Please, correct me if I am wrong:
participal phrase at the end of the sentence or inbetween can modify
a) the word after which it stands
b) the subject
c) phrase??? or part of the clause after which it stands
d) the whole preceeding clause
My examples:
a) Our car was repaired by a mechanic, working as quickly as possible. (the second part modifies mechanic)
b) Maria went to sleep, hoping to please her mother. (hoping modifies Maria)
Maria went to sleep, awakening to scary dreams, relieved when it was morning (awakening modifies Maria)
c) Among lower- paid workers, union members are less likely than non union members to be enrolled in lower- end insurance plans that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending less time with each. ("spending less with each" modifies "require doctors to see more patients")
d) The cameras of the Voyager II spacecraft detected six small, previously unseen moons circling Uranus, doubling to twelve the number of satellites now known as orbiting. (the second part modifies the first part).
Please, provide your examples. In my opinion it is a common trap which is used by GMAC when you solve hard questions.
GMAT Forum
8 postsPage 1 of 1
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
a) Our car was repaired by a mechanic, working as quickly as possible. (the second part modifies mechanic)
This isn't a good sentence, because (1) it's in the passive voice for no good reason and (2) the phrase could be taken as modifying 'car' (in fact in exactly the same way you posit in your next example).
Better: Working as quickly as possible, a mechanic repaired our car. This fixes both of the aforementioned problems.
b) Maria went to sleep, hoping to please her mother. (hoping modifies Maria)
This is OK, yes, but it's better to place the modifier next to the subject: Maria, hoping to please her mother, went to sleep.
B) Maria went to sleep, awakening to scary dreams, relieved when it was morning (awakening modifies Maria)
This is not OK. When you use a participial phrase like this, the implication is that the participial phrase is either an explanation of the first clause (see Maria), is concurrent with it, or is a consequence of it.
Concurrent: James settled into his chair, taking off his shoes in anticipation of a long day of desk work.
Consequence: The blizzard dumped 2 feet of snow on Providence, paralyzing the city's businesses for several days.
Your sentence isn't any of these; it requires transitions that show clearly that Maria awakened AFTER going to sleep. Its current wording implies that Maria awakened AS she was going to sleep, which makes no sense.
(C)
This one isn't so hot either. I wouldn't call it unambiguously wrong, but a strict interpretation of the wording would gather that 'spending less time with each' refers to insurance plans, not doctors.
If this one is rewritten as '...require doctors to see more patients and (thus to) spend less time with each,' the problem disappears, although the participial phrase also disappears! The use of AND makes it unambiguous that it's the doctors who 'spend less time with each.' (The words in parentheses are optional, depending on the writer's intended emphasis.)
D is ok.
This isn't a good sentence, because (1) it's in the passive voice for no good reason and (2) the phrase could be taken as modifying 'car' (in fact in exactly the same way you posit in your next example).
Better: Working as quickly as possible, a mechanic repaired our car. This fixes both of the aforementioned problems.
b) Maria went to sleep, hoping to please her mother. (hoping modifies Maria)
This is OK, yes, but it's better to place the modifier next to the subject: Maria, hoping to please her mother, went to sleep.
B) Maria went to sleep, awakening to scary dreams, relieved when it was morning (awakening modifies Maria)
This is not OK. When you use a participial phrase like this, the implication is that the participial phrase is either an explanation of the first clause (see Maria), is concurrent with it, or is a consequence of it.
Concurrent: James settled into his chair, taking off his shoes in anticipation of a long day of desk work.
Consequence: The blizzard dumped 2 feet of snow on Providence, paralyzing the city's businesses for several days.
Your sentence isn't any of these; it requires transitions that show clearly that Maria awakened AFTER going to sleep. Its current wording implies that Maria awakened AS she was going to sleep, which makes no sense.
(C)
This one isn't so hot either. I wouldn't call it unambiguously wrong, but a strict interpretation of the wording would gather that 'spending less time with each' refers to insurance plans, not doctors.
If this one is rewritten as '...require doctors to see more patients and (thus to) spend less time with each,' the problem disappears, although the participial phrase also disappears! The use of AND makes it unambiguous that it's the doctors who 'spend less time with each.' (The words in parentheses are optional, depending on the writer's intended emphasis.)
D is ok.
- Vlad77
Ron, thanks for the explanation:))
More examples from OG10:
1) The root systems of most flowering perennials either become too crowded, resulting in loss of vigor, or spread too far outward, producing a bare center (verb phrase (resulting ...) modify the action of the first clause).
2) The Parthenon was a church from 1204 until 1456, when Athens was taken by General Mohammed the Conqueror, the Turkish sultan, establishing a mosque in the building and using the Acropolis as a fortress (establishing and using modify Athens, thus producing an absurd statement).
Cannot undertand why it modifies "Athens", but not "General Mohammed the Conqueror"???
3) The concept of the grand jury dates from the twelfth -century, when Henry II of England ordered panels of common citizens, preparing lists of suspected criminals in their communities. (preparing . . . communities functions as a participial phrase modifying citizens ).
4) In 1791 Robert Carter III, one of the wealthiest plantation owners in Virginia, stunned his family, friends, and neighbors by filing a deed of emancipation, setting free the more than 500 slaves who were legally considered his property.
5) By a vote of 9 to 0, the Supreme Court awarded the Central Intelligence Agency broad discretionary powers enabling it to withhold from the public the identities of its sources of intelligence information (enabling ... clearly modifies powers).
6) Five fledgling sea eagles left their nests in western Scotland this summer, bringing to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975 (The "-ing" (present participle) form introduces action that is simultaneous with the action of the main clause; i.e., bringing indicates that the number of wild birds became 34 when the sea eagles left their nests).
Ron, could you please shed the light on the logic which defines in what cases participle phrase can modify subject/object/phrase/clause or something else???
More examples from OG10:
1) The root systems of most flowering perennials either become too crowded, resulting in loss of vigor, or spread too far outward, producing a bare center (verb phrase (resulting ...) modify the action of the first clause).
2) The Parthenon was a church from 1204 until 1456, when Athens was taken by General Mohammed the Conqueror, the Turkish sultan, establishing a mosque in the building and using the Acropolis as a fortress (establishing and using modify Athens, thus producing an absurd statement).
Cannot undertand why it modifies "Athens", but not "General Mohammed the Conqueror"???
3) The concept of the grand jury dates from the twelfth -century, when Henry II of England ordered panels of common citizens, preparing lists of suspected criminals in their communities. (preparing . . . communities functions as a participial phrase modifying citizens ).
4) In 1791 Robert Carter III, one of the wealthiest plantation owners in Virginia, stunned his family, friends, and neighbors by filing a deed of emancipation, setting free the more than 500 slaves who were legally considered his property.
5) By a vote of 9 to 0, the Supreme Court awarded the Central Intelligence Agency broad discretionary powers enabling it to withhold from the public the identities of its sources of intelligence information (enabling ... clearly modifies powers).
6) Five fledgling sea eagles left their nests in western Scotland this summer, bringing to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975 (The "-ing" (present participle) form introduces action that is simultaneous with the action of the main clause; i.e., bringing indicates that the number of wild birds became 34 when the sea eagles left their nests).
Ron, could you please shed the light on the logic which defines in what cases participle phrase can modify subject/object/phrase/clause or something else???
- Guest
Ron Purewal Wrote:a) Our car was repaired by a mechanic, working as quickly as possible. (the second part modifies mechanic)
This isn't a good sentence, because (1) it's in the passive voice for no good reason and (2) the phrase could be taken as modifying 'car' (in fact in exactly the same way you posit in your next example).
Better: Working as quickly as possible, a mechanic repaired our car. This fixes both of the aforementioned problems.
b) Maria went to sleep, hoping to please her mother. (hoping modifies Maria)
This is OK, yes, but it's better to place the modifier next to the subject: Maria, hoping to please her mother, went to sleep.
B) Maria went to sleep, awakening to scary dreams, relieved when it was morning (awakening modifies Maria)
This is not OK. When you use a participial phrase like this, the implication is that the participial phrase is either an explanation of the first clause (see Maria), is concurrent with it, or is a consequence of it.
Concurrent: James settled into his chair, taking off his shoes in anticipation of a long day of desk work.
Consequence: The blizzard dumped 2 feet of snow on Providence, paralyzing the city's businesses for several days.
Your sentence isn't any of these; it requires transitions that show clearly that Maria awakened AFTER going to sleep. Its current wording implies that Maria awakened AS she was going to sleep, which makes no sense.
(C)
This one isn't so hot either. I wouldn't call it unambiguously wrong, but a strict interpretation of the wording would gather that 'spending less time with each' refers to insurance plans, not doctors.
If this one is rewritten as '...require doctors to see more patients and (thus to) spend less time with each,' the problem disappears, although the participial phrase also disappears! The use of AND makes it unambiguous that it's the doctors who 'spend less time with each.' (The words in parentheses are optional, depending on the writer's intended emphasis.)
How have you determined that 'spending less time with each' refers to insurance plans, not doctors or patients???
D is ok.
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
About the insurance plans: There's an ambiguity. The phrase in question doesn't clearly refer to just one thing. Here is the essence of the problem, presented in a symbolic form:
"X required Y to do Z, making W happen."
There are two interpretations of this sentence: (1) the fact that W happened was a proximate result of X's requiring Y to do Z; (2) the fact that W happened was a proximate result of Y's doing Z. These are nontrivially different, although the difference is pretty philosophical at times. Here are examples illustrating both possibilities:
(1) The government required citizens to pay for diplomats' lavish banquets, creating active resentment. --> Here, the clearly intended meaning is that the government creates the active resentment. This is generally considered a good sentence, because government is the MAIN SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING CLAUSE (in the same way that 'health insurance plans' is the head of the subordinate clause in the example).
(2) The government required citizens to pay for diplomats' lavish banquets, depleting savings accounts and IRAs in the process. --> Here, common sense makes it clear that the citizens are depleting savings accounts and IRAs. This is still a bad sentence, though, because the 'default' subject based on solely grammatical considerations is the government (which is absurd).
The exact same logic applies to Athens in the other example.
HTH -
Ron
"X required Y to do Z, making W happen."
There are two interpretations of this sentence: (1) the fact that W happened was a proximate result of X's requiring Y to do Z; (2) the fact that W happened was a proximate result of Y's doing Z. These are nontrivially different, although the difference is pretty philosophical at times. Here are examples illustrating both possibilities:
(1) The government required citizens to pay for diplomats' lavish banquets, creating active resentment. --> Here, the clearly intended meaning is that the government creates the active resentment. This is generally considered a good sentence, because government is the MAIN SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING CLAUSE (in the same way that 'health insurance plans' is the head of the subordinate clause in the example).
(2) The government required citizens to pay for diplomats' lavish banquets, depleting savings accounts and IRAs in the process. --> Here, common sense makes it clear that the citizens are depleting savings accounts and IRAs. This is still a bad sentence, though, because the 'default' subject based on solely grammatical considerations is the government (which is absurd).
The exact same logic applies to Athens in the other example.
HTH -
Ron
8 posts Page 1 of 1