SC - method discusion - shift of focus of a sentence

[MichaelZ337]

Hi Ron

In SC questions, there is a method to check whether the focus of a sentence has been shifited. I am not sure whether Manhattan also supports this method.

For example, to tackle the following OG question (OG 13 - SC 25): Please note that I have paraphrased the sentence so that it does not violate the copyright.

a) Scientists, having amassed some knowledge, are now drawing certain conclusions.

d) Scientists have amassed some knowlege, now drawing certain conclusions.

The sentence has two verbs, and I do not know how to judge which one is more important and thus needs to be the focus of the sentence.

I think D is good, because "drawing conclusion" is the result of "having amassed knowledge".

What do you think is a safe method to eliminate D?

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

read this:
post108571.html#p108571

[RonPurewal]

for the reasons explained in the link above, the following constructions are actually IMPOSSIBLE:

xxxxxxxxx, previously __ing...

xxxxxxxxx, later __ing...

xxxxxxxxx, now __ing... <-- "now" is used only if it represents a shift of timeframe (e.g., Laura worked in investment banking for ten years, but is now a freelance photographer.)

in each of these cases, you're trying to use ", __ing" to describe something in a timeframe other than that of the main sentence. nope. can't.

[sdfsdfsdfs481]

for the reasons explained in the link above, the following constructions are actually IMPOSSIBLE:

xxxxxxxxx, previously __ing...

xxxxxxxxx, later __ing...

xxxxxxxxx, now __ing... <-- "now" is used only if it represents a shift of timeframe (e.g., Laura worked in investment banking for ten years, but is now a freelance photographer.)

in each of these cases, you're trying to use ", __ing" to describe something in a timeframe other than that of the main sentence. nope. can't.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/some-patients-who-do-not-respond-t4380.html
In the thread above, the oa is
Some patients who do not respond therapies of depression may simply have received inadequate treatment, having, for example been prescribed a drug as a dosage too low to be effective or having been taken off a drug too soon.

By using ", having prescribed ... ", it seems to have implied that the timeframes of main action "received inadequate treatment" and comma -ing can be different. Is this a special case?

[RonPurewal]

...but 'having received inadequate treatment' describes the present situation.

if that doesn't make sense, just imagine that a bunch of people are sitting in a room, and i say to them: 'Anyone having received poor treatment, please raise your hand.'
(= basically equivalent to 'Anyone who has received...')
some people will, in fact, raise their hands—because they recognize that they can be described AT PRESENT as 'people having received / who have received poor treatment'.

in other words, this modifier works in the same way as one of the important senses of 'has/have __ed': to indicate that something has already happened—but that this event shapes the present situation in some way.
in the example above:
these people received bad treatment at some point in the past...
...but they ARE 'people who have received bad treatment' NOW (and they will be, forever—once something 'has happened' it can't un-happen).

[sdfsdfsdfs481]

...but 'having received inadequate treatment' describes the present situation.

if that doesn't make sense, just imagine that a bunch of people are sitting in a room, and i say to them: 'Anyone having received poor treatment, please raise your hand.'
(= basically equivalent to 'Anyone who has received...')
some people will, in fact, raise their hands—because they recognize that they can be described AT PRESENT as 'people having received / who have received poor treatment'.

in other words, this modifier works in the same way as one of the important senses of 'has/have __ed': to indicate that something has already happened—but that this event shapes the present situation in some way.
in the example above:
these people received bad treatment at some point in the past...
...but they ARE 'people who have received bad treatment' NOW (and they will be, forever—once something 'has happened' it can't un-happen).

Ron,
I'm still confusing if comma -ing and main clause(the action to be modified) share the same time frame.
let me compare two sentences below

Some patients who do not respond to therapies for depression may simply have received inadequate treatment, having, for example, been prescribed a drug at a dosage too low to be effective or having been taken off a drug too soon.
breakdown:
"having been prescribed .... or having been taken off ..." modifies the previous clause "Some patients ... have received ... "
the time frames of the modifier and the clause are both present time.

Neuroscientist,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.
breakdown:
The time frame of the main clause is present time because it uses "now". However, intended meaning and the "having amassed a wealth of knowledge" seem to indicate that the action "amass a wealth of knowledge" happened before the time frame of main clause "Neuroscientist are now ...". In this case, it seems that the comma -ing modifier and main clause are not in the same time frame.

[RonPurewal]

...right, but 'having amassed' also represents a present observation (for, in fact, EXACTLY the same reason as 'having received bad treatment' does).

the explanation is pretty much the same as for the 'treatment' example, so i'll keep it short:

* 'comma + amassing' would be wrong in this present-tense sentence.
your most recent post is, however unintentionally, an absolutely perfect explanation of why (= the 'amassing' is not happening at present).

* on the other hand, 'comma + having amassed' describes the situation of the researchers now—once they are DONE 'amassing' knowledge. (again, 'having __ed' means that this action has already been completed.)

[Crisc419]

...right, but 'having amassed' also represents a present observation (for, in fact, EXACTLY the same reason as 'having received bad treatment' does).

the explanation is pretty much the same as for the 'treatment' example, so i'll keep it short:

* 'comma + amassing' would be wrong in this present-tense sentence.
your most recent post is, however unintentionally, an absolutely perfect explanation of why (= the 'amassing' is not happening at present).

* on the other hand, 'comma + having amassed' describes the situation of the researchers now—once they are DONE 'amassing' knowledge. (again, 'having __ed' means that this action has already been completed.)

hey, Ron, i read through all the posts and i understand what you said about the timeframe, but i just still cannot understand the timeframe of "scientists have amassed some knowledge, now drawing certain conclusion" .
main sentence-----have amassed---describe the present situation
V-ing-----now drawing----describe the present situation.

why you said they are not in the same timeframe? could you explain.

thanks.

Cris.

[RonPurewal]

if the word "now" appears before the second part, that implies that the first part ISN'T "now". (the ACTION of "amassing knowledge" occurs in the past, not the present.)

more on this idea here:
post108571.html#p108571

[Crisc419]

if the word "now" appears before the second part, that implies that the first part ISN'T "now". (the ACTION of "amassing knowledge" occurs in the past, not the present.)

more on this idea here:
post108571.html#p108571

These days, i have read lots of RON'S explanation about "comma+V-ing" and then i come back to see this problem again.

Now in my mind, it is nearly impossible for the following form to be right.

subject+ had/have/has+done... , V-ing.....

Because present participle or past participle in the main clause indicates that the action lasts for a while, it is impossible for the action in "V-ing form" to happen in the same timeframe with the action in the main clause.

Therefore, the sentence "scientists have amassed some knowledge, now drawing a certain conclusion" is wrong, even without now.

Please confirm.
Thanks.

Cris

[Crisc419]

I read these posts again, and the following is what i am thinking of:

Having+V-ed describes "the present condition", after the subject experienced something in the past.

On the other hand, has/have+V-ed described one action or condition which last from the past to the present, so we don't know which specifically the time point "has/have+V-ed" is describing, may be "now" or "the past".

Moreover, “now” indicates the shift of time frames, so we know "has/have+V-ed " is not describing "the present".

Therefore, "....have amassed, now drawing.... " is wrong.

I really hope i can understand this problem thoroughly. but i hope i will not be required to choose between these kinds of chioces in the test.

please confirm.

many thanks.

[RonPurewal]

it's not really that complicated -- if the second part starts with "now...", then, clearly, the first part isn't "now".
that's all you need here.

[Crisc419]

it's not really that complicated -- if the second part starts with "now...", then, clearly, the first part isn't "now".
that's all you need here.

maybe the difficult hard to understand is that "have/has+V-ed" is present tense, why the action of "have/has+V-ed" is not happening now.

my understanding : "have/has+V-ed" is used to describe the action that last from the past to the present, so the action can not be in the same timeframe with "now"


cris

[RonPurewal]

again, you don't have to think that much about it. if the second part starts with "now", that absolutely implies that the first part ISN'T "now". otherwise the sentence would be at best redundant, and at worst inconsistent with itself.

more generally, you will NEVER have to make subtle or small verb-tense distinctions on this exam.
if a verb-tense distinction is ever actually required in a SC problem, then that distinction will be a MAJOR difference.
if your thought process gets into subtleties, don't waste your time -- just look for some other way to make the decision.

[Crisc419]

again, you don't have to think that much about it. if the second part starts with "now", that absolutely implies that the first part ISN'T "now". otherwise the sentence would be at best redundant, and at worst inconsistent with itself.

more generally, you will NEVER have to make subtle or small verb-tense distinctions on this exam.
if a verb-tense distinction is ever actually required in a SC problem, then that distinction will be a MAJOR difference.
if your thought process gets into subtleties, don't waste your time -- just look for some other way to make the decision.

Ron, thanks very much. you help me a lot.