Katharine Graham

[chwera58]

[quote="StaceyKoprince"]

E "moving" and "becoming" indicate something that's going on right now - this should be in the past. And "after Katherine Graham's becoming its publisher" is horrible.

[quote]

Hi, Stacey or anyone may kindly help.

You mentioned that the V-ing modifier indicate a NOW situation, however in the below example, the V-ing modifier is a CONCURRENT situation that subordinates into the main clause, meaning the action of "whistling" was in the past while John was walking out of the class.

E.g.: Whistling "beat it", John walked out of the class.

Can you kindly enlighten me the difference in interpreting the timeframes between my example (in fact, from manhattan SC guide) and the example in this question? Million thanks.

[tim]

An -ing ending indicates concurrence, not necessarily in the present. Sounds like you have the right idea. Sorry if there was any confusion.

[lemonperb]

Hi GMAT instructors, Will E be correct if I change"Katharine Grahame's becoming" to "Katharine Grahame became"?

Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Grahame became its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post won high praise under her command

[RonPurewal]

Hi GMAT instructors, Will E be correct if I change"Katharine Grahame's becoming" to "Katharine Grahame became"?

Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Grahame became its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post won high praise under her command

Nope. The first part doesn't make sense as a modifier of the second part.

The second part described something that happened later. Not something that happened as the WP was "moving into the first rank of xxxx".

E.g.,
Arriving in Seoul for the first time, I was confused by the addresses, which had no apparent relationship to street names.
"”> I was confused when I first arrived in Seoul.

[lemonperb]

Hi GMAT instructors, Will E be correct if I change"Katharine Grahame's becoming" to "Katharine Grahame became"?

Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Grahame became its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post won high praise under her command

Nope. The first part doesn't make sense as a modifier of the second part.

The second part described something that happened later. Not something that happened as the WP was "moving into the first rank of xxxx".

E.g.,
Arriving in Seoul for the first time, I was confused by the addresses, which had no apparent relationship to street names.
"”> I was confused when I first arrived in Seoul.

Amazing explanation!

[RonPurewal]

Thanks.

[yaoL613]

Hi GMAT instructors, Will E be correct if I change"Katharine Grahame's becoming" to "Katharine Grahame became"?

Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Grahame became its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post won high praise under her command

Nope. The first part doesn't make sense as a modifier of the second part.

The second part described something that happened later. Not something that happened as the WP was "moving into the first rank of xxxx".

E.g.,
Arriving in Seoul for the first time, I was confused by the addresses, which had no apparent relationship to street names.
"”> I was confused when I first arrived in Seoul.

hello ron, i have some questions about your explanation.
as you said "Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Grahame became its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post won high praise under her command" is incorrect because the -ing doesn't make sense with the main clause.

The next is a correct sentence from OG13, problems number 25

1\Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.

The sentence is true because "having done" can express a time sequence:some actions happened before the actions of the main clause. And you said in
neuroscientists-having-amassed-a-wealth-of-knowledge-t11470.html&start=0

that the two action doesn't make sense, cause the former is not the immediate consequence of the later, then i check the e-gmat and fond this rule"if comma + -ing DOESN'T follow a whole clause -- if it just follows a noun -- then it will modify only that noun. "
So i think, oh this rule justify the usage.

My question is
if the sentence is
subject+-ing+main clause
and the -ing doesnt make sense with the main clause, then the choice is just fine. The -ing can just modify the subject.

but when the choice is
-ing+subject verb
and the -ing doesnt make sense with the main clause, then the choice is incorrect. The -ing can not just modify the subject.

[RonPurewal]

if the sentence is
subject+-ing+main clause
and the -ing doesnt make sense with the main clause, then the choice is just fine. The -ing can just modify the subject.

wrong.

if an __ing modifier is demarcated with commas, it must be related to the meaning of the whole sentence, regardless of whether it's placed--before the sentence, after the subject, or after the sentence.

see here:
post75891.html#p75891

and here:
post102559.html#p102559

[RonPurewal]

"ok, ron, so what is the difference?"

post103277.html#p103277

[yaoL613]

if the sentence is
subject+-ing+main clause
and the -ing doesnt make sense with the main clause, then the choice is just fine. The -ing can just modify the subject.

wrong.

if an __ing modifier is demarcated with commas, it must be related to the meaning of the whole sentence, regardless of whether it's placed--before the sentence, after the subject, or after the sentence.

see here:
post75891.html#p75891

and here:
post102559.html#p102559

Thank you for your explanation, but it makes me confused.

This is the OG13 25
Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.
(A) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are
(B) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are
(C) Neuroscientists amassing a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are
(D) Neuroscientists have amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood,
(E) Neuroscientists have amassed, over the past twenty years, a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood.

You says CD are wrong because the two actions:"have amass knowledge" and "draw conclusion" dont make sense, that is the later is not a "immediate consequence" or "simultaneous, but lower-priority"of the former.
But in the correct answer A, there are the same actions as in CD, and this time, the former modify the later.
Only by exchanging the consequence of the two actions, can these two sentence make sense?

You says the -ing should modify the whole sentence wherever the it is placed, but in A, the -ing can not modify the main clause,
because no matter how you change their consequence, they are not related.
Or the "having been" is a kind of modify that expresses a time consequence, and that is not belong to the pattern of "immediate consequence" or "simultaneous, but lower-priority"of the former.

I edit my post for a long time to make it clear, am i?

[yaoL613]

OK, i find your post on Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:42 am violates the explanation.
because-there-are-provisions-t7381.html&start=75
You cited "The father of the two boys, arriving at the courthouse, was xxxxxx." as an example, but clearly, the father'arriving has nothing to do with who is him.

and there is an correct og sentence:
Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it, is finding uses in medicine, archaeology, and criminology.

i think the fact that the technique is developed for detcting air pollutants has nothing to do with its fining uses in some other aspects.
so the -ed modifier cannot modify the main sentence

i am very confused, ples help

[RonPurewal]

OK, i find your post on Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:42 am violates the explanation.
because-there-are-provisions-t7381.html&start=75
You cited "The father of the two boys, arriving at the courthouse, was xxxxxx." as an example, but clearly, the father'arriving has nothing to do with who is him.

that post doesn't contradict anything i've written here.

if there's a problem, it stems from the fact that i wrote just "xxxx", which you've interpreted in a way that doesn't work (as something describing the father's identity).

here's an actual example:
The father of the two boys, arriving at the courthouse, was accosted by reporters trying to ask him questions on video.
--> here, "arriving at the courthouse" describes the entire sentence, as usual.

[RonPurewal]

and there is an correct og sentence:
Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it, is finding uses in medicine, archaeology, and criminology.

i think the fact that the technique is developed for detcting air pollutants has nothing to do with its fining uses in some other aspects.
so the -ed modifier cannot modify the main sentence

i am very confused, ples help

the rules for __ing modifiers do not apply equally to __ed modifiers.

[aflaamM589]

Hello experts,
Ving adopts the time frame of the main clause.
Therefore, a word that shifts the time frame of Ving is not allowed.
Is this another error in B and E?

B) It was only after Katharine Graham's becoming publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first
rank of American newspapers, and under her command it had won high praise

E)Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Grahame's becoming its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post won high praise under her command
Best,

[RonPurewal]

what do you think is wrong with that?

if you have after xxxxx, this clearly doesn't change the timeframe of "xxxxx". (otherwise it would be impossible to ever write about anything that happened after anything else!)