Because there are provisions.....

[RonPurewal]

Hi Guys,

This sentence completely eludes me.

If i understand correctly, the original sentence tell us that the provisions within the code and not the code itself is causing the problem. That said, none of the choices make sense. The OA in fact tells that its not the provisions but the code itself is only about the issue.

Could the experts (Ron Or Stacey) please help me as i am throughly confused. Am i reading the sentence wrong?

Really appreciate your help.

remember that the approach is hierarchical:
1) CORRECTNESS
2) CLARITY

these are not on equal footing - correctness supersedes clarity.

in other words:
if 4 of the choices in a SC problem are WRONG, then it doesn't matter whether the 1
correct choice changes the meaning.

in this problem, 4 of the choices are WRONG.
(a) is redundant (provisions ... provide), and (c) (d) (e) contain grammatical/usage errors.

since (b) is the only choice that is grammatically sound, it really makes no difference whether its meaning is exactly the same as that of the original.

[Jessie_8112000]

Can anyone help me on choice C?
I know that C is wrong becasue the subject that clause 'already stimulating..' modiferied is not clear and 'already' has no helping verb. What if choice C is revised as below:

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, stimulating

[mschwrtz]

I expect that you'll find this deeply unsatisfying khangarot.siddarth, but you're right. There's a subtle difference between the apparent meanings of A and the OA.

Perhaps you didn't notice that Ron has already addressed this, though? Be sure to read the whole thread. Here's what he wrote:

remember that the approach is hierarchical:
1) CORRECTNESS
2) CLARITY

these are not on equal footing - correctness supersedes clarity.

in other words:
if 4 of the choices in a SC problem are WRONG, then it doesn't matter whether the 1
correct choice changes the meaning.

in this problem, 4 of the choices are WRONG.

[roshan_aslam_engg]

For C, i think it's okay to use COMMA+ING to modify the preceding clause, and there's no logical issue there.

nope.
COMMA + -ING modifiers must modify the preceding clause, but the -ING participle must also apply to the subject of the preceding clause.
therefore, the use of that comma+ing modifier would imply that the islets themselves are stimulating disputes. that's not true.

Additionally, in the OG, they claim "under provisions of..." is misplaced, where should it be placed? What does it modify?

for which choice?

nb:
there are, occasionally, things written in the OG SC answer keys that are actually incorrect.
(also, these answer keys are VERY often incomplete - often neglecting to mention the most conspicuous mistakes!)
it's obvious that the answer keys are written by their less skilled writers, and that the problems themselves are written by their "A"-team, so to speak.

+ing modifer is a verb modifer and can be placed before or after the clause. infact this very fact is stated in Manhattan SC book in the chapter about modifiers.

[RonPurewal]

+ing modifer is a verb modifer and can be placed before or after the clause. infact this very fact is stated in Manhattan SC book in the chapter about modifiers.

well, yes, COMMA + -ING does modify actions (what you mean by "verb modifier"). that's what i mean by stating above that COMMA -ING modifies the action of the preceding clause.

however, the fact remains that the -ING form is still derived from a verb, and so still needs to have some sort of subject. in other words, the subject of the clause that's being modified must also be the subject of the -ING form.

hence, why sentences like this are wrong:
using a siphon, gasoline can be transferred from a car's tank to a gas can.
--> here, "using a siphon" does modify the action of the following clause, but it doesn't have a legitimate subject -- i.e., the following clause doesn't say who is using a siphon.
vs.
using a siphon, a stranded driver can transfer gasoline from a car's tank to a gas can.
--> here, the modifier correctly modifies the following action, but it also has a proper subject ("a stranded driver").
you need both.

[david.khoy]

I do not understand what is wrong with answer C.

Ok, I already know that comma + the ing verb form modifies the preceding clause.

For example:

Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.
> The fact that the crime has decreased (the action) leads to a rise in property value.

Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large seas areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating international disputes over uninhabited islands.
> The fact that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims (the action) stimulates international disputes. I really do not see what's wrong here. This example seems similar to the one I wrote above.

[RonPurewal]

I do not understand what is wrong with answer C.

Ok, I already know that comma + the ing verb form modifies the preceding clause.

For example:

Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.
> The fact that the crime has decreased (the action) leads to a rise in property value.

Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large seas areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating international disputes over uninhabited islands.
> The fact that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims (the action) stimulates international disputes. I really do not see what's wrong here. This example seems similar to the one I wrote above.

two problems with that choice:

1) when you use a COMMA -ING modifier after a clause**, you should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
-- the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause, as you have stated;
AND
-- the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.

examples:
Joe broke the window, angering his father. --> this sentence makes sense, because it correctly implies that joe "angered his father".
the window was broken by Joe, angering his father. --> this sentence doesn't make sense, because it implies that the window (i.e., not joe himself) angered joe's father.

my brother tricked me, disappointing Dad --> implies that dad is disappointed in my brother for tricking me (and not necessarily disappointed in me for being tricked).
i was tricked by my brother, disappointing Dad --> implies that dad is disappointed in me because i fell for my brother's trick (and not that he's disappointed in my brother for tricking me).

see also here:
post30766.html#p30766

2) the modifier "under provisions of the new maritime code" is placed in a location that is somewhat ambiguous -- it seems to suggest that the sea areas themselves are under those provisions.
(this is certainly not a fatal error, but you should notice it in contrast to the other answer choices, in which that modifier is moved to a more logically sound location).

[david.khoy]

Ok. Many thanks!

[martyhps]

Hi Ron,

Can you please help to explain the ",Which" usage in (E), I think it clear modifies "the new maritime code" before the comma; is that right?

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

Can you please help to explain the ",Which" usage in (E), I think it clear modifies "the new maritime code" before the comma; is that right?

Thanks

yeah.

just so we're sure -- you know that answer is incorrect, right? (just checking)

[vicksikand]

Can a moderator* edit option C in the original post?
The correct Option is:
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

The option posted is:
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 stimulated

[ChrisB]

Hi,

Done - thanks for the note.

-Chris

[ashish-mohan]

Hi Ron, I have found this question to be among the most intriguing.

According to me, B does not even qualify. What is stimulating disputes? One of the following:

1. "new maritime code"

2. The fact that "new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields".

According to me, 2. is what is stimulating disputes. If that is the case, 'it' (as used in B) is a wrong usage (since 'it' cannot refer to a 'clause').

'it' (as used in B) can be correct only if we understand that "new maritime code" is stimulating disputes, but to me 2. makes more logical sense.

Kindly clarify. As always, truly appreciate your inputs.

Edit: Just adding an example to clarify my point:

Because Nazis wreaked havoc in the second world war, United Nations was formed.

We cannot say:

Because Nazis wreaked havoc in the second world war, it led to formation of United Nations.

What we can say is:

Nazis wreaked havoc in the second world war, leading to formation of United Nations.

Bottomline: Since the first clause starts with a 'because', 'it' would (erroneously) refer to the 'entire' clause and not just to 'new maritime code'.

Kindly clarify.

[RonPurewal]

According to me, B does not even qualify.

first --
OFFICIALLY CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; please note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort. i.e., exactly 0% of the time that you spend posting "isn't this official answer wrong?" is productive, and exactly 100% of that time is wasted.

"is this correct?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking -- you will suddenly find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you dispose of the idea that they might be wrong.

What is stimulating disputes? One of the following:

1. "new maritime code"

2. The fact that "new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields".

According to me, 2. is what is stimulating disputes.

this way of thinking is too rigid; certain sentences/discussions would become ridiculous if required to adhere to such a standard.

for instance, let's say that an author writes a 300-page book that contains a couple of very controversial statements on pages 48 and 49.
in this case, it would be perfectly acceptable to refer to the book as "controversial"; one would not need to refer to the exact statements in the book that caused the controversy.
(in fact, it would even be acceptable to refer to the author as "controversial", too, for making those statements.)

[gmatwork]

In (a) why do we have ambiguity about the referent for 'they' ? Since they is the subject of main clause wouldn't the possible for antecedent for 'they' will be a noun that is in subject case in the subordinate clause? Why would it 'they' refer to other nouns that are used as object of preposition or verb?

Similarly in OG 12 #112, in choice (a) , why is there any ambiguity about pronoun reference for 'it' now since 'it' is the subject of main clause shouldn't the only possible referent for it = baby (since baby is subject of Sub. clause)?

For checking the possible antecedents of a pronoun should we considering only the nouns that have the same case (sub, obj, poss) as the pronoun's case? Is this strategy an overkill or true in all cases?