commma -ing vs ing

[NatalieB741]

Hello,

I've been working through various problems for the sentence correction, and it seems as though there are various different explanations for what word -ing is modifying, or what ,-ing is modifying. Can you please provide clarity on the sentences I made up below:

1. Subject+verb+object (noun) + Prep phrase (i.e. in the oven) preparing......
Based on some explanations I saw in the OG, preparing (no comma -ing) seems to refer back to the object (noun) (skipping over the prep phrase). However, on the instructor videos I listened to, they say that preparing would refer back to oven (noun in the prep phrase).

2. When there is no comma and we have an -ing word, will it refer to the closes noun, even if it is included in a prep phrase? Or would it modify the closest noun excluding the noun in the prep phrase?

3. Based on my understanding, when there is a "comma + ing" it cannot refer to a noun, but it could refer to a clause. If the sentence above had a comma before preparing, would it modify the prep phrase? Or would it modify the verb or clause (subject+verb) instead?

Manhattan Prep Sentence Correct Strategy Guide Ch 4 page 67:
Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.

4. , leading-->the guide states that leading is modifying decreased. However, with a comma ing, prep phrases can also be modified. Based on the placement of this, why is it not considered incorrect and modifying the prep phrase?

5. If this sentence removed the comma and it read "Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood leading to a rise in property values" leading would need to modify the noun directly attached. Therefore it would modify neighborhood. However, based on different explanations I've read or the video tutorials, it seems as though leading would not modify neighborhood because it is included in a prep phrase?



Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

for "comma + __ing", check out these two links:

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p102559

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p118480

__

i'm afraid i don't understand point no. 4.

it looks like you're saying this:
"if something works CORRECTLY, but there's also a WRONG interpretation ... then should i take the wrong interpretation, and say it's wrong?"

i think it's pretty safe to assume that isn't what you are trying to say... but, i don't know what you ARE trying to say. help me out here.


__

[RonPurewal]

the questions about "no comma + __ing" are a bit too abstract for me to understand.

in general, though, 2 things:

1/
it seems that you're making this unnecessarily difficult. don't forget that this is a multiple-choice test!
you shouldn't really need more than the following:

• "no comma + __ing" describes a NOUN.

• if there are choices in which "no comma + __ing" DOESN'T describe a noun, then eliminate those choices.

• if some choices put "no comma + __ing" closer to the noun than others do ... keep the choices that put it closest to the noun, and eliminate the choices that put it farther away.

that should be all you need.

2/
when you post questions like this on the forum, please post specific example problems with the questions. thanks.

[NatalieB741]

Hi Ron,

Thank you for the explanations. My original questions stemmed from questions I saw in the OG, and I know we are not allowed to use the specific questions from the OG, so I tried to take the format of those questions to come up with my own sentence.


I watched one of the old Office Hours Forums on sentence structure and "comma -ing" and that helped me understand that the ", ing" relates to the overall action performed by the subject within the clause.

My primary question now relates to the -ing participles (Without a comma). I listed to some explanations of OG questions in Navigator and read a couple examples as well, and I am getting confused on what exactly the participle will modify. I know it is a noun or a noun phrase, but when it comes to the actual construction of the sentence, somtimes the explanation says the "ing" modifies the noun right before it (which is in a prep phrase) and others it states that it modifies the noun before the prep phrase.


For example:
1. "An earthquake will result in instability for a person HOPPING on one foot."
Manhattan's explanation is that this is INCORRECT because it is saying the instability cannot hop on one foot. However, I see that that -ing is as close to the noun "person" that it can be, so I assumed that hopping is modifying person, and this construction is correct? Can you please explain why this explanation said this sentence is WRONG. I thought this would be correct.

Conversely, the OG question this made up sentence above relates to has a similar construction, but in the explanation provided in the video on Navigator, the instructor states that the "ing" (without a comma) is modifying the noun directly before it.

Adjusted sentence based on OG (so as to not copy the OG problem here):
2. The use of heart monitors is based on the assumption that overeating causes high blood sugar in an individual CREATING, in turn, clogged arteries.

The navigator video explanation states that "creating" in sentence 2 modifies (incorrectly) individual. This is the noun directly attached to the modifier. This makes sense to me. I would assume that since the "-ing" is attached to the noun "individual" that it would be modifying individual (therefore saying the individual created clogged arteries...wrong). However, in sentence 1, the Mprep explanation says "instability" is what is being modified, and not person.

Can you please the difference between 1 and 2 and how I would be able to tell what noun the "ing" is modifying (whether it is the noun in the prep phrase or the noun before the prep phrase).

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

that example sentence #1 is perfectly fine. in fact, that's OPTIMAL usage, for this kind of modifier!
O___O

the point is that, ideally, these kinds of modifiers SHOULD describe nouns that are directly next to them... but that, IN SOME CASES, the context makes that impossible (since there are other things that must intervene closer to the noun).
however—if it's possible to put this kind of modifier right next to the noun, then of course it's BEST to do so!

does one of our guides really say that example is incorrect?

if so, what does the guide say that the error actually is?
(there is somewhat of a problem, in the sense that the sentence should say "a person who hops on one foot". i.e., "a person hopping..." actually implies that someone is literally hopping AT THE TIME WHEN the earthquake hits—and the sentence almost certainly isn't intended to say such a thing.
...but, that's an issue of meaning, not an issue with the modifier itself. and that's way way way way WAAAYYY too subtle for anyone taking the GMAT to ever worry about.)

if one of our guides actually says that that MODIFIER is FUNCTIONALLY incorrect (not just "inappropriate for the niceties of the meaning in that one sentence"), then that's a really bad mistake, and we need to fix that immediately. thanks.