As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[RichaChampion]

can someone please explain the following
"first off, the construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN. (that isn't usually the case, so, if you're in doubt, you should strike choices with this sort of construction.)

for instance:
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
WRONG. this is not an issue of whether you've heard of bees themselves; it's an issue of whether you've heard of their stinging dogs.

...results in the act of stinging causing...
WRONG. this doesn't result in the act of stinging itself; it results in what is caused by the act of stinging.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
CORRECT. this time, the picture is actually of my cousin, so we're good.

therefore, (a) and (d) are wrong because of "...results in the act of stinging causing..."."

not sure what construction that is....and why it is wrong.

if you have "preposition + NOUN + VERBing", then "VERBing" is just a modifier, and can be dropped without changing the surrounding grammar.
therefore, the sentence should still make sense, in context, if you write it as just "preposition + NOUN", without the "VERBing" modifier.
therefore, the sentence at hand can be reduced to "... results in the act of stinging".
that's incorrect -- the act of stinging is not the result here; the fact that the stinger is heavily barbed does not cause the actual act of stinging.

go ahead and apply this principle to the examples above:

i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
--> i've never heard of bees
doesn't make sense anymore. wrong.

..results in the act of stinging causing...
--> ..results in the act of stinging
doesn't makes sense anymore. wrong.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
--> i have a picture of my cousin.
still makes sense, so this one is ok.

Mr. Purewal, when you say this - →

"preposition + NOUN + VERBing", then "VERBing" is just a modifier, and can be dropped without changing the surrounding grammar.

You actually mean to say if we remove VERBing and the sentence make sense then Preposition+Noun+Verbing is correctly used there else not. Right?

"

this is veeeerrry interesting, since identical constructions with other prepositions are definitely incorrect. for instance, i've never heard of people biting dogs is incorrect, because the intended object of the preposition is the action (the biting) rather than the noun ("people"); instead, one could write i've never heard that people have bitten dogs.

Sir, I find the above bold portion very difficult to comprehend. I thinked it for 1 Hour, but failed to completely grasp.

P.S. This is not an OG problem, but a problem from the test pack that is free of cost(2 FREE test provided by GMAT)

[RonPurewal]

just forget the "rules", and look at the EXAMPLES. (that's how you should be looking at ALL of this stuff, anyway.) --specifically, the sentences about "bees stinging dogs" and "my cousin playing hockey".

those sentences aren't very complicated, and their meanings are easy to understand.

"i've never heard of bees"
... this is NOT the same thing.
so, that sentence is wrong.

"i took a picture of my cousin"
... same core message.
so, this sentence works.

[RonPurewal]

also... two things

1/
when you say "i thought about this for an hour"... i sincerely hope you're exaggerating.

if you're stuck on some idea for more than a couple of minutes, then LEAVE IT, and come back to it LATER (like several days later -- NOT the same day).

if you continue to stare at it, your brain isn't going to suddenly have a "lightbulb moment".

if you actually spent a whole HOUR -- like, 60 literal minutes -- just pondering that one concept, then... you wasted at least 55 minutes of your life.


2/
i saw your signature.
you have a 740, and you seriously want to re-take this test?

that's a mistake.

[SooyoungC899]

Ron,

I think what you put below is wrong. This structure is grammatically correct.

i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
--> i've never heard of bees
doesn't make sense anymore. wrong.

Another example of this sentence with the same structure:
I have heard of my child punching other kid

This is correct.

[RonPurewal]

no.

[jabgt]

"with" occupies a rather special place in the hearts of gmac's problem writers. in other words, "with" is NOT used like other prepositions, and so, accordingly, there are some unique points to absorb about its use.

the clearest example of this special usage is in the non-underlined part of og12 problem 29:
with individual bulls and cows receiving awards, fetching unprecedented prices, and exciting enormous interest

this usage directly violates the principles for the use of other prepositions -- specifically, "with + noun + VERBing" is allowed even though the VERBing, rather than the noun, is the intended object of "with". (i.e., in the sentence above, prize-stock breeding was not "with bulls and cows" -- it was specifically with prizes awarded to these animals.)

this is veeeerrry interesting, since identical constructions with other prepositions are definitely incorrect. for instance, i've never heard of people biting dogs is incorrect, because the intended object of the preposition is the action (the biting) rather than the noun ("people"); instead, one could write i've never heard that people have bitten dogs.

a similar usage can be found in og12 #23, with a past participle rather than an ING form ("with its weight concentrated...")

so, it is confirmed: "with" has its own special set of rules, independent of (and contradictory to) the rules for other pronouns.
caveat lector!

Dear Ron sir,

Is the use of "after" in "Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground ..." (cited from one Prep problem ) analogous to "with" in "with its weight concentrated..." (the above example you gave to us)? Or is it a conjunction? I guess it is one preposition because of "nine months" before it. Or should I take "nine month after" the whole stuff as a conjunction?

(Ron sir, I ask this question is not to ask for the noun of the function of "nine months after" since you have taught us that the term itself doesn't matter. -- I not only read your lectures from this forum and watch "Thursday" sessions, but also take notes each time.) After I learn the above use of "with" , I recall I have encountered that "after" sentence. I have checked dictionary as well, but unfortunately I haven't found such example.)

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

that usage of "after" is followed by a complete sentence, so, there is definitely no analogy to "with" (which cannot be followed by a complete sentence under any circumstances).

[JbhB682]

redacted

[JbhB682]

can someone please explain the following
"first off, the construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN. (that isn't usually the case, so, if you're in doubt, you should strike choices with this sort of construction.)

for instance:
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
WRONG. this is not an issue of whether you've heard of bees themselves; it's an issue of whether you've heard of their stinging dogs.

...results in the act of stinging causing...
WRONG. this doesn't result in the act of stinging itself; it results in what is caused by the act of stinging.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
CORRECT. this time, the picture is actually of my cousin, so we're good.

therefore, (a) and (d) are wrong because of "...results in the act of stinging causing..."."

not sure what construction that is....and why it is wrong.

if you have "preposition + NOUN + VERBing", then [b]"VERBing" is just a modifier, and can be dropped without changing the surrounding grammar.
therefore, the sentence should still make sense, in context, if you write it as just "preposition + NOUN", without the "VERBing" modifier.[/b]
therefore, the sentence at hand can be reduced to "... results in the act of stinging".
that's incorrect -- the act of stinging is not the result here; the fact that the stinger is heavily barbed does not cause the actual act of stinging.

go ahead and apply this principle to the examples above:

i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
--> i've never heard of bees
doesn't make sense anymore. wrong.

..results in the act of stinging causing...
--> ..results in the act of stinging
doesn't makes sense anymore. wrong.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
--> i have a picture of my cousin.
still makes sense, so this one is ok.

Hi, Have a question on the red highlighted portion by Ron

Why are we allowed to drop this piece ...isn't the modifier (Verb-ing) an essential modifier ...my understanding is, the red (Verb-ing) will always be an essential modifier given there are no comma's ....

And ...when you drop essential modifiers, it changes the whole meaning of the sentence and in fact the sentence would not even make sense

please explain why we are thinking about dropping modifier to see the meaning in the first place (Verb-ing) as these are essential modifier given there are no comma's

[JbhB682]

Question from GMATPrep 2:

As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing the bee to sustain a fatal injury.


A. As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing
B. As the heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes
C. The honeybee’s stinger, heavily barbed and staying where it is inserted, results in the fact that the act of stinging causes
D. The heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, and results in the act of stinging causing
E. The honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes

OA is E. My queries to the instructors are:

1)Is E correct because of parallelism? i.e. is//stays//causes?
2) In A, B and D, is 'results in..' unidiomatic?
3) What is this sentence trying to convey really? I think I spent about 2.5 mins on this question trying to get to the gist of it. How should one split the answer choices?

Thanks,
-BM-

first off, the construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN. (that isn't usually the case, so, if you're in doubt, you should strike choices with this sort of construction.)

for instance:
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
WRONG. this is not an issue of whether you've heard of bees themselves; it's an issue of whether you've heard of their stinging dogs.

...results in the act of stinging causing...
WRONG. this doesn't result in the act of stinging itself; it results in what is caused by the act of stinging.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
CORRECT. this time, the picture is actually of my cousin, so we're good.

therefore, (a) and (d) are wrong because of "...results in the act of stinging causing...".

--

the pronoun "this" in (a) doesn't refer to any particular noun. this consideration also kills (a).

--


you can't say "the stinger results in...".
"results in..." can only be used when it's LITERALLY TRUE. for instance, you could say that the attempt resulted in failure, since the attempt ITSELF ended in failure.
if you understand this literal meaning, then it goes without saying that you can't use this sort of construction for physical objects.
TAKEAWAY:
you can only say "X results in Y" when X is an ACTION. if X is an OBJECT, you can NEVER say that X "results" in anything.
this kills choices (c) and (d), in which "stinger" is the subject of the verb "results".

--

choice (b) misuses the connector "as".
the connector "as" connects two complete sentences BY ITSELF. if "as" is used to connect two complete sentences, it should NOT be used in conjunction with any other connector words.

in choice (b), "as" and "with" are used together. the use of either of these prohibits the use of the other, so this choice is wrong.

--

not sure what you're asking in #3. it looks like at least 2 completely different questions.

the MEANING of the sentence is that the bee's stinger stays where it's placed, and so the bee dies because it can't get away after the sting.

as far as HOW TO SPLIT, you'll notice that i've given several different angles from which to approach this one.
there aren't really genuine "splits" - i.e., easily identifiable points of divergence between clearly parallel items - so you just have to try to identify any of the multitude of errors present.

Hi Ron - following was something from your text ...

The construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN.


If so, how is the OA : D in this case below (another GMAT Prep question)

In the case below, the bold blue has the structure : Preposition + Nouns + verb'ing

How come this structure is fine in this case ?

GMATPrep 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

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Sorry it's taken so long for you to get a reply to this: thanks for reposting.

For a discussion of the construction mentioned by Ron, see this thread here: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p128736

For the problem you cite, I should first emphasize that it's pretty easy to get to the right answer by elimination. We don't have to appeal to such complicated things as that construction. That said, correct answer choices are a great resource for seeing the kind of language GMAT considers acceptable. After you've read the link above, please post again if you still have any doubts, making your question as specific as possible.

[JbhB682]

Hi Sage - Two questions on this problem

-- I know punctuation is not tested on the GMAT --- but why does the GMAT have a comma after "inserted" in the OA (E) ...... Any reason for this ? The Comma is in all five choices so its not a split issue but I am just curious why the GMAT would insert this comma ...to signify what ? "WITH blah blah" already signifies a prepositional modifier is upcoming so why the need for a comma ?

-- In D, can i eliminate using the following logic ... Given its a COMMA + AND, it should be connecting two independent clauses
Clause 1: The heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted [This seems okay for an independent clause

Clause 2 : results in the act of stinging causing the bee to sustain a fatal injury.This is not a complete sentence, the subject "Results" does not make sense to me

Hence eliminate option D...

-----------------------------

As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing the bee to sustain a fatal injury.
(A) As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing
(B) As the heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes
(C) The honeybee’s stinger, heavily barbed and staying where it is inserted, results in the fact that the act of stinging causes
(D) The heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, and results in the act of stinging causing
(E) The honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Comma use isn't tested on GMAT because it's just too subjective and the rules are too vague. Sure, there seem to be some pretty standard occasions in which a comma is used, such as marking of a which modifier, or separating items in a list. However, another function of a comma is simply to break up a sentence, in order to make it more readable. Sometimes prepositional phrases are not separated with a comma, sometimes they are. (It tends to be that the longer the prepositional phrase, the more likely you're going to see a comma. There's a basic principle of using a comma to show separate ideas.) So, the example of having the comma before 'with' in answer E is a common one - you'll often see commas before such modifiers on GMAT.

As for answer D, you can't eliminate it on the logic you describe. I don't know where you got the idea that "a COMMA + AND should be connecting two independent clauses", but it's not a rule. We can use 'and' to connect many different things, and a few simple examples show this:

I went shopping and bought bread, potatoes, and pasta.
Tom plays football, and Sajid often joins him.
In the restaurant she ordered linguine, which is similar to spaghetti, and salad.
The two big tourist attractions of the town are the shopping mall located on the edge of town, and the historic church.

You'll probably notice that the last example has two items "X and Y", but uses a comma before the 'and'. This is quite common when one of the items is quite long: the 'and' simply helps us separate the two items to make it clearer for the reader.

It's great to see you thinking about these kinds of things, but I would encourage you to remember that the purpose of language is clear communication. Try to avoid becoming overly reliant on abstract rules - GMAT will definitely catch you out if you don't pay attention to meaning.

[JbhB682]

As for answer D, you can't eliminate it on the logic you describe. I don't know where you got the idea that "a COMMA + AND should be connecting two independent clauses", but it's not a rule. We can use 'and' to connect many different things, and a few simple examples show this:

Hi Sage - I think you mistook me.. I meant in terms of the FANBOY concept

"Comma + And" should connect two independent clauses per my understanding

And is one of the FANBOYS