SC: Fossils and Whales, SV Agreement and prep phrase mod

[ShriramC110]

Hi Ron,

I read one of your post regarding, having verb_ed (without a comma in between these two), as mostly wrong on GMAT.
I have implemented this strategy in eliminating answer choices till now, and till date i have been 99 % successful in eleminating answer choices based on this.
So can i follow this rule for eliminating answer choices in future??

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

if i wrote that, i bet i wrote something like this:
"This is a guessing method. Use it only as a last resort, after you've exhausted all other possible avenues of elimination."

did i write something like that?

i have been 99 % successful in eleminating answer choices based on this.
So can i follow this rule for eliminating answer choices in future??

is this statistic literal?
'99 per cent success' implies that you've seen this kind of thing in at least 67 problems. (66/67 rounds up to 99 per cent; no fraction with any smaller denominator rounds to 99 per cent.)
have you actually seen this construction 67 (or more) times?

if you have, then the statistic speaks for itself, and i'm not sure there's anything i can meaningfully add.

[RichaChampion]

oh, and, there's an easier way to detect that (d) is wrong: it tries to block off a modifier with a comma on one side, but not on the other side.

this isn't acceptable -- a modifier that occurs in the middle of the sentence (i.e., not right at the beginning, and not right at the end) should be blocked off by either 0 or 2 commas.**

in choices (c) and (d), this doesn't happen -- in each of those choices, the big modifier that ends with "hominids" has a comma afterward, but NOT a comma before.

--

** the only exception to this rule occurs when there is 1 comma that "belongs" to a construction other than the modifier.
for instance:
the only thing in dubuque, iowa, that i remember from our road trip is the old courthouse.
here, the modifier "that i remember from our road trip" has just the 1 comma beforehand, but that's not an error -- because that comma doesn't belong to the modifier. instead, that comma belongs to the preceding construction (the one with a city and state name), since convention dictates that city + state be followed by commas.

That means

C. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago, which was subsequently butchered by hominids, has
D. having been beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and subsequently butchered by hominids, have

This should be like this -

C. ,that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago, which was subsequently butchered by hominids, has
D. . ,having been beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and subsequently butchered by hominids, have

I have never seen any question in GMAT so far where that is preceded by a Comma. I have seen that preceded by a semicolon(;) and in that case that modifies everything before the semicolon(;)

[RonPurewal]

the "which" modifier in choice C already has commas on both sides of it, so, i'm not sure what you are trying to do there.

also, remember that those are wrong answers!

[JohannaH678]

Hi Ron,

I'm noticing a pattern in my error log with SC problems like this that have to do with meaning (that beached/having been beached). Do you know if any of the 'Thursdays with Ron' recordings cover meaning in SC or how to get better at reading sentences for their literal meaning?

Thanks,
JH

[RonPurewal]

reading for meaning isn't something that can be taught or studied.

you just have to make sure that you FIRST read the sentence as though you were reading a book or magazine.
i.e.,
• think ONLY about "WHAT IS THIS SENTENCE SAYING?"
• DO NOT THINK ABOUT GRAMMAR AT ALL

imagine that you were actually thinking about grammar while reading a book or magazine. that'd be ridiculous, right?
...your FIRST reading of the sentence should be exactly the same.

if you read the sentences in this way, you should never have any problem understanding what they are supposed to mean.

[RonPurewal]

also—if you reach a point where you need to guess on something like this:
if you see NO COMMA + "having __ed" ... don't pick it.

this is explained here:
post118235.html#p118235

[JbhB682]

also—if you reach a point where you need to guess on something like this:
if you see NO COMMA + "having __ed" ... don't pick it.

this is explained here:
forums/post118235.html#p118235

Hello experts - if I review above post from Ron, I see that

"Noun (no comma) having __ed" is WRONG.

In the above scenario, is "Having" really playing the role of present participle (Verb-ing) ?

If so, it's the first time, I am seeing a participle
"having" [playing the role of present participle] followed up with another participle (past participle as Verb-ed is obviously the past participle)

[esledge]

"Noun (no comma) having __ed" is WRONG.

In the above scenario, is "Having" really playing the role of present participle (Verb-ing) ?

I guess technically they are both participles. Strictly, a participle is a word formed from a verb (e.g., doing, done, being, been ) and used as an adjective or a noun, but in English, participles are also used to make compound verb forms (e.g., are arriving, had been traveling).

Take the example "The ice cream having melted is sitting on the counter." (WRONG)

It's probably best to think of it this way:
Subject: ice cream
Verb: is sitting
Modifier of the subject: having melted (WRONG)
---> The main participle is "melted," which would be better as an adjective placed before ice cream ("the melted ice cream is sitting...")
---> The other participle "having" is serving as a helper to "melted," and is just setting the timeline, much the same way "has" functions in "he has walked" or "she has been walking," i.e. all of these actions started in the past and are still true or still happening.
---> Ron's earlier point is that this timeline helper is unnecessary in such a modifier, because once the ice cream is melted (simple past), of course it's still true, so you can just use the past (or past participle).

It will never be correct to say "The ice cream having melted is sitting..." but you could say:
The ice cream that melted into the fabric is hard to wash out.
The melted ice cream is sitting on the counter.
Seeing the ice cream melting so quickly makes me glad I bought cotton candy instead.

[JbhB682]

Thank you so much Emily -- your post above really clarified !

My only follow-up is on this statement

---> Ron's earlier point is that this timeline helper is unnecessary in such a modifier, because once the ice cream is melted (simple past), of course it's still true, so you can just use the past (or past participle).
.

If I were to say --> the ice-cream melted and boxed is sweet

Here, are we saying that the verb-ed noun modifiers melted and boxed took place in the past and the state of being melted and boxed is still true as of today (as of Feb 2021) ?

If so, isn't that a big assumption because it certainly was melted and boxed in the past but as of 2021 -- it may not be any longer melted and boxed

[esledge]

If I were to say --> the ice-cream melted and boxed is sweet

Here, are we saying that the verb-ed noun modifiers melted and boxed took place in the past and the state of being melted and boxed is still true as of today (as of Feb 2021) ?

If so, isn't that a big assumption because it certainly was melted and boxed in the past but as of 2021 -- it may not be any longer melted and boxed

First, I think these modifiers should be placed before the noun:
the melted and boxed ice cream is sweet

And the way I'd think about the time line is that adjectives don't have a tense, whether you are dealing with a regular adjective ("vanilla" or "expensive") or an adjective that has an -ed or -ing ending. The only indicator of timeline in the sentence above is the present tense "is," so when are we observing that the ice cream is melted and boxed? Now. Thus, I would argue that it definitely is still true as of today.

[JbhB682]

Hi - In option A

1) The "THAT" is necessary per my understanding. Could you confirm ?

Logic : If no THAT, was subsequently butchered would then refer to Fossils and not the whale


2) by hominids

Could you confirm if this "by hominids" applies to BOTH the X and Y elements in the parallelism ?

I think by hominids may apply to both the X and Y element

Thank you

[esledge]

Hi - In option A

1) The "THAT" is necessary per my understanding. Could you confirm ?

Logic : If no THAT, was subsequently butchered would then refer to Fossils and not the whale

Yes, and the “and” would be extraneous, too. There would be no other verb to parallel “was…butchered.”

2) by hominids

Could you confirm if this "by hominids" applies to BOTH the X and Y elements in the parallelism ?

I think by hominids may apply to both the X and Y element

No, the “by hominids” only applies to “was butchered.” Logic/meaning alone may be enough for this. However, the logic is probably helped by the fact that “was butchered” is passive so you need “by hominids” to tell you who did the action, whereas “beached” is active and already has “whale” doing that action.

[JbhB682]

Hi Emily - in A - how were you so sure "beached" is past tense (Active voice) ? I thought in A - "beached" could be past participle adjective

I didn't think in option A, "beached" could be past tense (passive voice) because for past tense (passive voice), you would need to have the expression "were beached"

---------------------------------------------

Here are three very similar sentences, all using different usages of past tense (passive) vs past tense (Active) vs past participle so it can be confusing..

-- John killed Sam [Killed is past tense (Active voice) becuse John is capable of killing]
-- Sam killed by John was memorialized [Killed is past participle in this case]
-- Sam was killed by John [Was Killed is past tense (passive voice)]

[esledge]

Hi Emily - in A - how were you so sure "beached" is past tense (Active voice) ? I thought in A - "beached" could be past participle adjective

I know it's a tensed verb because the "that" modifier that describes "whale" must have a verb, and what other word in "that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago" could be the verb?

I didn't think in option A, "beached" could be past tense (passive voice) because for past tense (passive voice), you would need to have the expression "were beached"

It's definitely not passive voice. I'm treating "beached" as active.

Here are three very similar sentences, all using different usages of past tense (passive) vs past tense (Active) vs past participle so it can be confusing..

-- John killed Sam [Killed is past tense (Active voice) becuse John is capable of killing]
-- Sam killed by John was memorialized [Killed is past participle in this case]
-- Sam was killed by John [Was Killed is past tense (passive voice)]

In your second example, there should be commas around the participial phrase:
-- Sam, killed by John, was memorialized.

Here's an example that would be more like choice (A) in this Whale Fossil question:
The person that killed Sam is John. [The person actively killed Sam, so this is a past tense, active voice verb.]