Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack
GMAT Club

 It is currently 28 Mar 2017, 05:09

Join Chat Room7 for Latest Decision Updates

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 128
Schools: HBS '16, Stanford '16
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 109 [1] , given: 16

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 18:46
1
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

68% (01:32) correct 32% (00:42) wrong based on 371 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.

(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung

I have two doubts in this question:
1) According to the OE, "whose" modifies "branches". However, in other official questions I have seen that sometimes the clause modifier doesn't modify the closest noun. Actually, it can modify the main noun in a noun phrase as long as it makes sense and it is not ambiguous.
In this case, we have "monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose..."; "monkeys" is the main noun of that noun phrase and makes sense with "arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline".
So, my question is: Is the split "whose....", a good reason to eliminate some choices?

2) What are the rules related to a prepositional phrase after a comma? In this question: "..., with arms and legs hanging". How could we know that the prepositional phrase refers to the monkeys and not the visitors. Because these modifiers modify the entire clause, usually modifies the subject (visitors).

Thanks!
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 141
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 590 Q28 V38
GPA: 2.54
WE: Accounting (Hospitality and Tourism)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 120 [0], given: 16

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy can [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 22:03
danzig wrote:
Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.

(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung

I have two doubts in this question:
1) According to the OE, "whose" modifies "branches". However, in other official questions I have seen that sometimes the clause modifier doesn't modify the closest noun. Actually, it can modify the main noun in a noun phrase as long as it makes sense and it is not ambiguous.
In this case, we have "monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose..."; "monkeys" is the main noun of that noun phrase and makes sense with "arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline".
So, my question is: Is the split "whose....", a good reason to eliminate some choices?

2) What are the rules related to a prepositional phrase after a comma? In this question: "..., with arms and legs hanging". How could we know that the prepositional phrase refers to the monkeys and not the visitors. Because these modifiers modify the entire clause, usually modifies the subject (visitors).

Thanks!

On the GMAT I think whose can only refer to people, and not animals. Saw can be eliminated because it causes a conflict in tense. Basically if the visitors saw a monkey the next set of customers may not see the same monkeys hanging on trees. And the action is ongoing because the continually have people coming and noticing the same as the last group.

So A, B, and E can be eliminated because whose is not referring to a person. A, B and C can be eliminated because it
changes the meaning of the sentence in terms of tenses.

D is only one left
_________________

4/28 GMATPrep 42Q 36V 640

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 1445
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.35
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 304

Kudos [?]: 1256 [2] , given: 816

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy can [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 23:31
2
KUDOS
Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.

(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
Whose cannot modify animals
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
Whose cannot modify animals
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
saw is not the right tense used because the tense should be parallel to have often looked up
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
Correct
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung
Whose cannot modify animals

1) According to the OE, "whose" modifies "branches". However, in other official questions I have seen that sometimes the clause modifier doesn't modify the closest noun. Actually, it can modify the main noun in a noun phrase as long as it makes sense and it is not ambiguous.
In this case, we have "monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose..."; "monkeys" is the main noun of that noun phrase and makes sense with "arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline".
So, my question is: Is the split "whose....", a good reason to eliminate some choices?
The answer choice containing whose can simply be eliminated, because on the GMAT, whose can only modify people and here it seems to modify monkeys.

2) What are the rules related to a prepositional phrase after a comma? In this question: "..., with arms and legs hanging". How could we know that the prepositional phrase refers to the monkeys and not the visitors. Because these modifiers modify the entire clause, usually modifies the subject (visitors).
normally a prepositional phrase can be placed anywhere, but generally it is placed closest to the noun being modified, in this case the monkeys.
_________________

ISB Preparation Kit | GMAT Debrief

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3769
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 765

Kudos [?]: 5905 [1] , given: 324

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy can [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 09:05
1
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
My first point is that we should not confuse the use of ‘who’ with ‘whose’. ‘Who’ can be only used for humans, while 'whose' can be used universally for humans, non-humans, and even inanimate things.

Ex: Tom is the student who is the topper in GMAT - right , because student is a human
Tom is the student, which is the topper in GMAT - wrong because,’ which’ cannot denote humans
Tom grows a couple of cows, who yield two litres of milk – wrong because who cannot denote cows.
Tom grows a couple of cows, which yield two litres of milk – correct
Tom is the student, whose marks are the highest in the GMAT – right
Tom has half dozen pens, whose total is price is \$5 – right again, though pen is a not a man.
Tom grows a couple of cows, whose total yield per day is two liters of milk. – Perfectly correct, even though cows are not humans.

All of the uses of 'whose' are correct because there is no other word to denote the possessive form of these pronouns. Actually the possessive pronoun of ‘who’, and ‘which’ is only ‘whose’.

Second, in this case, we have to ignore - saw monkeys -; because of //ism A, B and C are out in the dump.
Read with have, the past participle ‘seen’, is quite //. Now comes the play of logic in this modification by the prepositional phrase. Mechanically we cannot conclude that all the eligible nouns are vying to be modified equally; For example, a visitor is a visitor who has come to enjoy some place. He has not come to sleep on the branches. Nor do branches have arms and legs hanging like socks. So it can be only monkeys. This logical perception is vital for solving the contemporary pattern of question in the GMAT.
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Director
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 636
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 9

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy can [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 09:47
danzig wrote:
1) According to the OE, "whose" modifies "branches". However, in other official questions I have seen that sometimes the clause modifier doesn't modify the closest noun. Actually, it can modify the main noun in a noun phrase as long as it makes sense and it is not ambiguous.

Can you cite any official example where a relative pronoun (such as "whose" in this case) used as a non-essential modifier (basically delimited by commas) modifies anything other than the nearest eligible noun.

Would be interesting to see such example.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish (GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle)
http://www.EducationAisle.com

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10671
Followers: 958

Kudos [?]: 214 [0], given: 0

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2014, 06:20
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3986
Followers: 1356

Kudos [?]: 6371 [2] , given: 81

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2015, 14:28
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Quote:
Hi Mike, I have a doubt in this question:

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.

(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung

Now my question is first with the use of the preposition “WITH,” according from my notes i have written that “WITH” + NOUN + -ING is never correct on teh GMAT is this right because in the question above the official answer is D, and my answer is B becasue “with” is out and is used “whose” which refers to monkeys. I know afer reading the forum B fails in the verb tense, but still I’m not convunced that D is correct since to much action is squeezed under the prepositional phrase. What is your oppinion on this issue.

Thanks a lot,
Kiril

Kiril,
I'm happy to respond.

Here's the thing. That rule of yours needs a little more nuance. It's not true that "with" + [noun] + [participle] is always wrong, 100% of the time. What''s true is that this structure is incorrect when it contains a full action, a full action that would be more appropriately conveyed by a full clause. For example,
With the Army of the James approaching from the west, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
The words following "with" describe a vivid action, somebody actually doing something. For that, we need a full clause.
Because the Army of the James was approaching from the west, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
By contrast, the structure can be purely descriptive, lacking any connotation of some "doer" doing something.
With an overcoat hanging over one shoulder, he saunter into the room.
That's perfectly correct. There's not an active "doer" doing something. The entire "with" construction is purely descriptive, not conveying a separate action. That's why the structure is 100% correct in that case. Much in the same way, version (D) of the question is perfectly correct:
Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.
Think about this. This is not an "action." This is not a "doer" doing something. This is purely descriptive. The "with" clause is simply painting a picture of the scene, not describing a separate action different from the action of the main clause. In this case, the "with" structure is 100% correct.

What matters with this structure is meaning. Meaning is always the most important thing on the GMAT SC.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Current Student
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Posts: 299
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 680 Q48 V34
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 242

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2015, 07:21
mikemcgarry wrote:
Quote:
Hi Mike, I have a doubt in this question:

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.

(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung

Now my question is first with the use of the preposition “WITH,” according from my notes i have written that “WITH” + NOUN + -ING is never correct on teh GMAT is this right because in the question above the official answer is D, and my answer is B becasue “with” is out and is used “whose” which refers to monkeys. I know afer reading the forum B fails in the verb tense, but still I’m not convunced that D is correct since to much action is squeezed under the prepositional phrase. What is your oppinion on this issue.

Thanks a lot,
Kiril

Kiril,
I'm happy to respond.

Here's the thing. That rule of yours needs a little more nuance. It's not true that "with" + [noun] + [participle] is always wrong, 100% of the time. What''s true is that this structure is incorrect when it contains a full action, a full action that would be more appropriately conveyed by a full clause. For example,
With the Army of the James approaching from the west, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
The words following "with" describe a vivid action, somebody actually doing something. For that, we need a full clause.
Because the Army of the James was approaching from the west, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
By contrast, the structure can be purely descriptive, lacking any connotation of some "doer" doing something.
With an overcoat hanging over one shoulder, he saunter into the room.
That's perfectly correct. There's not an active "doer" doing something. The entire "with" construction is purely descriptive, not conveying a separate action. That's why the structure is 100% correct in that case. Much in the same way, version (D) of the question is perfectly correct:
Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.
Think about this. This is not an "action." This is not a "doer" doing something. This is purely descriptive. The "with" clause is simply painting a picture of the scene, not describing a separate action different from the action of the main clause. In this case, the "with" structure is 100% correct.

What matters with this structure is meaning. Meaning is always the most important thing on the GMAT SC.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike!
What about the usage of relative pronoun? Should they be placed close to the noun and also, should they be used only for people and not animal? Would you agree with daagh's list?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3986
Followers: 1356

Kudos [?]: 6371 [1] , given: 81

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2015, 11:02
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
b2bt wrote:
Hi Mike!
What about the usage of relative pronoun? Should they be placed close to the noun and also, should they be used only for people and not animal? Would you agree with daagh's list?

Dear b2bt.
I'm happy to respond. Relative pronouns begin a noun-modifying clause, an adjectival clause. As a general rule, all noun-modifiers should touch the noun they modify, but there are regular exceptions to the Modifier Touch Rule. See:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/modifiers- ... orrection/

I agree with what daagh had to say above. I will simply clarify:
The relative pronouns "who" and "whom" are always used with people, never with animals or objects.
The relative pronouns "which" and "that" are used with animals or object, never with people.
The relative pronoun "whose" is used in all cases, people or animals or objects.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Current Student
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Posts: 299
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 680 Q48 V34
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 242

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2015, 21:42
mikemcgarry wrote:
b2bt wrote:
Hi Mike!
What about the usage of relative pronoun? Should they be placed close to the noun and also, should they be used only for people and not animal? Would you agree with daagh's list?

Dear b2bt.
I'm happy to respond. Relative pronouns begin a noun-modifying clause, an adjectival clause. As a general rule, all noun-modifiers should touch the noun they modify, but there are regular exceptions to the Modifier Touch Rule. See:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/modifiers- ... orrection/

I agree with what daagh had to say above. I will simply clarify:
The relative pronouns "who" and "whom" are always used with people, never with animals or objects.
The relative pronouns "which" and "that" are used with animals or object, never with people.
The relative pronoun "whose" is used in all cases, people or animals or objects.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Your blog is a life saver! Great Explanation
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10671
Followers: 958

Kudos [?]: 214 [0], given: 0

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2016, 20:07
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2016
Posts: 60
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 29

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2016, 10:41
I know this might sound stupid , but can anyone explain the verb usage between saw and seen here?

Please if you could explain the usage without just stating , "Parallelism" and "Tenses" ?

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3986
Followers: 1356

Kudos [?]: 6371 [0], given: 81

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2016, 11:27
jjindal wrote:
I know this might sound stupid , but can anyone explain the verb usage between saw and seen here?

Please if you could explain the usage without just stating , "Parallelism" and "Tenses" ?

Dear jindal,

The full structure is
... have often looked up .... and saw/seen ...

If we choose "saw," then we are deliberately choosing a different tense for the second verb. The first verb in the parallelism ("have ... looked") is present perfect tense and "saw" is past tense. In terms of the grammatical mechanics of parallelism, it's perfectly fine to have two verbs of different tenses in parallel. We naturally would do this if the actions were separated by some meaningful time difference:
The USA ratified its constitution in 1789 and still follows its principles to this day.
Different times call for different tenses. The trouble is that logically having different tenses in this SC sentence simply doesn't make sense. In this situation, the "looking" and "seeing" have to be simultaneous: they cannot possibly be separated by a meaningful time difference. Thus, on logical grounds, it makes absolutely no sense to have two different tenses.

Logically, because the actions are simultaneous and inseparable, we have to use the same tense for them. Both are in the present perfect. The auxiliary verb "have" applies to both and does not need to be repeated in the second branch:

... have often looked up .... and [have] seen ...

This has two verbs with the same tense, so the grammar mirrors the logic. It's always a good thing if the grammar of a sentence and the logic of the sentence are saying the same thing!

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 191
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 28

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2016, 03:34
mikemcgarry wrote:
It's not true that "with" + [noun] + [participle] is always wrong, 100% of the time. What''s true is that this structure is incorrect when it contains a full action, a full action that would be more appropriately conveyed by a full clause. For example,
With the Army of the James approaching from the west, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
The words following "with" describe a vivid action, somebody actually doing something. For that, we need a full clause.
Because the Army of the James was approaching from the west, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
By contrast, the structure can be purely descriptive, lacking any connotation of some "doer" doing something.
With an overcoat hanging over one shoulder, he saunter into the room.
That's perfectly correct. There's not an active "doer" doing something. The entire "with" construction is purely descriptive, not conveying a separate action. That's why the structure is 100% correct in that case. Much in the same way, version (D) of the question is perfectly correct:
Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.
Think about this. This is not an "action." This is not a "doer" doing something. This is purely descriptive. The "with" clause is simply painting a picture of the scene, not describing a separate action different from the action of the main clause. In this case, the "with" structure is 100% correct.

What matters with this structure is meaning. Meaning is always the most important thing on the GMAT SC.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi mike,
my interpretation of the structure "with" + [noun] + [participle] is that
1/
[noun] + [participle] is another doer and action, not the same as the subjection and subjection's action, --- INCORRECT

2/
[noun] + [participle] is the subject and subject's action -- CORRECT

while correct is the one "with" + [noun] + [participle], and not the subject and subject's action,
I am confused, appreciate if you point out my fault.

3/
when I performed this question, I hesitated btw D and E,
E) I think "whose" here is ambiguous, because both human and monkey have arms and legs,
D) my fault interpretation confused me.

then I selected randomly...

have a nice day
>_~
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3986
Followers: 1356

Kudos [?]: 6371 [0], given: 81

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2016, 18:28
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi mike,
my interpretation of the structure "with" + [noun] + [participle] is that
1/
[noun] + [participle] is another doer and action, not the same as the subjection and subjection's action, --- INCORRECT

2/
[noun] + [participle] is the subject and subject's action -- CORRECT

while correct is the one "with" + [noun] + [participle], and not the subject and subject's action,
I am confused, appreciate if you point out my fault.

3/
when I performed this question, I hesitated btw D and E,
E) I think "whose" here is ambiguous, because both human and monkey have arms and legs,
D) my fault interpretation confused me.

then I selected randomly...

have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

How are you my friend? I'm happy to respond.

First of all, you may find this blog article helpful:
with + [noun] + [participle] on GMAT Sentence Correction
I think you understand Case 1 better than Case 2. Case I is indeed a separate action, something done by somebody else. Again, my example:
1) With the Army of the James approaching from the west, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
The "Army of the James" is one actor, and on the opposite side of the war was Lee. In this sentence, there are two completely different and mutually opposed actors, so it's 100% clear that "with" + [noun] + [participle] is wrong in this case.

I wouldn't say that Case 2 is the "subject and subject's action." Instead, I would say that the "with" phrase is a description of the subject, a description rather than an action. In my other example,
2) With an overcoat hanging over one shoulder, he saunter into the room.
The "overcoat" is not really doing an action. That whole phrase before the comma is simply a description of the subject.

Here's a big litmus test I discuss in that blog: drop the participle and everything after it, and see whether the sentence still makes sense.
2a) With an overcoat, he saunter into the room.
That's not quite as descriptive but still factually true. He walked into the room "with an overcoat." In case 2, the sentence loses some descriptive detail but is still factually correct. Now, compare the Case 1 example:
With the Army of the James, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
This completely changes the meaning. Now, it sounds as if Lee was "with the Army of the James," as if they were on the same side, rather than opposed in warfare. In Case 1, when we drop the participial phrase, we drop an essential action, and this omission either changes the meaning or makes the sentence nonsense. That's a practical test you can you to compare these cases.

For this SC question, (D) is perfectly correct. The question is: are the "monkeys" "with arms and legs"---in other words, can we attribute the possession of "arms and legs" to "monkeys"? Of course! The rest of the sentence after the comma simply provide description. Again, it's not really an action at all, but just a description.

In (E), the word "whose" is 100% correct. As in many cases, a pronoun correctly and unambiguously refers to the nearest noun. The problem with (E) is the weird verb tense: "have hung"---the present perfect tense is very strange in this context, and sounds quite awkward. Matching the case to the case of the main verb makes the action sound simultaneous--as if the very moment the visitors looked, the monkeys simultaneously put their arms and legs down for viewing. This is NOT the meaning of the sentence. Instead, we want to suggest that the arms and legs were already hanging when the visitors arrived and looked. The past progressive is the correct way to indicate that if we were going to use a clause with a full verb. For example, this option is not given but would be perfectly correct:
(F) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging

Does all this make sense?

My friend, have a lovely day.
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Intern
Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2016, 19:13
Hi mikemcgarry, how do I know that "with arms and legs hanging" is modifying the monkey and not the people? I got the right answer because all others did not sound right but cannot explain grammatical rules behind my answer.
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 191
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 28

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2016, 19:27
mikemcgarry wrote:
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi mike,
my interpretation of the structure "with" + [noun] + [participle] is that
1/
[noun] + [participle] is another doer and action, not the same as the subjection and subjection's action, --- INCORRECT

2/
[noun] + [participle] is the subject and subject's action -- CORRECT

while correct is the one "with" + [noun] + [participle], and not the subject and subject's action,
I am confused, appreciate if you point out my fault.

3/
when I performed this question, I hesitated btw D and E,
E) I think "whose" here is ambiguous, because both human and monkey have arms and legs,
D) my fault interpretation confused me.

then I selected randomly...

have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

How are you my friend? I'm happy to respond.

First of all, you may find this blog article helpful:
with + [noun] + [participle] on GMAT Sentence Correction
I think you understand Case 1 better than Case 2. Case I is indeed a separate action, something done by somebody else. Again, my example:
1) With the Army of the James approaching from the west, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
The "Army of the James" is one actor, and on the opposite side of the war was Lee. In this sentence, there are two completely different and mutually opposed actors, so it's 100% clear that "with" + [noun] + [participle] is wrong in this case.

I wouldn't say that Case 2 is the "subject and subject's action." Instead, I would say that the "with" phrase is a description of the subject, a description rather than an action. In my other example,
2) With an overcoat hanging over one shoulder, he saunter into the room.
The "overcoat" is not really doing an action. That whole phrase before the comma is simply a description of the subject.

Here's a big litmus test I discuss in that blog: drop the participle and everything after it, and see whether the sentence still makes sense.
2a) With an overcoat, he saunter into the room.
That's not quite as descriptive but still factually true. He walked into the room "with an overcoat." In case 2, the sentence loses some descriptive detail but is still factually correct. Now, compare the Case 1 example:
With the Army of the James, Lee had no viable escape at the Battle of Appomattox.
This completely changes the meaning. Now, it sounds as if Lee was "with the Army of the James," as if they were on the same side, rather than opposed in warfare. In Case 1, when we drop the participial phrase, we drop an essential action, and this omission either changes the meaning or makes the sentence nonsense. That's a practical test you can you to compare these cases.

For this SC question, (D) is perfectly correct. The question is: are the "monkeys" "with arms and legs"---in other words, can we attribute the possession of "arms and legs" to "monkeys"? Of course! The rest of the sentence after the comma simply provide description. Again, it's not really an action at all, but just a description.

In (E), the word "whose" is 100% correct. As in many cases, a pronoun correctly and unambiguously refers to the nearest noun. The problem with (E) is the weird verb tense: "have hung"---the present perfect tense is very strange in this context, and sounds quite awkward. Matching the case to the case of the main verb makes the action sound simultaneous--as if the very moment the visitors looked, the monkeys simultaneously put their arms and legs down for viewing. This is NOT the meaning of the sentence. Instead, we want to suggest that the arms and legs were already hanging when the visitors arrived and looked. The past progressive is the correct way to indicate that if we were going to use a clause with a full verb. For example, this option is not given but would be perfectly correct:
(F) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging

Does all this make sense?

My friend, have a lovely day.
Mike

awesome ....
thanks again mike,

have a wonderful day
>_~
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3986
Followers: 1356

Kudos [?]: 6371 [0], given: 81

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2016, 16:44
superczan wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry, how do I know that "with arms and legs hanging" is modifying the monkey and not the people? I got the right answer because all others did not sound right but cannot explain grammatical rules behind my answer.

Dear superczan,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, it is natural in English to have the structure [noun][modifying phrase #1],[modifying phrase #2]. If [modifying phrase #1] is a vital noun modifier, then it always would come between the target noun and the second modifier. Here, neither modifier is a vital noun modifier, but it's still natural to have to different modifying phrases acting on the same noun, coming one after the other and separated by a comma. A preposition typically modifies the target noun closest to it. If we wanted "with arms and legs hanging" to modify the people, the prepositional phrase would have to come much closer to the beginning of the sentence.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Intern
Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2016, 19:34
Does all this make sense?
Mike [/quote]

Thank you Mike! That clarifies my confusion.
Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy   [#permalink] 17 Nov 2016, 19:34
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Visitors to the zoo have often looked up in to the leafy aviary 10 21 Sep 2014, 07:37
11 Visitors to the Rodin Museum have often examined the 17 19 Aug 2013, 07:57
The Lake Manyara Park in Tanzania affords the visitor with 3 05 Aug 2008, 03:16
16 The Lake Manyara Park in Tanzania affords the visitor with 10 27 Dec 2007, 18:11
7 Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy 8 04 Sep 2007, 13:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by