "OE" ]
C This construction is less successful at clarifying the chain of events because creating seems to refer back to lying;[/quote]

it is hard for me to understand the OE for C

IMO, "creating" is participle, which modifies the preceding noun because of without comma, moreover, it is illogical if people create responses, so "creating" modifies "reactions",
that's why I cannot understand OE for C.
I guess my approach is wrong, please point my fault
seems I am not skilled to identify which antecedent will be modified by "participle without comma"


thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

I'm happy to respond. I hope life is treating you well, my friend.

Typically, when we have the structure {subject][verb][predicate][comma][participle], it is often the case that the participle refers back to the subject:
James Madison composed the Bill of Rights, enshrining these fundamental liberties as the law of the land.
Qin Shi Huang conquered all the warring states, uniting China into a single country.
Rain has a vast influence on the landscape, wearing away mountings over the course of eons.
In all three of these example sentences, the participle after the comma refers to the subject. Again, this is not always true, but it is a very typical structure.
Without the comma, this pattern could still be in effect, although it's less common. I can't think of an example at the moment.

Given that, look at (C):
The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses.
The BIG question this version opens concerns the target noun of "creating."
One common expectation is the Modifier Touch Rule, which would suggest that creating" modifies "individual."
Another common expectation, discussed in the OE, suggest the pattern I just discussed above: the participle modifies the subject of the clause: in that case, creating" would modify "lying."
Remarkably, neither one of these common expectations is correct. In fact, the word creating" is supposed to modify "emotional reactions. This correct target noun is clear from the prompt, but there is no way that the grammar of (C) makes clear the correct target noun. Choice (C) is profoundly ambiguous.

This OE, like many OEs in the GMAT OG, is brief and incomplete. It is not necessarily true that the sentence suggests that creating" modifies "lying:" that is one common interpretation, but not the only one. The Modifier Touch Rule might be in effect instead. That is an equally valid interpretation. The funny thing is: both of these interpretations are wrong! Not only does the sentence not give us a clear way to choose between the two most common choices---in fact, both of these common choices are wrong! That's how wrong version (C) is.

Here's the problem with your interpretation. You applied the Modifier Touch Rule: so far, so good. Then you said, it is illogical if people create responses, so "creating" modifies "reactions." Here's the problem. In a well-constructed sentence, the grammar has to follow the logic and make the logic clear: the job of a good sentence is to have everything working together seamlessly. If we have to step away from the grammatical constructions and think about logic in the abstract to find the right target noun, then the sentence has not done its job. That approach is far too forgiving: in that approach, the student does work outside the sentence and then gives the sentence credit for that work! We shouldn't have to do that. A well-constructed sentence doesn't need anybody's help: it is completely logical and clear exactly as it is.

It's a very good idea in life to give real human people further chances when they mess up. With GMAT SC, we can't be so kindhearted and accepting: as soon as a sentence is not clear, we reject it outright. A correct answer doesn't need our charity.

Does all this make sense?

My friend, have a lovely day.

Mike
_________________

awesome ~~~

thanks so much Mike,
I think that is why meaning is so important than grammar on GMAT SC, right?




Mike, I have a further question,
I have no example on hand ATM except following Office Problem

what if in a complex sentence, say:
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving as a kind of snorkel.

this is an incorrect sentence, what I read it :
I guess that participle evolving refers to embryologists, although author intended to refer to elephant.

I am not sure if the structure works in a that - clause, if works, participle refers to the subject of the entire sentence or the subject of the that - clause,

have a lovely day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

I'm happy to respond, my friend.

Yes, the GMAT SC is about meaning because language and communication is about meaning. When you ask a question and I write a response, I am trying to address the meaning of your question with the meaning of my answer. When you read my response, you are concerned with understanding my meaning: you may also look at the grammar I use, but that's clearly of secondary important. Meaning is always the most important. It's important in life, so it's important on the GMAT.

The sentence you quoted has two verbs "that suggests that has suggested." I am not sure why this is the case, but obviously, we only need on verb here: the simple present is better than the present perfect, so I will give the version of the sentence with the simple present. I will also add the word "that" after the verb "suggests."
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving as a kind of snorkel.
Now, I will tell you something truly mind-boggling: this sentence is 100% correct. The structure that appears after the comma is what is known as an "absolute phrase." See this blog:
Absolute Phrases on the GMAT
My friend, this doesn't fit into any of the previous patterns we have been discussing, because this is a completely different kind of pattern. The absolute phrase is a 100% valid grammar structure that often puzzles both non-native speakers and even some native English speakers, precisely because it's so rare and only appears in very formal writing. It does appears regularly on the GMAT SC, so it's a structure you have to know. That blog article will tell you a great deal about it.

I hope this helps you, my friend, and I hope you have an absolutely delightful day.

Mike
_________________

thanks so much Mike,
always glad to get your explanation.

Honestly, I am trying to switch "grammar priority" to "meaning priority", it is not easy for a non-native speaker,
my status quo is
1/ focus on meaning first, but often go back to re-read, and then thinking whether the meaning is logical, -- this step spend me a half or more time
2/ grammar, try to view it as assistance way,

Given the transformation, I genuinely hope improve my reading speed.
appreciate, if get your proposals.



absolute phrase confused me a lot, I read many Magoosh articles especially created by you, this article is one .
It seems I got something , but seems I missed something as well ,
because I have not practiced many on absolute phrase , so I have not yet figured out where I missed.

have a nice day.

>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

I'm happy to respond. First of all, let me say, my friend, how much I respect your talents and efforts in learning all the English you have learned. Your written English is superb! I know, from my very brief experience studying Mandarin Chinese, that learning a completely different language is mind-bogglingly difficult.

Zhongwen tai nan! Mandarin is difficult! (At least for me!) That makes your command of English all the more impressive to me!

I wish I had an easy solution for you. As you know, the only solution is to practice, practice, practice. While conversations with native English speakers would be somewhat helpful, that's not going to be most helpful for the GMAT, because many of the sophisticated structures that appear on the GMAT SC often don't appear in colloquial English. For example, it's quite rare to hear an absolute phrase in ordinary everyday speech. These are structures that appear most frequently in formal high-brow writing. Thus, it is so important to develop a diligent habit of reading. See:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score

I would say: read the more sophisticated news sources, such as the NYT, the WSJ, the Economist magazine, and Bloomsberg Businessweek. Not every sentence in these sources will be up to GMAT SC standards, but you will see a good deal of the sophisticated structures that the GMAT tests. If you can find textbooks or academic writing in English, even better--make yourself read some of that. As you find sentences that confuse you, post them here. You can start a new thread in the Magoosh forum of GMAT Club if you like. You are always welcome to ask me about sentences you find in such sources. The more you practice, the more you will become familiar with recognizing the patterns in sophisticated English.

Have courage, my friend! You are very talented! You have my respect and admiration! You can do this!

Have a wonderful day!

Mike
_________________

thanks so much for your quick reply.

magoosh forums here is a good news for me.

BTY, am I authorized to post MAGOOSH questions @ Magoosh forum of GMAT Club

have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

Yes, my friend, you can always post any question you want in the Magoosh forum. I can't always promise a prompt response: I will get to it when I can. Also, you can post Magoosh questions there or anywhere on GMAT Club: as always, please search for a question first, before starting a brand new thread. Many many Magoosh questions have already be posted here.

Have a lovely day, my friend!

Mike
_________________

hi Mike, how are you? I have some question need your explanation

1/
I emerged this thread, because I am sunk in absolute phrase and appositive phrase.
I read some books and blogs, but I failed to distinguish these two,
genuinely want your help,

2/
further more, should absolute phrase reveal simultaneity with the main clause ?

3/
I have a SC on hand, OG 16 , SC #84

Unlike the original National Museum of Science and Technology in Italy, where the models are encased in glass or operated only by staff members, the Virtual Leonardo Project, an online version of the museum, encourages visitors to “touch” each exhibit, which thereby activates the animated functions of the piece.
(A) exhibit, which thereby activates
(B) exhibit, in turn an activation of
(C) exhibit, and it will activate
(D) exhibit and thereby activate
(E) exhibit which, as a result, activates

I picked up B mistakenly because I viewed B as absolute phrase, which consists of a noun an activation and it prep modifier of the animated function of the piece, moreover, which explains the effect of the "touch"
I haven't got yet why B is not absolute phrase , please help...

have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

My friend, how are you? I am happy to help you!

Appositive phrases and absolute phrases are very different. An appositive phrase is a noun-modifier: it is designed to provide information or clarification about a specific noun, most often the noun that it is touching.
...my friend Chris ...
...geometry, my favorite subject, ...
...Uzbekistan, a country in central Asia, ...
The underlined words are examples of appositive phrases. These are very common. I would estimate that probably about 50% of the SC sentences in the OG have some kind of appositive phrase. It would be hard to find a news article that didn't have at least a few appositive phrases in it. See
GMAT Grammar: Appositive Phrases

By contrast, absolute phrases are quite rare and appear only in highly sophisticated writing. I believe we can count on one hand the number of absolute phrases in the SC sentences in the OG. These are NOT noun-modifiers. These modify the entire sentence, often giving a simultaneous condition, cause, or explanation. The action of an absolute phrase is most often at the same time as the action of the sentence, unless a perfect participle is used: the perfect participle ("having" + [past participle]) indicates previous action.
This is a tricky thing. The "formula" for an absolute phrase, [noun] + [noun modifier], has to be understood correctly. Some noun modifiers are designed to attach directly to the noun, such as prepositional phrases, and these do not work to make an absolute phrase. A [noun] + [prepositional phrases} will NEVER be an absolutely phrase. I believe that every absolute phrase I have seen on official questions has been of the form [noun] + [participial phrase]. The noun is most often another actor, an actor different from the main subject, an actor who performs an action separate from the main action.
Example:
McClelland having defeated Lee at Antietam, the British and the French decided against giving diplomatic recognition to the US Confederacy.
That's an example of an absolute phrase using a perfect participle, "having defeated." The perfect participle indicates that the action of the absolute phrase, the defeat at Antietam, preceded the action of the main clause. The actor and action of the absolute clause, McClellan's defeat of Lee, is separate from the actor & action of the main clause on the other side of the Atlantic. See more here:
Absolute Phrases on the GMAT
My friend, I will give you rules:
1) you are not allowed even to think of "absolute phrases" unless you see the [noun] + [participle] construction. The noun has to be free-standing, not the object of a preposition.
2) action of the absolute clause must be different from the action of the main clause, and must provide some kind of explanation or justification
You are enthusiastic about learning this idea and understanding it, and that's great, but that doesn't give you the right to find absolute phrases everywhere, because these are very very rare. We can find appositive phrases all over the place, but absolute phrases are quite infrequent in their appearances.

In the SC sentence you cited, (OG16, #84, OG17 #754), the phrase in question is "activation of the animated functions of the piece." This is [noun] + [preposition], which never can be an absolute phrase. This looks as if it would be an awkward appositive phrase, one that illogical refers to the noun "exhibit" as an "activation." We can't call a tangible object an action, so this is illogical and wrong. I think you got a little absolute-phrase-happy after you learned about them, and wanted to see absolute phrases everywhere, but again, they are exceedingly rare.

Also, always always keep in mind. In that question, the verb form "activate" appears four times among the answer choices and the noun form of the same word, "activation," appears once in (B). I would say 97% of the time, if the verb form and noun form of the same word appear, the verb form is better. Even if the construction with the noun form is grammatically & logically correct, it's often more wordy & indirect. Putting an action into noun form is a spineless move that is seldom correct. Except in the one example sentence I gave about Battle of Antietam, I do not use any absolute phrases in this response to you, although there are several uses of appositive phrases.

Does all this make sense? Take care, my friend!
Mike
_________________

If someone can clarify for me why is "creating" referring back to "lying", that would be great!

Split1) Cause and Effect. The ideal structure agreement is as follows: "x did y, that, in turn, did Z". Following this logic B and E are out because "in turn" come at the end of the sentence defying the ideal structure agreement.

Split2) Emotional reactions = Plural should go with a plural verb = create. So if you attempt to block out the prepositional phrases and other noise, you will end up with "lying produces...emotional reactions....create". Going down the options, in E you see "emotional reactions...who" this does not make sense because emotional reactions is not a person. In option D, "emotional reactions....to create" is not gramatically correct to use the infinitive. In option C, "creating" also does not go well per this logic. Also, in C, you will need a comma before "creating". If someone can clarify for me why is "creating" referring back to "lying", that would be great!

Dear lalania1,
I'm happy to respond.

In the OA, the word "create/creating" does NOT refer to "lying." Instead, it refers to "emotional reactions," a plural noun.

This reflects the logic of the construction "in turn." That phrase is used when the object of one action becomes the subject of another action.
A did X to B, and B, in turn, did Y to C.
In that example, B is the recipient of A's action and the cause of the second action toward C. Notice that this structure, "in turn," can come at the end of the sentence: that placement is not automatically wrong.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Hi mike,
you mentioned two exception of modifier touch rule,

out of curiosity, whether V-ing can modify the noun in the structure[noun]+[prep phrase] +[ V-ing] ?

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan

My friend, how are you? I'm happy to help.


First of all, this blog, which I believe you have seen before, discusses the major exceptions to the Modifier Touch Rule:
Modifiers on the GMAT Sentence Correction

As for your second question, my friend, I am going to chide you a bit. Please banish the term "V-ing" from your vocabulary. This is a woefully imprecise term that causes tremendous confusion. People use this term all the time on GMAT Club, and it spawns a great deal of confusion. You see, the -ing form of a verb has three distinct uses:
1) A participle, which serves as a noun or verb modifier
The man causing a disturbance was asked to leave. [participle as noun modifier]
The bond market was shaken, causing stocks to decline. [participle as verb modifier]
2) A gerund, which takes the place of a noun: the subject of a clause, the direct object of a verb, or the object of a preposition.
Causing a violent public disturbance is a felony. [gerund as subject]
The parent didn't like causing her child to be late. [gerund as direct object]
The central bank lowered interest rates to prevent the bond crisis from causing a recession. [gerund as object of a preposition]
3) Part of a full verb in one of the progressive tenses:
The crisis in the bond market is causing a recession. [present progressive tense]
When police arrived, the thieves were causing the security system to fail. [past progressive tense]
The massive forces of plate tectonics have been causing the the Atlantic Ocean to expand for the past 200 million years. [present perfect progressive tense]

You asked, "out of curiosity, whether V-ing can modify the noun in the structure[noun]+[prep phrase] +[ V-ing] ?" Here's what is problematic about that question. You see, a participle is a modifier, but if the -ing form comes after a proposition, it absolutely has to be a gerund. I don't know whether you meant [preposition] or [prepositional phrase] in your question.

Of course, in the structure [noun] + [prepositional phrase], the preposition is quite often a vital noun modifier. This is a vitally important logical distinction to understand for the GMAT SC. A vital noun modifier always comes between the noun and a non-vital modifier, so this is the most common exception to the Touch Rule.

Does all this make sense? Have a wonderful day, my friend.

Mike
_________________

Hi Mike,
appreciate your kindly pointer, I will cross off "V-ing" from my vocabulary.

I totally got that -ing forms of verb work as nouns if they are gerunds.

my curiosity is [prepositional phrase] which consists of prep + noun, for example:
1) I like the picutre of my brother hanging one the wall. -- here , -ing form of verb "hanging" follows a prep phrase, can "hanging" modifies picture by jumping over the prep phrase "of my brother" rather than illogically modifies preceding noun "my brother" ?
2 ) The heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, and results in the act of stinging causing the bee to sustain a fatal injury. -- here, , -ing form of verb "causing" follows a prep phrase as well, can "causing" modifies act by jumping over of stinging ?
both these two cases , -ing forms of verb follow prep phrases.

brief summary, based on the logical meaning,
1/ I am confused what will be modified by -ing form of verb modifier follows the structure [comma] + [noun]+[prep phrase] or [NO comma]+[noun]+[prep phrase], does the vital / non vital impact most ?
2/ if extend to other modifiers, such as -ed form of verb modifier ,comma which modifier, no comma which modifier, that clause modifier,


waiting for your reply.

if possible, waiting for your reply to:
originally-developed-for-detecting-air-pollutants-a-127269-20.html
medical-investigator-podiatrists-initially-assumed-that-meyer-s-rash-203209-20.html
since-the-1930-s-aircraft-manufacturers-have-tried-to-build-134320-20.html
a-proposal-has-been-made-to-trim-the-horns-from-rhinoceroses-111439.html
og-2016-discussion-of-greenhouse-effects-have-usually-had-as-a-focus-204263.html
sunspots-vortices-of-gas-associated-with-strong-79261-60.html

thanks million.

have a wonderful day
>_~