Because there are provisions.....

[JIYUS618]

Thank you,it's very kind of you.
In choice C, pronoun"they" refers "tiny islets",because"there" is not a noun.While the sentence does't make sense,because the subject should be" the new maritime code".
Is it right??

"They" appears nowhere in choice C.

Oh,sorry...
Is in choice A,then pronoun"they" refers "tiny islets",because"there" is not a noun.While the sentence does't make sense,because the subject should be" the new maritime code".
Is it right??

[RonPurewal]

correct.

[cheeseburst]

[/quote]

choice (d) uses "this" as a standalone pronoun. that's pretty much never acceptable in a formal written sentence.

if you're going to use "this", you should use it as an adjective: this thing, this finding, this statistic, etc.

--

[/quote]

Hi,

I have a doubt regarding something mentioned in MGMAT Official Guide companion for Sentence Correction. On page#200, the correct usage example says: "She is allergic to many foods; this makes it difficult for her to eat at restaurants".

So, can we use "this" as a standalone pronoun this way?

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

GMAC has been 100% consistent about not using "this" in such a way.

I'll submit that for editing. Thanks.

[thanghnvn]

Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.

A. Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

B. Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated

C. Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating

D. Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large areas under maritime code, this has already stimulated

E. Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating

I m stuck between B and D.

C is wrong because "already " require past perfect while "stimulating" take the tense of main clause, the present tense. This point is wrong.

is that right?

[RonPurewal]

In a suitable context, "already" can work with present (or future) constructions.

Even though he has only known how to sew for two years, Valentin is already one of the best-known young fashion designers in his home country.

By the time I arrive back home, my wife will already be gone.

In this context, though, these tenses wouldn't make sense.

[FanPurewal]

hi ron,
sorry, i am still confused the COMMA, VERBing structure. now i am going to list two questions.

(1)

The cameras of the Voyager â…¡ spacecraft detected six small, previously unseen moons circling Uranus,doubling to twelve the number of satellites now known to orbit.

It's the action, not just the subject. It's the entire subject+action. (An action is inseparable from its subject, so, in modifying an action, you're always thinking about who/what does it, too.)

In the sentence you've quoted, the number of known satellites is now higher because the cameras detected new ones.

in your explanation above, i think i can also analysis next in the same way to prove it is correct.

Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.

-->the property values is higher because the crime decreased recently.

so, am i right? if not, please clarify the difference between the two sentences above.

(2)
you said in your earlier posts

if comma + -ing follows a clause, it should describe the action (and, at least indirectly, the subject) of that clause.

( here is the link:http://www.beatthegmat.com/modifier-issue-expert-t87486-15.html#506455)

this is to say, 1)comma + -ing should describe the action
2)comma+ -ing can match with the subject

these two conditions must happen simultaneously. am i right?
and i think the first sentence (the camera detected...) is not correct in this way.

please clarify, thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

In the comma + __ing structure, the subject should be, among all possible nouns, the one most directly responsible for the "__ing" result.
However, the relation will usually still be indirect. (If the noun directly performs the action, then a normal subject+verb construction will almost always make more sense.)

E.g.,
Crime has decreased in our neighborhood, leading to an increase in property values.
—> The __ing makes sense with the action, but not with the subject.
Aggressive police patrols have decreased crime in our neighborhood, leading to an increase in property values.
—> This makes sense.
The police patrols didn't directly increase the property values—but they did so indirectly, by reducing crime.

[RonPurewal]

In any case, the above distinction is much too fine to be the decisive issue in a GMAT problem. If you're thinking about such subtleties, you're probably being distracted from something MUCH bigger and MUCH easier to resolve.

In fact, if you're thinking about ANY subtleties, you're being distracted from something more blatant. The things that actually matter in these problems, while often well hidden in a jungle of words, are not subtle.

[FanPurewal]

In the comma + __ing structure, the subject should be, among all possible nouns, the one most directly responsible for the "__ing" result.
However, the relation will usually still be indirect. (If the noun directly performs the action, then a normal subject+verb construction will almost always make more sense.)

E.g.,
Crime has decreased in our neighborhood, leading to an increase in property values.
—> The __ing makes sense with the action, but not with the subject.
Aggressive police patrols have decreased crime in our neighborhood, leading to an increase in property values.
—> This makes sense.
The police patrols didn't directly increase the property values—but they did so indirectly, by reducing crime.

Oh My God, got it!

sorry for asking such subtle questions, and i know these thing will not be the *absolutes* tested in the GMAT.

i just mixed two similar structures: VERBing..., Subject Verb Object & Subject Verb Object, VERBing ...

now i am going to clarify them.
1>VERBing..., Subject Verb Object--> the SUBJECT MUST apply to the VERBing. it is an strict rule.

e.g.
asking Ron SC questions, i find the GMAT is so easy. --> correct
asking Ron SC questions, my GMAT target rise to 800.-->incorrect

because it is absolute mistake in the structure above, that SUBJECT can not apply to the VERBing.

2> Subject Verb Object, VERBing ...-->not less strict than the former structure. the SUBJECT just need to relate to the VERBing and make sense(directly or indirectly)

would you please tell me am i right?

thank you!

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi --

In answer choice C, isn't "already stimulating" a modifier and isn't it providing us more information/describing what's going on in the first half?

"Tiny islets are basis for claims because of some code, and as a result of the code, there are disputes"

Am I not interpreting it correctly? -Ing's can refer to the whole clause, for example "i dropped my grocery bag, scaring the dog". I don't see a big difference between the dog example and the code example?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

You can't modify "X can be Y" with a definite consequence. Doesn't make sense.

This sort of thing could make sense if it were written in a form that, well, makes sense. Here are a couple of ways it could work:
• X can be used as a basis for Y, a situation that has the potential to cause disputes. ("can be" ... "has the potential to" ... ok, now that makes sense.)
• X has/have been used as a basis for Y, leading to international disputes. (Better, since the __ing is actually presented as a result of something that happened. Still a little weird, though, since X isn't the most appropriate subject.)

[rustom.hakimiyan]

You can't modify "X can be Y" with a definite consequence. Doesn't make sense.

This sort of thing could make sense if it were written in a form that, well, makes sense. Here are a couple of ways it could work:
• X can be used as a basis for Y, a situation that has the potential to cause disputes. ("can be" ... "has the potential to" ... ok, now that makes sense.)
• X has/have been used as a basis for Y, leading to international disputes. (Better, since the __ing is actually presented as a result of something that happened. Still a little weird, though, since X isn't the most appropriate subject.)

Hmm, sorry but I'm still having a hard time grasping this:

C. Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating

Since "already stimulating" is obviously not referring to the "tiny islets" -- can't it still refer to "the new maritime code". Doesn't this ___ing function as further description of what the code is doing? The code is stimulating disputes...

[RonPurewal]

When "comma + __ing" follows a sentence, it doesn't (and can't) refer to the last noun.
In fact, that's the whole reason why this modifier exists.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

When "comma + __ing" follows a sentence, it doesn't (and can't) refer to the last noun.
In fact, that's the whole reason why this modifier exists.

Got it! Thanks!