SC sound

[whezgyba]

Hi Ron,
I'm confused about the choice D.
I prevented my paper from blowing away.
I prevented my paper from being blown away.
Which one is correct?
If I replace "as a result of " with "by" in Choice D. Will it be correct answer?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
I'm confused about the choice D.
I prevented my paper from blowing away.
I prevented my paper from being blown away.
Which one is correct?
If I replace "as a result of " with "by" in Choice D. Will it be correct answer?

Of your examples, the second is correct. Paper is blown away (by wind currents, etc.)

In informal or spoken English, you'll hear "The paper blew away", but that's not correct in formal writing, because, taken literally, it's nonsense.
This is a common thing, by the way: Spoken English often replaces passive forms with active ones, even where they don't make literal sense.
E.g., people will SAY things like "Next month, the clocks will move back one hour." In formal writing, this is nonsense (clocks don't move themselves back an hour); you'd need "will be moved" instead.

[RonPurewal]

The problem with "dissipate" is that it works both ways.

Something can dissipate ("As the fog began to dissipate, my mood improved").

Something can also dissipate something else, or be dissipated by something else ("In this machine, a great deal of energy is dissipated as heat").

In this context, both meanings are reasonable. So they gave you another decision point.

[mybecker]

In my view, A and B are incorrect because "prevented from" acts as modifier for "distances" - not for sound. Am i right?

sound can travel through water for enormous distances, prevented from dissipating its acoustic energy as a result of boundaries in the ocean created by water layers of different temperature and densities

A. prevented from dissipating its acoustic energy as a result of
B. prevented from having its acoustic energy dissipated by

[RonPurewal]

In my view, A and B are incorrect because "prevented from" acts as modifier for "distances" - not for sound. Am i right?

i don't think so.

remember, "__ed" modifiers are largely equivalent to "__ing" modifiers.
the main difference is that __ed modifiers are "passive", whereas __ing modifiers are "active".
e.g., if a new house was recently built ("passive") on our street, then that house is the house recently built on our street.
if highway 101 extends from los angeles to the oregon border, then highway 101 is the highway extending from los angeles to the oregon border.

ok, getting to the point here ... as a result, comma + "__ed" can follow the same principles as comma + "__ing". namely, it can modify the entire preceding sentence/action/clause.

[RonPurewal]

^^ i just realized that some people might be confused here, since "built" doesn't literally end with __ed.

here, "built" is what i'm calling 'an "__ed" modifier'.

unlike "__ing" modifiers, which all literally end in __ing, these modifiers include lots of irregulars: built, driven, given, done, been, and so on. (most of them, of course, actually end with __ed.)
these things have names, but, as usual, i've forgotten them. (even if i remembered it, introducing it would have little effect other than to add another layer of confusion.)

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, the above is also the reason why it's perfectly ok (and at times necessary) to place a "__ing" modifier in parallel with a "__ed" modifier.

e.g., U.S. Interstate Highway 10 ("interstate 10") was completed in 1990 and extends from santa monica, california, to jacksonville, florida.
so, with these modifiers, we have to write that i-10 is a highway completed in 1990 and extending from santa monica to jacksonville.

this is the crux of #42 in the 12th edition OG, a problem that lots of students have "enjoyed" over the years.
interestingly, that problem was purged in the transition from the 12th edition to the 13th edition, almost certainly because the sentence could be read in two different ways—one of which made one of the purportedly incorrect answers correct. oops.

[xixiA33]

well mikrodj...could you please explain as to why C is nota run on sentence.

@ron this is A SC from Verbal Review 2nd edition Q-108

Hi RON, I really do not understand why B is correct, how to explain its 60 square miles of water though to be frozen from top to bottom
why it is The Absolute Structure ?
thanks

[xixiA33]

With surface temperatures estimated at minus 230 degrees Farenheit, Jupiter's moon Europa has long been considered far too cold to support life, and with 60 square miles of water though to be frozen from top to bottom
A) Europa has long been considered far too cold to support life, and with
B) Europa has long been considered far too cold to support life, its
C) Europa has long been considered as far too cold to support life and has
D) Europa, long considered as far too cold to support life, and its
E) Europa, long considered to be far too cold to support life, and to have




Hi Ron,
sorry，its my first time to use this forum, and my question is
I really do not understand why B is correct, how to explain its 60 square miles of water though to be frozen from top to bottom
why it is The Absolute Structure ?
thanks

[RonPurewal]

^^ different problems ... different threads

sc-with-surface-temperatures-estimated-at-minus-230-degrees-t7887.html

that thread has about forty posts, so your answer is almost certainly in there somewhere. if not, then post on that thread.

(also, "why is this structure correct?" isn't really a question that can be answered. if something is an allowed structure, then it's an allowed structure.)

[yuanz290]

DEAR RON and other EXPERTS：

It's my first time to use this forum,after reading the discussion above,I have some thoughts.

1:We all know in choice B,(having its acoustic energy dissipated by)seems to suggest that the boundaries dissipate the energy(that's opposite to the fact),and I WANT TO KNOW if we replace "as a result of" with "by" in chice D,and we ignore the ambiguity "from being dissipated by" in the changed chance D,then which is a better answer?C or the changed D?In my opinion,the changed D is better,because the energy should be dissipate.

2:We know choice E is not the OA,but I think E can be read as (boundaries help/make the sound prevent its energy from dissipating)and i think sound is the subject of energy is OK,because the boundaries help the sound in some way.So i think technically,E is right,but C is more concise,because C says boundaries prevent energy from dissipating,it is reasonable too.So the best answer is C.
How do you feel ?

3:refer to the ambiguity brought by "as a result of",is because the result can indicate "being dissipated" or "its acoustic energy prevented from being dissipated".So it is unclear whether the boundaries contribute to energy loss or prevent it.Right?

4: if we add a "was" before "prevented" in choice C,it will be a run on phrase,right?and without the "was",the phrase "it's acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by boundaries...... and densities" is a absolute phrase,right?

I am a fresher,and I cannot express quite good,but I hope that you can understand what I try to say.....I am really confused.I will be very thankful if you are willing to reply those question above...
TIA!

[RonPurewal]

1:We all know in choice B,(having its acoustic energy dissipated by)seems to suggest that the boundaries dissipate the energy(that's opposite to the fact),and I WANT TO KNOW if we replace "as a result of" with "by" in chice D,and we ignore the ambiguity "from being dissipated by" in the changed chance D,then which is a better answer?C or the changed D?In my opinion,the changed D is better,because the energy should be dissipate.

"if i get rid of one bad thing, and ignore the other bad thing (!!), then is this choice ok?"

this is a non-question; i think you can understand why.

[RonPurewal]

2:We know choice E is not the OA,but I think E can be read as (boundaries help/make the sound prevent its energy from dissipating)

E cannot be read in that way.

this "by" must be part of a passive construction; e.g., I want to prevent my jewelry from being stolen by burglars while I'm on vacation.

this kind of thing would theoretically work with a dedicated noun form (e.g., I want to install a system that will prevent theft by burglars).

[RonPurewal]

3:refer to the ambiguity brought by "as a result of",is because the result can indicate "being dissipated" or "its acoustic energy prevented from being dissipated".So it is unclear whether the boundaries contribute to energy loss or prevent it.Right?

in a correct construction, this kind of thing is a non-issue, as long as the proper interpretation is easily accessible to normal common-sense thinking.

e.g.,
nine patients died while sleeping as a result of the storm, which cut off power to their intravenous equipment.
––> this sentence is fine, since it's perfectly obvious that "as a result of the storm" describes the patients' death, not their sleep.

[RonPurewal]

4: if we add a "was" before "prevented" in choice C,it will be a run on phrase,right?

yes.

and without the "was",the phrase "it's acoustic energy prevented from dissipating by boundaries...... and densities" is a absolute phrase,right?

i don't know/remember this terminology. (if i've ever referred to it elsewhere, i probably just googled it beforehand)