Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and

Here's the official explanation provided by the GMAC for this question:

The subject of the main clause is visitors , which should be followed by two verbs using the same tense: have looked and have seen . Have does not need to be repeated in the second verb; it is entirely correct simply to let it be understood. The modifying clause whose arms and legs illogically refers to branches , which immediately precedes it, rather than to monkeys . Replacing the clause with the phrase with arms and legs hanging corrects this error.

Option A: Saw is the wrong verb tense; the clause incorrectly modifies branches

Option B: Saw is the wrong verb tense; the clause does not modify monkeys

Option C: Saw is the wrong verb tense

Option D: Correct. The verb tense is correct in this sentence, and the phrase correctly modifies monkeys .

Option E: The clause modifies branches rather than monkeys ; have hung is the wrong tense

The correct answer is D.

Please note that I'm not the author of this explanation. I'm just posting it here since I believe it can help the community.
_________________

Hey DmitryFarber

although this is quite an easy question, I am still confused about whether in A, B, E "monkeys" can be modified by "whose" or not. I read quite differing explanations in this post and therefore I am puzzled.

Generally, I understand that -ing modifier / -ed modifier / relative pronoun modifier can jump over:

1. Prepositional phrase
2. Appositive phrase
3. Any other kind of noun modifier (not perfectly sure about this one)

Thereby the prerequisite needs to be fulfilled that 1./2./3. describes in a restrictive or non-restrictive manner the preceding noun, cannot be moved elsewhere and the description makes sense.

Am I right? If not, please correct.

In this question we have a noun + -ing modifier that modifies the noun + relative pronoun modifier.

DmitryFarber you explain that it is not just a noun, which is referred back to here, but a noun doing something, which is the reason why you exclude A, B, E as valid options (regardless of other errors). IMO "sleeping on the branches" just describes the "monkeys" similar to a prepositional/appositive phrase and therefore complies with the thoughts I stated before. Hence, a valid combination with "whose" in A, B, E might be possible. What do you think?

Maybe GMATNinja, MartyTargetTestPrep or mikemcgarry can also have a word on this one. I would really appreciate someone helping out. I struggle quite often with modifiers that could jump over other ones and did not find a clear explanation on this topic covering all possible variations.

Cheers
Rudolf

Often, you can get insights regarding SC issues by using simpler examples, doing something similar to plugging in numbers in quant. Let's try that here.

The people playing the music, who were from Ireland, smiled the entire time.

Looks good to me.

So, we have part of our answer.

However, in case of this "monkeys sleeping on the branches" example, we have a slightly different situation.

Let's try this one.

We have seen people playing music, whose country of origin was Ireland.

Notice that this is a different situation. I don't know the exact linguistic term here, but "playing music" is not just a restrictive modifier in this case. It's a component of what "we have seen."

We didn't see a thing "people playing music." We saw a scenario in which people were playing music. So, the idea that "people playing music" is one noun phrase that is logically modified by "whose country of origin was Ireland" doesn't really hold here. In fact, what would make more sense is the following.

We have seen people whose country of origin was Ireland playing music.

So, getting back to the monkeys question, even if "whose" didn't seem to refer to "branches," the structure doesn't seem logical, not because "whose" can't jump a verb-ing modifier but because, in this case, the noun + verb-ing modifier is not a simple noun phrase focused on the monkeys. It represents a scenario. So, "whose" would not really be referring to the monkeys. It would be illogically referring to a scenario.
_________________

Hey MartyTargetTestPrep

Thanks for your detailed reply!

What do you think about the following variation of your sentence?

We have seen people playing music, who smiled the entire time. -> IMO who refers unambiguously to people although a scenario is described before.

Cheers
Rudolf

It's all pretty subtle. You know?

If the emphasis is on the people themselves, the sentence is fine. If the emphasis is on the scenario, the sentence does not make sense.,

I guess, in this case, the presence of the relative clause "who smiled ..." forces us to intepret the sentence as focusing on the people.
_________________

Got it now, Marty. It all depends on the meaning and the other answer choices you can choose from. No rule is fixed and no choice can be excluded as long it is the best of the best choices or related to 700+ Qs sometimes just the best of the worst.

Posted from my mobile device

It would be good to note in this question thatt "With" modifier acts as an "action modifier". Eg- Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging

Here the "with" modifier is modifying the action of sleeping, basically telling how the monkeys were sleeping

",with" construction is in most cases wrong. Can someone please elaborate cases where - ,with construction is right
Also, here, doesn't it seem for option D that ",with" is modifying "branches" ? branches with arms - leading to wrong meaning

Hi Rickooreo,

It's true that "with" construction is in most cases wrong. But the important point to note here is that, it is not always wrong. Please refer to the "Most Helpful Expert Reply" by mikemcgarry. It's very clearly explained there.

Regarding your 2nd query, whether "with" seems to be modifying branches. I will try to explain why it is not.
For Prepositional phrases , it's not necessary that it will modify the nearest noun, which is branches in this case. Rather, they should modify something that makes clear and logical sense in the sentence. Therefore, 'with arms and legs hanging' is actually modifying Monkeys in this case, and not branches (although it's the closest noun).

- aM

If all three actions (looked,saw and hang) occurred in the same time frame, then shouldn't they be in the same tense.

Why can't the last action be have hung for this problem. Thanks for your help.

"Have hung" could perhaps work if the sentence were written in a certain way. Also, "have been hanging" would work well.

However, in this question, the sentence version that uses "have hung," the (E) version, has a major modifier error. So, that version is flawed for reasons other than its use of tenses.

Meanwhile, in the correct version, only one tense is used. "Hanging" is a participle in that version, not a finite verb. So, it has no tense.
_________________