egmat wrote:
Hi Himanshu,
This is in response to your PM.
Thanks
eGmat for responding to my query. Appreciated.
I'm afraid to say that after reading your post and spending close to two hours for analyzing the
OG questions, I am bemused.
I'm posting my analysis here, and would like you to respond to it, and clear my clarifications.
egmat wrote:
The next rule that we talk about in our article is that the verb-ing modifier must make sense with the subject also stands.
I believe, this may or may not true. If Comma +ing modifiers are answering the HOW aspect of verb, then S+V must make sense, else it is not a make or break rule.
Sentence from MGMAT:I lifted the weight, whistling beat it. Here, it is answering How I lifted the weight? Whistling "beat it". Who is Whistling.. "I". hence Correct. Also, it is correct to say that
I whistled ... i.e., we found the subject and the verb.
egmat wrote:
I would like to cite an official example in this regard:
OG 13#97 - Some anthropologists believe that the genetic homogeneity evident in the world’s people is the result of a “population bottleneck”-
at some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event, greatly reducing their numbers and thus our genetic variation.
The official explanation for choice A states that the “agent or the cause of “reducing” is unclear. This explanation is in lines with the fact that the comma + verb-ing modifier requires an agent or a cause. In the absence of a specific agent, such modifiers make the modification ambiguous.
When we read this official sentence, it seems to suggest that “our ancestors” reduced their numbers. Here its evident that “reducing” does not make sense with ancestors, the subject of the modified clause and hence is incorrect. So the cause or agent does matter as is evident from this official question. That is the primary reason why the use of “reducing” is incorrect in this official sentence..
Agreed. Here, we have found the explicitly stated subject. i.e Ancestors -- Reduced(verb) -->
Ancestors reduced their own numbers...doesn't make any sense.
Secondly, Here is what I think about
OG's reasoning
"agent or the cause of “reducing” is unclear"..
The Subject of the Verb "Reducing" can be Event or Ancestors.
Subject: AncestorsAs per your reasoning.
Subject: EventNow, how this is possible:
See this Explanation of
OG #13- Choice D
The final descriptor in present tense, now drawing conclusion doesn't fit the opening clause, which is in perfect tense and seems to modify adulthood.
The same has been acknowledged by your explanation as well.
neuroscientists-having-amassed-a-wealth-of-knowledge-over-96386.html Hence, two possible subjects; Ambiguous.
Please correct, if I am wrong in my analysis.
egmat wrote:
Now let’s come to the
OG 11 sentence that you have presented:
The cameras of the Voyager II spacecraft detected six small, previously unseen moons circling Uranus, doubling to twelve the number of satellites now known to orbit the distant planet. In this sentence, cameras did the action of detecting six small unseen moons. So in a way, the number of satellites that we know of doubled because the cameras directly performed some action. So the camera itself has direct bearing on “doubling”. If the “camera” had not detected these small moons, then the result presented by the verb-ing modifier would not have happened.
Now, here if I look for explicitly stated subject, then, we have "the Cameras" as the subject.
But, the action(doubling) is not done by cameras. Hence, Explicitly stated subject doesn't make sense.
So, the sentence would say: The cameras doubled the number of known satellites
But, It is the fact that detection of moons is possible by the Cameras, and the whole event led to the doubling of known satellites. Hence, Explicitly stated subject is not correct. It is the whole event that lead to the result.
Another example by
OG:
The recent surge in the number of airplane flights has clogged the nation’s air-traffic control system, leading to a 55-percent increase in delays at airports and prompting
Again, The recent surge doesn't lead to 55% increase. It is because pf clogging of nations traffic control system by the recent surge led to delays.
See, this sentence in this way:
The recent surge may or may not delay the air flights, but if it makes the nations traffic control system dysfunctional, then it is surely going to increase in delays.
Hence, looking for explicitly stated subject may not make sense.
egmat wrote:
Now let’s look at the structure of the other sentence in this thread.
Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.
If we study this sentence, we will see that even if “Crime” is the subject of the independent clause, it by itself did not do the job of decreasing. So the “crime” is not an active doer of the verb - decreased. May be the police decreased the crime. Thus, as you can see the “crime” is being decreased. This is the reason why, “leading” stands here because this verb-ing modifier modifies the clause in its entirety. Here the question of subject making sense with the verb-ing modifier does not even come into picture since the subject is not the “doer” of the action in the clause.
I understand that this sentence is in passive voice, but again, I believe that the rules are universal and should remain same irrespective of whether the sentence is in Active or Passive Voice. However, if I say that:
The recent decrease in crime has led to the increase in property values, then I believe it is making sense.
So, In nutshell:
If comma +ing working as Adverbial modifier, then it should stand with Subject(explicitly stated)
If comma +ing modifying the whole clause, then changing the modified clause into Noun Form shall make sense with the verb of +ing modifier. Please correct if I am wrong. this whole thing driving me crazy.
Regards,
Himanshu
close
Updated on: 19 Apr 2013, 05:59
What am I missing. Please explain.
