a modifier problem

[klater]

It's just a question I suddenly come up with.

Lebron James have two championship rings, earned in the last two years.

Is it always grammatically correct to use a modifier that follows a comma to modify the object (champ rings) rather than the subject (LBJ)? I know in this sentence, LBJ cannot be earned but a ring can, but is it wierd to use a comma here?

Thanks for any reply.

[RonPurewal]

If you are mocking up an OG problem, then give the edition and problem number of that problem. It's fine to do that, as long as you don't copy any of GMAC's actual text.
(It's obvious that you didn't just make this sentence up at random, so it's important that you list the source you're trying to imitate.)

It's just a question I suddenly come up with.

No, it's not; you're imitating the pilot question from OG13. Again, that's fine, but please mention the original.

Lebron James have two championship rings, earned in the last two years.

Is it always grammatically correct to use a modifier that follows a comma to modify the object (champ rings) rather than the subject (LBJ)? I know in this sentence, LBJ cannot be earned but a ring can, but is it wierd to use a comma here?

Thanks for any reply.

I've seen this kind of modifier used to describe the noun that's next to it, as in the example here.

I've also seen it used to describe the subject of the preceding sentence (James collapsed on the couch, exhausted from the day's work).

As long as common sense can distinguish which of the two is being described, either usage should be fine.

[klater]

If you are mocking up an OG problem, then give the edition and problem number of that problem. It's fine to do that, as long as you don't copy any of GMAC's actual text.
(It's obvious that you didn't just make this sentence up at random, so it's important that you list the source you're trying to imitate.)

It's just a question I suddenly come up with.

No, it's not; you're imitating the pilot question from OG13. Again, that's fine, but please mention the original.

Lebron James have two championship rings, earned in the last two years.

Is it always grammatically correct to use a modifier that follows a comma to modify the object (champ rings) rather than the subject (LBJ)? I know in this sentence, LBJ cannot be earned but a ring can, but is it wierd to use a comma here?

Thanks for any reply.

I've seen this kind of modifier used to describe the noun that's next to it, as in the example here.

I've also seen it used to describe the subject of the preceding sentence (James collapsed on the couch, exhausted from the day's work).

As long as common sense can distinguish which of the two is being described, either usage should be fine.

Oh!! I'm sorry that it is actually an OG problem, but I really didn't know that. I saw that original sentence from my notebook but I didn't note down the source. I made up that sentence just to simplify the problem and to avoid bothering to search the source...I thought it would be fine to do so...Sorry..I will definitely list the source next time.

And appreciate your reply, it helps.

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

You should always write the source of anything that you ever feel is worth writing down.
That way, (1) you'll know what is from official sources and what isn't, and, (2) if something turns out to be wrong, then you know which source you should trust less.