Though perhaps less visceral and emotionally satisfying than her

Hello, Adi88. The comparison within each adjectival phrase is correct. That is, the first comparison made is between comic and tragic, while the second comparison made is between satirical and... intimately personal. Note that you could just as easily place the second comparison first, making this nothing more than an issue concerning coordinate adjectives. The rule there is that when you list two adjectives whose order is fixed, you do not place a comma between the adjectives; when you list two adjectives (even if those adjectives are phrases rather than single words) whose order can be transposed, you place the comma between them. The following are a few examples illustrating this rule.

1) The big brown bear attacked the hikers. versus
2) The brown big bear attacked the hikers.

Analysis: The order of the adjectives describing the bear in the above sentence is fixed, with the order going size-color. (Only a child would utter the second sentence, and it is not that I would argue that anything is inherently wrong with placing any adjective in whichever slot, as happens in languages such as Japanese, but I did not create the rules of English.)

3) Live a long, prosperous life. versus
4) Live a prosperous, long life.

Analysis: The order of the adjectives modifying the notion of life can go either way, and the sentence is palatable. Thus, the comma is necessary to separate the adjectives.

Here is an example I came across in my tutoring from an old ACT, describing a pinball machine:

5) The machine is sometimes your ally, sometimes your enemy.

Analysis: Notice how the two phrases can be interchanged. Thus, the comma is again necessary.

Now, our sentence:

Though perhaps less visceral and emotionally satisfying than her previous novels, “The Namesake” attests to Jhumpa Lahiri’s ability to write a best seller that moves back and forth between the comic and tragic, the satirical and the intimately personal.

Analysis: Each phrase contains two adjectives, and those two phrases could just as easily be placed in the opposite order, thereby justifying the use of both the comma and the comparison marker between, since only two adjectives are being compared at a time.

I hope that helps. Feel free to ask further questions if you have them. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Hi AndrewN

Could please explain that in option D and E, verb ing is referring to which noun entity. In one of the previous reply, it is mentioned that ing is referring back to noun phrase "Jhumpa Lahiri’s ability to write a best seller".

if there is noun phrase immediately preceding the verbing (without comma) - can verb ing only associate with immediate preceding noun, not the complete phrase?

Also could you please explain or share some link on use of "that", "which" and "ing" as noun modifier and their impact on meaning of sentence. Can we use these interchangeably as noun modifier?

Hello, Green2k1. I interpreted the beginning of (D) and (E) in probably the same way as you, that the phrase beginning with moving back and forth would modify a best seller. A best seller moving and forth? That construct does not work as well as adopting a clause: a best seller that moves back and forth. Is it possible for a VERB-ing modifier to reach back and comment on an entire phrase rather than a single noun at the end of that phrase? Sure, it happens all the time in real life. On the GMAT™ in SC, I would expect it to comment on the last preceding noun. In any case, I would not lose sleep over what to do if I might see an -ing modifier without a comma. I would be cautious about getting behind an answer that I thought violated a general tendency, and I would look to see how other answer choices addressed the same issue.

As for "that," "which," and the -ing phrase as a modifier, they are NOT used interchangeably. The first two are similar, but that clauses tend to be restrictive in nature, while which clauses are non-essential.

1) The book that was on the table was red.
(You need to know that the red book was on the table, as opposed to somewhere else, or that the color of the book on the table, whichever book it was, was red.)

2) The book, which was on the table, was red.
(You need to know that the book was red, but the information on its whereabouts is not essential.)

3) The book, having sat on the table for four days, was red.
(I probably would not opt for this construct, in all honesty, but it is not necessarily incorrect. It just leaves the door open to the nonsensical interpretation that because the book sat on the table for a while, it was red (as though it had changed color).)

The first two clause markers are used as adjectives to modify a noun that comes before, although sometimes you may see such a modifier jump over the object of a preposition to modify the preceding noun: The committee on public safety, which met twice a month... No one could reasonably argue that public safety was meeting twice a month.

In the end, as with many grammatical topics, I would urge you to use your best judgment on the question at hand. You are always given five answer choices to examine, after all.

I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

AndrewN thank you very much for the explanation.

If the back and forth movement takes place BETWEEN 3 items:
1. the comic and tragic,
2. the satirical
3. the intimately personal

Shouldn't there be a comma before "and the intimately personal" ?