Not only did the systematic clearing of forests

[DiJ92]

Dear Ron

I have two questions about Comma, ing modifier. I know if "comma, ing" appears at then end of a clause, it modifies the clause. But in many times, i found that it is inserted in the middle of a sentence such as: 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 OA of GMAT prep).
in this sentence, does "comma, having amassed a wealth of knowledge... adulthood" as a adjective modify neuroscientists or as a adverb modify the later action-are drawing? and if it act as a adverb to modify the later action" are drawing", how does it modify? is there any connection between these two things?
And also, in some cases, which action does "comma, ing" in the middle of a sentence modify when there are several actions before it, including the verb and also one or more particles.

Thanks in advance, I have long struggled in this kind of usage of "comma, ing" in the middle of a sentence.

[RonPurewal]

today's your lucky day—i found a post i wrote in response to this exact question—in fact regarding this very same problem.

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

[DiJ92]

Indeed helpful, thanks very a lot. haha

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[liy962]

Ron,
Actually I still get a problem about the question"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"

I checked some of your previous posts and find out you said -ing modifier in the structure 'S, -ing, v+o' is noun modifier and modifies preceding noun. But you also mention -ing have to be related to the main verb somehow. Dose this relationship require the two verbs to be in the same timeframe as other kinds of comma+ing structure do? Or just any sort of relationship is ok?

I notices that "having amassed" can't fit into the "are now drawing" timeframe because the former indicates something happend before now but the latter suggests a current event, so am I right to think this structure is different from"-ing, s+v+o" and"s+v+o,-ing" in which the -ing and main verb must be one event and fit in same timeframe?

with regards

[RonPurewal]

'having amassed' describes the situation AT PRESENT—after the 'amassing' has occurred.

if the modifier were 'amassing', then your observation would be pertinent... but it isn't.

[RonPurewal]

also, i've discovered that the 'neuroscientists' problem is actually from OG (not gmat prep).
so, we cannot discuss it any further. (any further posts about that problem will be deleted.)

[NinaP494]

This is so trenchant Ron !

This is a GMAT Prep question. I got the same one today. Isn't 'not only ....., but it also ....' construction awkward ?

the correct answer, (d), doesn't have that construction.

--

incidentally, note that, even if it were used with proper parallelism, the "not only ... but also" construction still wouldn't be appropriate here.

rhetorically, the "not only ... but also" construction is used for 2 parallel items that reinforce each other.

example:
weight training not only increases muscle mass and strength but also boosts bone density. --> notice that the two effects mentioned are both positive effects.

in this sentence, the 2 effects are contrasting: the first half (farmland/houses/furniture) is positive, but the second half (erosion/deforestation) is negative.
thus, "not only ... but also" is inappropriate; just use traditional "but (also)", by itself, instead. that's exactly what choice (d) does.

[RonPurewal]

glad it helped.

[RichaChampion]

This is a GMAT Prep question. I got the same one today. Isn't 'not only ....., but it also ....' construction awkward ?

the correct answer, (d), doesn't have that construction.

--

incidentally, note that, even if it were used with proper parallelism, the "not only ... but also" construction still wouldn't be appropriate here.

rhetorically, the "not only ... but also" construction is used for 2 parallel items that reinforce each other.

example:
weight training not only increases muscle mass and strength but also boosts bone density. --> notice that the two effects mentioned are both positive effects.

in this sentence, the 2 effects are contrasting: the first half (farmland/houses/furniture) is positive, but the second half (erosion/deforestation) is negative.
thus, "not only ... but also" is inappropriate; just use traditional "but (also)", by itself, instead. that's exactly what choice (d) does.

Mr. Purewal i have a new learning here → not only A____ but also B

Here A and B should not contrast each other, Right?

[RonPurewal]

those shouldn't just "not contrast"—they should actually reinforce each other.

[YashG889]

Hello experts,

I have a question about choice D.

If we remove "it" before also , will the answer be still valid?

Thanks,
Yash

[RonPurewal]

it wouldn't be wrong, but it would become awfully difficult to read/process/understand.

remember—DO NOT attempt to "edit" or "invent" answer choices to GMAC's problems. thanks.

[JbhB682]

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that "clearing" (a gerund) cannot logically "give" consumers anything. But why then argue that "farmland" can? "Farmland" is as inanimate as "clearing." In fact, the GMAT seems to think that either noun can "give" these things to consumers; "give" here is in the sense of "provide."

The "it" clearly refers to "clearing," for two reasons:
1) "houses" is plural, but "it" is singular
2) "clearing" is the subject of the sentence, and we use "it" as a subject pronoun; thus, "clearing" is the most logical antecedent.

Hi Expert - i had a question on this mentioned above by Jonathan in red

From a meaning perspective, i agree -- the "Farmland" cannot give consumers anything ....But the "Creation of farmland" can certainly give consumers free housing and free furniture ...

Doesn't E make more sense from a meaning perspective as its saying the "Creation of farmland" is giving consumers all this free housing and free furniture

[JbhB682]

This is a GMAT Prep question. I got the same one today. Isn't 'not only ....., but it also ....' construction awkward ?

the correct answer, (d), doesn't have that construction.

--

incidentally, note that, even if it were used with proper parallelism, the "not only ... but also" construction still wouldn't be appropriate here.

rhetorically, the "not only ... but also" construction is used for 2 parallel items that reinforce each other.

example:
weight training not only increases muscle mass and strength but also boosts bone density. --> notice that the two effects mentioned are both positive effects.

in this sentence, the 2 effects are contrasting: the first half (farmland/houses/furniture) is positive, but the second half (erosion/deforestation) is negative.
thus, "not only ... but also" is inappropriate; just use traditional "but (also)", by itself, instead. that's exactly what choice (d) does.

Hi Ron

Mentioned above was that in the construction, not only X but also Y ...X and Y have to be in the same direction or re-enforce each other

Just wondering if i can make this inference with these parallel markers in that case ?

Either X and Y ===== X and Y have to reinforce each other
Either X or Y ======= X and Y dont necessarily have to reinforce each other
Neither X nor Y ===== X and Y dont necessarily have to reinforce each other
Both X and Y ======= X and Y have to reinforce each other
Both X or Y ======= X and Y dont necessarily have to reinforce each other
X but also Y ======= X and Y have to be opposite of each other


Whether X, Y or Z ======= do X , Y or Z have to reinforce each other ?
Rather than X or Y, Z ======= do X , Y or Z have to reinforce each other ?
Between X, Y and Z====== do X , Y or Z have to reinforce each other ?