Many daring vacationers who participate in guided

[Anon]

Many daring vacationers who participate in guided boat tours on the Tarcoles River encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses are peeking out from the surface of the murky water.

encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses are peeking out
encountered native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses peek out
had encountered native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses peek out
encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, with eyes and noses peeking out
encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, with eyes and noses that are peeking out

source : CAT 5

explanation says ... with..out adverbial modifier is for verb lurking....

but isn't lurking a participle here.... describing crocs.... (NOTE: QUESTION 1 in explanation below)
further.. is it not ambiguous whether it is modifying lurking or encounter ???? (NOTE: QUESTION 2 in explanation below)


please clarify


thanks
Anon

[Anon]

Also...

Could you please explain the diff between these structures (NOTE: QUESTION 3 in explanation below)

with eyes and noses peeking out
with eyes and noses that are peeking out
whose eyes and noses are peeking out

[Guest]

another thing...



Even though her career was cut short when she was in her prime and the fifteen recordings she made were disappointing artistically as well as technically, Olive Fremstad (1871-1951) has never been entirely forgotten by opera aficionados.
A. though her career was cut short when she was in her prime and the fifteen recordings she made were
B. though her career was cut short while in her prime, with the fifteen recordings she made
C. as her career had been cut short when she was in her prime, with the fifteen recordings she had made
D. with her career having been cut short when she was in her prime, and the fifteen recordings she made were
E. with her career cut short while in her prime, and that the fifteen recordings she made were

Ron... I saw the below explanation from a GMAT prep SC

choice b
* the phrase 'while in her prime' necessarily refers to the subject of the clause in which it is found. therefore, that clause appears to be saying that 'career' is some sort of female entity, and that the career was cut short while in 'her' (i.e., the career's, according to this strange logic) prime. that's ... bad.
* also, the way the gmat uses 'with ...', it must be followed by a noun or noun equivalent. so, for instance, you could say 'with her 15 recordings', but you can't say 'with her 15 recordings disappointing...' (which is no longer a noun phrase).



Dont we have a similar construction here (NOTE: QUESTION 4 in explanation below)

with eyes and noses peeking out
with the fifteen recordings she made disappointing

[esledge]

Since there are so many questions in the thread above, I took the liberty of numbering them.

Question 1
When an -ing word follows a noun without a comma between, the -ing word modifies the immediately preceding noun. So, yes, I agree that "lurking" describes the crocodiles, effectively telling us which crocodiles were encountered by the vacationers.

Question 2
As for the "with eyes and noses peeking out" prepositional phrase, it depends on the context. Prepositional phrases are flexible, as they can be noun or adverbial modifiers (and sometimes an odd blend of the two, in my opinion).

As a noun modifier: The native crocodiles with eyes and noses peeking out are scary. (i.e. WHICH crocodiles?)
As an adverbial modifier: Vacationers encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shadows, with eyes and noses peeking out. (i.e. HOW were the crocodiles lurking?)

Adverbial modifiers can modify verbs, or other adjectives. So, while "lurking" is not a verb here, it is a modifier, which must be modified by an adverb or adverbial phrase.

Notice that in the adverbial modifier example, the phrase could also be considered to modify the noun subject. You can temporarily remove the "lurking" modifier to see this:

Vacationers encounter native crocodiles, with eyes and noses peeking out. (i.e. WHICH crocodiles? The one with eyes and noses peeking out.)

This is why I say the prepositional phrase can act as a blend of noun and adverbial modifier--in this case, both interpretations make sense.

You suggested there may be ambiguity: Maybe the "with eyes and noses peeking out" describes which vacationers or how the vacationers encountered the crocodiles. There are two reasons this is not a problem:
(1) Context: We are told the vacationers are on boat tours, not in the murky water. The interpretation "vacationers with eyes and noses peeking out from the surface of the murky water" just doesn’t make as much sense.
(2) Placement: The modifier follows "crocodiles lurking," whereas "vacationers encountered" is physically separated from the prepositional phrase by "crocodiles lurking," which is more logical anyway.

Finally, I would point out that the modifier split was primarily about "whose" vs. "with." "Whose" is clearly wrong, as "shallows" precedes the comma instead of "crocodiles," which is the noun we want to modify. Whatever reservations you had about what the "with" phrase modifies, the preceding language was the same in (D) and (E). In the real test, remember that you won’t always like the phrasing of the correct choice, but you won’t go wrong if you avoid any with definite errors.

Question 3
Basically, they all mean the same thing, but use different sentence structure. Any of them could be correct in isolation, but the "whose" relative clause is only correct if it follows "crocodiles" in the overall sentence.

with eyes and noses peeking out
--Prepositional phrase (with). Prepositional phrases can modify nouns, verbs, or other modifiers. See Question 2 above.
--"-ing" noun modifier (peeking out) modifies eyes and noses.

with eyes and noses that are peeking out
--Prepositional phrase (with). Prepositional phrases can modify nouns, verbs, or other modifiers. See Question 2 above.
--Relative clause (that), which modifies the immediately preceding noun (eyes and noses).
--Verb in a tense (are peeking) within the relative clause. This verb must match in number the subject of the relative clause (eyes and noses)

whose eyes and noses are peeking out
--Relative clause (whose), which modifies the immediately preceding noun. Relative clauses can ONLY modify nouns.
--Both a subject (eyes and noses) and a verb in a tense (are peeking) are within the relative clause. Standard subject-verb rules would apply: Plural subject goes with plural verb.

Question 4
I don’t think they are entirely similar. In the first, "peeking" follows and modifies a noun. In the second, "disappointing" follows "made," which could be a verb (i.e. she made X). If "made" isn’t supposed to be a verb here, I guess it is supposed to modify "recordings" (i.e. Which recordings? The ones she made.) If so, that modifier would be better as a relative clause ("recordings THAT she made...") as that would allow "made" to be a verb, and the overall phrase to be a modifier.

[gmathanoifall2010]

Thank you Esledge.

But Ron said, if the modifiers are not ambiguous, it's ok.

I think "whose" here must refer to crocodiles, not shallows. Because the shallows don't have eyes or noses

[tim]

Ron’s rule should be relied on if it comes down to a decision on the modifier alone, but sometimes even the GMAT is a little unpredictable on the issue of relative pronouns, so save this for last thing you address. Fortunately you’re not likely to encounter a decision such as the one I described - notice how the verb issue can help you get rid of all instances of "whose" in this problem..

[ngufo06]

Can you please give us the take away from this discussion.....

Its kind of tough to get all the discussion.

Request your help on this.

Thanks
ngufo06

[jnelson0612]

Can you please give us the take away from this discussion.....

Its kind of tough to get all the discussion.

Request your help on this.

Thanks
ngufo06

Sure!
Takeaway 1: the word "whose" sets off a noun modifier, and the phrase started by "whose" must refer to the noun before it. "whose eyes and noses peek out" cannot refer to "shallows" but to "alligators". Eliminate A, B, and C. The word "with" sets off an adverbial phrase, and adverbial phrases do not have to touch what they are modifying; thus D and E are acceptable.

Takeaway 2: Once down to D and E, go with concision. Both "eyes and noses peeking out" and "eyes and noses that are peeking out" say the same thing, but D says it in a simpler, more concise way.

[davetzulin]

(1). encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, with eyes and noses that are peeking out

does the relative pronoun that automatically refer to both nouns linked by 'and'?

(2). There is an OG problem where it uses "who" relative pronoun
The two people in line were Anna and Bob who ....

and OG said "the referent of who is ambiguous", just bob? anna and bob? Are "that" and "who" considered different as relative pronouns in that regard?

(3). then another OG problem had
"generations of actors including Marlon Brando and Tom Cruise"

and OG said, the participle "including" modifies "generations of actors" and generations can't include Marlon Brando or Tom Cruise.
So now participles don't only modify what they touch, but the prepositional phrase included?

[tim]

(1) "that" can refer either to the second noun or to both, and as long as one of those interpretations makes sense without being ambiguous we would not eliminate that option based on pronouns alone..

(2) i don't believe the OG would ever include the excerpt exactly as you transcribed it in a correct SC answer. can you provide a source so we can verify?

(3) regardless of whether "including" modifies "generations" or "actors", it is wrong either way. as for your question, if you have a noun followed by two modifiers, both modifiers can modify the original noun. the rule that modifiers must touch their nouns includes a caveat that another modifier of the same noun can come between them..

BTW the OG references Robert De Niro, not Tom Cruise.. :)

[davetzulin]

(1) "that" can refer either to the second noun or to both, and as long as one of those interpretations makes sense without being ambiguous we would not eliminate that option based on pronouns alone..

(2) i don't believe the OG would ever include the excerpt exactly as you transcribed it in a correct SC answer. can you provide a source so we can verify?

(3) regardless of whether "including" modifies "generations" or "actors", it is wrong either way. as for your question, if you have a noun followed by two modifiers, both modifiers can modify the original noun. the rule that modifiers must touch their nouns includes a caveat that another modifier of the same noun can come between them..

BTW the OG references Robert De Niro, not Tom Cruise.. :)

Thanks Tim,

(3). so "generations of actors including Robert DeNiro and Marlon Brando."

- is it incorrect because "actors" don't do the "including" verb-ing?
- this seems to be a correct case of "preposition + noun + verb-ing" since it really is a generation of actors, not a generation of including.

is this correct? "the group of dogs running are tired"
"of dogs" is a modifier
"running" is a modifier

In some odd way it could be "group" followed by two modifiers as you said, but we should just assume "running" is modifying "dogs" and not "group" right?


(2). Yes that was out of context. I hope I'm not violating any of the copyright rules by pasting this excerpt:

Published in Harlem, the owner and editor of The
Messenger were two young journalists, Chandler Owen
and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his
reputation as a labor leader

bolded relative clause is ambugious. and yes i agree it sounds so.

[tim]

Thanks Tim,

(3). so "generations of actors including Robert DeNiro and Marlon Brando."

- is it incorrect because "actors" don't do the "including" verb-ing?
- this seems to be a correct case of "preposition + noun + verb-ing" since it really is a generation of actors, not a generation of including.

is this correct? "the group of dogs running are tired"
"of dogs" is a modifier
"running" is a modifier

In some odd way it could be "group" followed by two modifiers as you said, but we should just assume "running" is modifying "dogs" and not "group" right?

Yes, the actors don't do the including. In your example, you would never see the word "running" after "dogs" in a correct sentence, and when you talk about a group of running dogs there is no question what is being referred to..

(2). Yes that was out of context. I hope I'm not violating any of the copyright rules by pasting this excerpt:

Published in Harlem, the owner and editor of The
Messenger were two young journalists, Chandler Owen
and A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his
reputation as a labor leader

bolded relative clause is ambugious. and yes i agree it sounds so.

Technically there is no ambiguity here, because of the word "his", which makes the "who" refer to only one person. Grammatically, this must be the person right before the comma..

[joey_jamal]

with eyes and noses peeking out
with eyes and noses that are peeking out

Is it possible that two perfectly structured statements would be split one right and other wrong over such a slight difference in conciseness? Plus does it not add some clarity that we are talking about both "eyes and noses" rather than just "noses" when placing "that are" before "peeking out" right away?

[jnelson0612]

with eyes and noses peeking out
with eyes and noses that are peeking out

Is it possible that two perfectly structured statements would be split one right and other wrong over such a slight difference in conciseness? Plus does it not add some clarity that we are talking about both "eyes and noses" rather than just "noses" when placing "that are" before "peeking out" right away?

Yes, it's possible. If you look at the Official Guide explanations, the GMAT test writers to explain many wrong answers by saying that these answers are "wordy". You can consider concision for eliminations; just consider it AFTER grammar rules and meaning issues.

[tim]

I'm actually going to disagree here. I don't know how this question made it through our editing process, but it is NOT representative of what you'll see on the GMAT. In nearly a decade of teaching the GMAT I have NEVER seen a single official question (i.e. written by the GMAT itself) where concision was required to get to a correct answer. In other words, in my experience there is ALWAYS something other than concision to base your decision on. The corollary to this is that anytime the GMAT claims an answer choice is "awkward" or "wordy" this is NOT the real reason why that answer choice is wrong, and you should find another reason.

For years I have had a standing challenge to all my students and fellow instructors to prove me wrong on this point - find an actual GMAT question that cannot be decided without resorting to concision. No one has ever shown me such an example. The takeaway? As near as anyone can tell, concision is NOT a thing on the GMAT, and if you ever use concision to make a decision on SC, you are missing a bigger point.