It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 11:55

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 566

Kudos [?]: 71 [1], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 04 Sep 2007, 13:03
1
This post received
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  15% (low)

Question Stats:

74% (00:28) correct 26% (00:41) wrong based on 266 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

[Reveal] Spoiler: Doubt
Do not we use perfect tense when one action precedes another, as it is done in C?
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by PiyushK on 05 Jul 2014, 15:11, edited 1 time in total.
Added OA.

Kudos [?]: 71 [1], given: 0

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 2130

Kudos [?]: 152 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 04 Sep 2007, 13:27
IrinaOK 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

Do not we use perfect tense when one action precedes another, as it is done in C?


D.

Keep verbs consistent "have looked" . . . "have seen"

saw = simple past
have seen = present perfect
and
had seen = past perfect --> past perfect MUST have a simple past. it cannot be used alone unless you're from the ghetto, in which case you're emphasizing that something was done in the past.

Kudos [?]: 152 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 76

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

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

Show Tags

New post 04 Sep 2007, 13:32
eliminate A,B,C

"have looked" parrallel with "have seen"

"saw" is not he correct participle.
"seen" is the correct participle.

for "e", whose should be preceded by monkeys.

Hence D is the correct answer.

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

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Posts: 63

Kudos [?]: 119 [1], given: 37

Location: Korea, Republic of
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT Date: 08-16-2012
GPA: 3.05
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 May 2012, 22:21
1
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Obviously, the answer is either D or E.

(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
Adverb phrase starting 'with' modifies 'sleeping', conveying the meaning of the sentence clearly.

Whereas in E, 'whose' is not clear to modify either the branches or the monkeys. Since there's an ambiguity in the modifier, (D) wins!

please correct my reasoning if wrong.
_________________

Luck is the additional surplus on the way to one's constant effort.

Kudos [?]: 119 [1], given: 37

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 137

Kudos [?]: 155 [0], given: 16

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, International Business
GMAT 1: 590 Q28 V38
GPA: 2.54
WE: Accounting (Hospitality and Tourism)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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

Kudos [?]: 155 [0], given: 16

2 KUDOS received
BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 1437

Kudos [?]: 1309 [2], given: 819

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.35
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2013, 23:31
2
This post received
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

Now regarding your doubts:

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

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kudos [?]: 1309 [2], given: 819

2 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4288

Kudos [?]: 7871 [2], given: 363

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2013, 09:05
2
This post received
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

Kudos [?]: 7871 [2], given: 363

Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 737

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 11

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

Show Tags

New post 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

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 11

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 107

Kudos [?]: 16 [1], given: 66

Schools: IIMA
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jul 2014, 05:21
1
This post received
KUDOS
Let me help you to understand it better :-

Non underlined part says, Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and

and connect two parallel sentences so have seen a,b,c out

Between D and E after comma whose is distant from monkey not correct so D is correct
_________________

If you are not over prepared then you are under prepared !!!

Kudos [?]: 16 [1], given: 66

Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4420

Kudos [?]: 8424 [3], given: 102

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

Show Tags

New post 03 Apr 2015, 14:28
3
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
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

this is the link: visitors-to-the-park-have-often-looked-up-into-the-leafy-152495.html?fl=similar

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

Image

Image

Kudos [?]: 8424 [3], given: 102

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4420

Kudos [?]: 8424 [2], given: 102

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

Show Tags

New post 06 Apr 2015, 11:02
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
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

Image

Image

Kudos [?]: 8424 [2], given: 102

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2016
Posts: 57

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

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

Show Tags

New post 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" ? :)

Thanks in advance

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

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4420

Kudos [?]: 8424 [0], given: 102

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

Show Tags

New post 10 Aug 2016, 11:27
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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" ? :)

Thanks in advance

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

Image

Image

Kudos [?]: 8424 [0], given: 102

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 29

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

Show Tags

New post 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...

waiting for your help...

have a nice day
>_~

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 29

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4420

Kudos [?]: 8424 [0], given: 102

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

Show Tags

New post 15 Nov 2016, 18:28
Expert's post
2
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...

waiting for your help...

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

Image

Image

Kudos [?]: 8424 [0], given: 102

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4420

Kudos [?]: 8424 [0], given: 102

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

Show Tags

New post 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

Image

Image

Kudos [?]: 8424 [0], given: 102

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 153

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 162

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Oct 2017, 01:49
My 2 cents on this topic

whose is modifying branches because the prepositional phrase "on the branches" is modifying the verb "seen" and not monkeys. Hence "whose" cannot jump over the prepositional phrase and modify monkeys

If the sentence were something like the below

The monkeys of the savannah, whose ....blah blah - "whose" in this sentence modifying monkeys because the prepositional phrase "of the savannah" is modifying monkeys. Hence "whose" can modify "the monkeys" only

Hope this helps :-)

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 162

Re: Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy   [#permalink] 01 Oct 2017, 01:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.