Using the Fujita Scale, a tornado's intensity can be rated on a scale

A) Using the Fujita Scale, a tornado's intensity can be rated - Who uses the scale - intensity? - wrong modifier reference

B) A tornado's intensity, using the Fujita Scale, can be rated - using the Fujita Scale - ", verb-ing" is used to modify actions not nouns (even then it is incorrect as in A, who uses?)

C) Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate it - what does "it" refer to ? Scale? incorrect

D) Scientists can rate a tornado's intensity, with use of a Fujita Scale - fujita scale on a scale of one... - Incorrect (generis but is this grammar correct. Can "with use" modify the verb "can"?)

E) Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate a tornado's intensity - Correct.

IMO, E is the correct answer for the following reasons:
A) Using the Fujita Scale, a tornado's intensity can be rated - Using can not modify intensity
B) A tornado's intensity, using the Fujita Scale, can be rated - Verbing after comma can 1) modify the previous clause - incorrect; 2) show the result of the previous clause in which the verb-ing must modify the subject of the previous clause - incorrect
C) Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate it - Using correctly modify scientist, however, "it" doesnot have a clear antecedent.
D) Scientists can rate a tornado's intensity, with use of a Fujita Scale - Can anyone help me with the use of "with". Several times, i have chosen the answer incorrect answer. In this question, whether "with use of a ..." modifies scientists ? So, scientists with the use of a Fujita scale can rate ... is totaly make sense. Frankly, i cannot eliminate the option D, but between D and E, E is more preferable.

Anyway, anyone help me with the usage of With after comma?

Thanks and best regards

Using the Fujita Scale, a tornado's intensity can be rated on a scale of zero to six in order to predict possible damage and warn people in its path.

A) Using the Fujita Scale, a tornado's intensity can be rated: dangling modifier error who measures the intensity is not mentioned

B) A tornado's intensity, using the Fujita Scale, can be rated: repeats the same error of option A.

C) Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate it: the pronoun it does not have an antecedant.

D) Scientists can rate a tornado's intensity, with use of a Fujita Scale: In this sentence the misplaced modifier error is corrected by introducing "the scientist"; however the placement is incorrect.

E) Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate a tornado's intensity: corrects all the above errors. correct answer

Arvind42 , compare "with use of" to "using." Think about clarity and awkwardness.

And look at (D) in the sentence.

Scientists can rate a tornado's intensity, with use of a Fujita Scale on a scale of zero to six in order to predict possible damage and warn people in its path.

Is the Fujita Scale itself "on a scale of zero to six"?

chaitralirr , I agree. Why is the placement incorrect?

Hi the placement is incorrect because the tornado's intensity can be rated on a scale and not the Fujita scale. Correct me if I am wrong?

generis in option D ",Using" in the place of "with the use of" make it clear and conveys - "Using X on a scale of zero" as against "with the use of" which makes it awkward.
Here "using" clearly modifies "can", but "with the use of" modifies "Scientist". correct?

Scientists, with use of a Fujita Scale, can rate a tornado's intensity on a scale of zero....... Is this correct? so in this context "with the use of" modifies scientist.
I had a similar query on the other SC question today too. Can "With"(preposition) + clause modify the previous clause?

Thanks for the help!

Sentence Structure
Subject - Verb

Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate a tornado's intensity on a scale of zero to six in order to

predict possible damage and
warn people in its path.

Issues:

Who is using the Fujita Scale?
a tornado's intensity OR some doer( Subject)
Clearly, it CANNOT be intensity.
A and B Modifier issue

Answer choice analysis:

A) Using the Fujita Scale, a tornado's intensity can be rated

Modifier issue

B) A tornado's intensity, using the Fujita Scale, can be rated

Modifier issue

C) Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate it

It has NO coherent antecedent as it does NOT make any sense to map it with Fujita Scale

D) Scientists can rate a tornado's intensity, with use of a Fujita Scale

The usage of the prepositional phrase '... with the use of a Fujita Scale' makes D less clear than E
Meaning issue: the USE of a Fujita Scale IS on a scale of zero to six.

E) Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate a tornado's intensity

Nice and easy. E is the champ!

Using the Fujita Scale, a tornado's intensity can be rated on a scale of zero to six in order to predict possible damage and warn people in its path.
1st split - Wrong modification A, B, - out
2nd - pronounce mistake C-out

A) Using the Fujita Scale, a tornado's intensity can be rated

B) A tornado's intensity, using the Fujita Scale, can be rated

C) Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate it - pronounce mistake

D) Scientists can rate a tornado's intensity, with use of a Fujita Scale - - meaning error
E) Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate a tornado's intensity - correct modification, pronounce changed by a tornado's intensity - correct answer

IMO E
Scientists are using the scale...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Hello Generis!

In an another SC problem which is posted today by you, you said that GMAT doesn't favor possessive noun.
But here the correct choice, though it is the best out of 5, contains possessive noun.

I understand that GMAT prefers the best, no matter if it contains a slight error. I have to choose the best option.

IMO correct answer is E

Using the Fujita Scale, a tornado's intensity can be rated on a scale of zero to six in order to predict possible damage and warn people in its path.

A) Using the Fujita Scale, a tornado's intensity can be rated - Missing the doer of the action, subject , i.e, who is using the scale is not mentioned precisely. - Incorrect

B) A tornado's intensity, using the Fujita Scale, can be rated - Verb+ing modifier used after comma modifies the preceding cluase, but here "A tornado's intensity," is not a clause - (missing verb) - Hence wrong modification - Incorrect

C) Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate it - "it" does not have a proper antecedent to refer back, pronoun ambiguity - Incorrect.

D) Scientists can rate a tornado's intensity, with use of a Fujita Scale - "With use of" is incorrect usage - also "Fujita Scale" "on a scale of..."--seems Awkward - Incorrect.

E) Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can rate a tornado's intensity - Correct & clear

gvij2017 , I'm glad that you asked your question.

I am not too sure which post you refer to, but I suspect that you are talking about a very different subject: the NOT-ironclad possessive poison guideline.

I did not say that GMAC does not like possessive nouns, full stop.
(Oy. This stuff starts to get complicated.)

In the other post, I was talking about nouns that are antecedents of pronouns: if the pronoun is not possessive, can the noun be possessive?
The answer is, "Yes, sometimes."

A to that question can be found in this post, here.
My comment about possessive nouns was in that context.
I said that (1) we should not automatically reject a possessive noun antecedent, but that (2) we should not automatically accept it, either.

I have written a few such posts in the last couple of weeks.
People are mistaken about two things.
People still believe that possessive poison is an ironclad rule. (Wrong. Read the post.)
People believe that because possessive poison is not automatic error, possessive antecedents are always fine. (Wrong. Read the post.)

The possessive nouns about which I spoke were these noun antecedents.
As antecedents to non-possessive pronouns, they are not forbidden. But they are not common.

Possessive nouns generally? With two exceptions, possessive nouns are both acceptable and commonly used. Exceptions:
1) Abstract nouns such as belief, courage, and sensitivity are not usually in possessive form (followed by an apostrophe, ess).
Suspect: His belief's intensity had little to do with its accuracy.
Better: The intensity of his believe and its accuracy had little to do with each other.
2) plural nouns such as human beings and colors. Looks for "the Y of Xs." Avoid the Xs' Y.

I can understand your confusion, but I did not say that GMAC disliked possessive nouns.

I hope I have cleared up any confusion.

The question is based on the concept of modifier.
See this part -- Using the Fujita Scale

So who is using the Fujita Scale, the noun is Scientists.. If the sentence doesn not have the noun but its modifier. Then it is a Dangling modifier error.

So we need the noun... Thus the available options are C & E.
The problem with C is pronoun error. it does not have the noun...
So the correct option is E

I have posted the official explanation ]HERE

I really appreciate your explanation. I will keep this concept in mind while solving SC problems containing possessive noun.

In two years time, the executives took the company from financial ruin to near solvency.[/i] - Punctuation error.

I think on your followup question, the corrected sentence should be :

In two years' time, the executives took the company from financial ruin to near solvency.

Years' with an apostrophe. It is talking about the complete two years duration during which the even happened. So during two years' time something happened.








• Split #1: Modifiers without a noun

Introductory phrases tell us what to look for next.

In option A, who is using the Fujita Scale to measure the intensity of tornadoes? No one.
Right after "using the Fujita Scale," we should be reading about the person (or perhaps the machine) who or that uses this thing.
The introductory modifier is a participial modifier (a verbING modifies).
Such modifiers must modify the immediately following clause or subject of that clause.
To learn more about the six major types of introductory phrases and how they work, please see this post, here.

In option B, A tornado's intensity, using[/color] the Fujita Scale, can be rated, we have two problems.
A participial modifier (a verbING) can modify a noun in the preceding clause. (Participial phrases can be adjectives.)

Bu a tornado's intensity does not using a Fujita Scale!
Eliminate options A and B

• Spit #2 The case of the Missing Antecedent

Option C mentions IT. The pronoun lacks an antecedent.
Eliminate C

• Split #3 Logic

Scientists can rate a tornado's intensity, with use of a Fujita Scale[,] on a scale of zero to six in order to predict possible damage and warn people in its path.

Arvind42 , I did not address your question about "comma + with" because I think GMAC's position on comma + with is the single hardest issue in SC; grammar rules are not the way to approach that construction; and although I and others analyze official questions that use comma + with, finding constituent guidelines for the use of "comma + with" has proven difficult.
I was writing at 2 in the morning or I'd have explained.

Prepositional modifiers are versatile. They are usually adverbial (i.e., they modify a verb or a whole clause). Placement is not as strict with adverbial modifiers as it is with, say, noun modifiers, which must generally follow the touch rule.

In option D, with use of is supposed to mean using, and probably comes close, but it is hella awkard.
In addition, without the comma, option D suggests that the Fujita Scale is itself on a scale of zero to six.

That fact is not true. The Fujita Scale helps to measure tornadoes and then rates them ON a scale of zero to six.

Compare to E. Using the Fujita Scale, scientists can measure . . .
That sentence is correct and much, much better than D.

When comma + with is involved (or "with" anchors an introductory phrase) let the options do the work for you.
(Eliminate options that use "with" to express causation or that seem to "tack on a thought." Those two errors are clear.)

Answer E

COMMENTS
rishinric and mjzakaria , welcome to SC Butler.

I am glad to see everyone's posts.

May I try a little experiment on you? (Yes. )

In two years time, the executives took the company from financial ruin to near solvency. - Punctuation error.

There is a punctuation error in that sentence.
Do you know what the error is? Do you know why it constitutes error?

At least one and perhaps all of you will have no idea what I am talking about.

Phrases such as "punctuation error" do not tell the reader what is wrong.
Such phrases say THAT something is wrong, but not why. Food for thought.

Those of you who explained—even with two words . . . .your answers get kudos.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend. [/quote]