Retailers reported moderate gains

[RonPurewal]

"so" in answer choice D sounded off to me.
e.g. I called an off for the day because I was so ill.
"I was so ill" - sounds in complete as if someone would say something like "I was so ill that I couldn't ..."

Please help me understand. thanks in advance.

Infrequent doesn't mean incorrect. Your example is perfectly acceptable as "so" modifies ill. How ill were you? So ill that you called off work.

i'm a bit confused here -- it appears you've posted a question and then answered it yourself. (perhaps one of our moderators accidentally hit "edit" instead of "quote"/"reply"? hmmm)

in any case, remember -- don't question officially correct answers!
if a construction appears in an officially correct answer, then gmac accepts it as correct. there's no point in trying to argue against it; just learn how the construction works, and remember that it's acceptable.

[messi10]

* "as bad as" sets up a comparison, which doesn't have a second half in this case (you can't just say "as bad" by itself; you have to mention ... as bad as what else. by contrast, "so bad" can be used by itself, as it is in the correct answer here; "so ADJ" is not a comparison.)

Hi Ron/ instructors,

You mentioned the above reasoning to eliminate E. Can the same reasoning be used to eliminate B and C as well?

Thanks

[jlucero]

* "as bad as" sets up a comparison, which doesn't have a second half in this case (you can't just say "as bad" by itself; you have to mention ... as bad as what else. by contrast, "so bad" can be used by itself, as it is in the correct answer here; "so ADJ" is not a comparison.)

Hi Ron/ instructors,

You mentioned the above reasoning to eliminate E. Can the same reasoning be used to eliminate B and C as well?

Thanks

Yes. All 3 have a missing comparison element.

[gbyhats]

Hi Dear Manhattan Instructors ;)

When I was reading choice B, it reminded me of a confusion haunted me for a long time

Is present participles or past participles ("having done") can be made legit essential modifiers as in GMAT SC?

--

e.g.

1. Kids having finished playing are taking shower.

2. Software having shown a positive market response are almost best sellers.

3. That red book having been read by us is the best guide that ManhattanGMAT ever written.

[RonPurewal]

it's very unlikely, since there will almost always be a stylistically better alternative ("who/that has...", "who/that have...", etc.)

so, "don't pick that" should have decent currency as a guessing method.

[gbyhats]

so, "don't pick that" should have decent currency as a guessing method.

Interesting!!! No wonder someone make up a fast rule [not recommended] that consider" 'having done' is wrong", because"having done"'s are rarely seemed to appear in right answers.

[RonPurewal]

...well, now that i've thought more about this issue, it's not just stylistic--there's a genuine problem with the meaning of "having __ed" as a modifier.

a bit of background:
• __ing modifiers suggest that the noun is currently, but not permanently, "__ing".
e.g.,
People working in the oil and gas industry have suffered from the recent collapse in oil prices.
(= people who are working in the industry right now, with no expectation that they'll make a career of it)

• "who/that + (present tense)" modifiers suggest that the noun is, at its very core, a noun "who/that does xxxx"--in other words, that doing xxx is part of the identity of that noun.
e.g.,
People who work in the oil and gas industry tend to live far from cities.
(= people whose career is in oil and gas)

[RonPurewal]

...so, with that background ^^, you can probably see why "having __ed" is usually problematic.

e.g.,
People having seen this movie...
People who have seen this movie...
the first of these is basically impossible, because "having seen this movie" can't be a temporary state. once you've seen it, you've seen it, and then, for the rest of your life on earth, you're someone who has seen that movie.

[RonPurewal]

...and, of course, absolutely none of the above concepts will ever be needed in GMAT SC. much too subtle. (if a verb-tense distinction is required, there will be a BIG difference in meaning between the correct and incorrect versions.)

[gbyhats]

...so, with that background ^^, you can probably see why "having __ed" is usually problematic.

e.g.,
People having seen this movie...
People who have seen this movie...
the first of these is basically impossible, because "having seen this movie" can't be a temporary state. once you've seen it, you've seen it, and then, for the rest of your life on earth, you're someone who has seen that movie.

Interesting!!!

I know what you mean now.

Actually I saw a similar explanation in another forum from a test taker (he must be really smart to figure out this, IMO). At that time I was not sure, so I bring this question to you.

...and, of course, absolutely none of the above concepts will ever be needed in GMAT SC. much too subtle. (if a verb-tense distinction is required, there will be a BIG difference in meaning between the correct and incorrect versions.)

Yeah! I agree. As far as I can recall, those wrong answers (that have "having + done" modifiers) all have more glaring and deadly error to be ruled out.

[RonPurewal]

yes.

[CrystalSpringston]

Is it ok to use past perfect when it is already mentioned "a year earlier", which shows something is done before in time? Can anyone explain it? Thanks in advance.

yes.

as long as there's something to serve as the second past time marker - to which the action referenced in the past perfect is relevant - you can use the past perfect.

another example:
at the beginning of the 1991 track season, the world record in the men's long jump had stood for almost 23 years.

the correct answer to this problem is (d).

--

incidentally, you can knock out all of (a), (b), and (c) for the same reason: the disallowed construction "because of NOUN VERBing".
see this post.
easy pickings if you know you can kill that particular structure.

Hi Ron, would you pls point out for me which part in both the original question and the example you listed played the role of "the second past time marker" ? After reading the sencentences, I can "feel" the part vaguely, but not assure. Thank you!

[BryanY988]

...so, with that background ^^, you can probably see why "having __ed" is usually problematic.

e.g.,
People having seen this movie...
People who have seen this movie...
the first of these is basically impossible, because "having seen this movie" can't be a temporary state. once you've seen it, you've seen it, and then, for the rest of your life on earth, you're someone who has seen that movie.

Hi Ron

"comma+v-ing" should meet some requirements.

(A)it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause;
(B)one of the following is true:
(1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action;
(2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action.

So how is "having v-ed" action simulataneous with the main action?

Is this sentence correct?

People, having seen this movie, think of it as fantastic.

Thanks.

Bryan

[RonPurewal]

ok, here's an example. i lived in miami about fifteen years ago.

consider:
I live in Miami.
RIGHT NOW this sentence is FALSE. (right now i live in los angeles.)

I have lived in Miami.
RIGHT NOW this sentence is TRUE (and it will remain true in perpetuity—it's clearly impossible for this to become false.)

for the same reason, i could not write a present-tense sentence (about myself) with
, living in miami

but i absolutely CAN write a present-tense sentence about myself with
, having lived in miami
e.g.,
Ron, having lived in Miami, is frustrated by the early closing times of California nightclubs. (lots of clubs in miami are open until 6-8am)
totally valid sentence.

[BryanY988]

ok, here's an example. i lived in miami about fifteen years ago.

consider:
I live in Miami.
RIGHT NOW this sentence is FALSE. (right now i live in los angeles.)

I have lived in Miami.
RIGHT NOW this sentence is TRUE (and it will remain true in perpetuity—it's clearly impossible for this to become false.)

The present perfect indicates either continued action or continued effect of a completed action up to the present.

As you live in LA now, the effect of action "live in Miami" is not up to the present. I cannot understand why use "have lived" here.

for the same reason, i could not write a present-tense sentence (about myself) with
, living in miami

but i absolutely CAN write a present-tense sentence about myself with
, having lived in miami
e.g.,
Ron, having lived in Miami, is frustrated by the early closing times of California nightclubs. (lots of clubs in miami are open until 6-8am)
totally valid sentence.

In your early explanation, you said:
__ing modifiers suggest that the noun is currently, but not permanently, "__ing". And "no comma+having v-ed" cannot be a tempoary state, so "no comma+having v-ed" is often problematic.

For this example,
"having lived" is a permanent state since you live in LA now. So, it totally differs from "no comma+having v-ed" modifier.

Let me summarize this kind of modifier, if wrong, please corret me.

"comma+having v-ed"
1. It applies to the subject of the sentence. "Ron"
2. The action "lived" happened in the past, but the effect of the action is up to the present and is simultaneous with the action of the main sentence "is frustrated"
3. "having v-ed" is not required to be a temporary state in the sentence.

Same usage of the modifer: OG13 25#

Thank you.
Bryan