SC: The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are

[thanghnvn]

after falling
and
after having fallen
in D and E

are prefered to stand before the main clause. This means if we have to choose, we choose the choice in which "after doing..." stand before the main clause, other thing being equal.
This point is ilustrated by the question 17 og 13.

is my thinking correct? pls, refer to question 17 og 13 to see my point. I wish expert to confirm because the question 17 og 13 confuse me. Thank you

[jlucero]

I don't see the connection b/w this and #17 in the OG. You will need more clearly make the connection w/o quoting the entire problem.

Also, the correct answer in this problem uses the phrase "after falling over the last two years", so I'm not sure why you are trying to eliminate that phrase.

[gauravtyagigmat]

The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell over the last two years.

A. which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell

B. which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen

C. which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years

D. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling

E. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen

Hi instructor,

I agree that best answer is C
But i have a doubt
"after" is a subordinator (mentioned in odd ends chapter of sentence correction book of MGMAT) and subordinator is need to followed by a clause but here "falling over the last two years" is not a clause.
please clarify what role after is playing and are we not always suppose to have clause after a subordinator

question 2.
sometimes ING modifier act to display results of previous clause and sometimes it modifies some noun .
How do i judge what role ING modifier is playing.Is there a method to identify correct use of ING modifier

Crime has recently decresed in our neighbourhood, leading to a rise in property values "ING showing result" reference MGMAT SC

"falling over the last two years" here also ING modifier is there but i am not sure about its role

Thanking in advance
Gaurav

[RonPurewal]

"after" is a subordinator (mentioned in odd ends chapter of sentence correction book of MGMAT) and subordinator is need to followed by a clause but here "falling over the last two years" is not a clause.
please clarify what role after is playing and are we not always suppose to have clause after a subordinator

I don't know these kinds of grammar terms/explanations, so I can't help you here. Perhaps another instructor can chime in on that front.

Do keep in mind that thinking too much about terminology/classifications won't help you. In fact, it will hurt you.
In fact, your question here serves as pretty solid proof of this point. Because you're busying yourself with trying to classify "after", you're not learning how it works.

--

In any case, you probably know that "after" (and "before", and others) can be followed by nouns, too.
I usually go to the gym after midnight.
I always walk the dog before work.
^^ These are not exotic sentences; you are certainly aware that they are correct. You're not thinking about them, though, because you're excessively focused on terminology and "rules".

"After falling" is the same kind of construction. "Falling" is a noun (not a modifier). Like this:
Swimming is fun.
You should take a shower after swimming.

[RonPurewal]

question 2.
sometimes ING modifier act to display results of previous clause and sometimes it modifies some noun .
How do i judge what role ING modifier is playing.Is there a method to identify correct use of ING modifier

Note that this issue is irrelevant to the problem on this thread, because "falling" is not a modifier. It's a noun.

Still, this is a reasonable question to ask. So read this post (and the following posts):
post91074.html#p91074

[gauravtyagigmat]

"After falling" is the same kind of construction. "Falling" is a noun (not a modifier). Like this:
Swimming is fun.
You should take a shower after swimming.

Thanks for pointing out mistake in my prepration exam.

I have another question
how can I check that "ing" word is a gerund/noun , verb or modifier.
I am confused about this issue. Is there a way that I can check
what role ing is playing in a sentence

[RonPurewal]

I have another question
how can I check that "ing" word is a gerund/noun , verb or modifier.
I am confused about this issue. Is there a way that I can check
what role ing is playing in a sentence

Please don't post the same question on the forum twice. Thanks.

post91308.html#p91308

[Suapplle]

Hi,Ron,something about "comma+with"

Visitors to the park have often looked into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches,with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.

"Comma+with..." here seem to modify the monkeys.
Is this sentence correct?please clarify,thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

Hi,Ron,something about "comma+with"

Visitors to the park have often looked into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches,with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.

"Comma+with..." here seem to modify the monkeys.
Is this sentence correct?please clarify,thanks in advance!

It's modifying that whole action, "monkeys sleeping on the branches".

[Suapplle]

Hi,Ron,something about "comma+with"

Visitors to the park have often looked into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches,with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.

"Comma+with..." here seem to modify the monkeys.
Is this sentence correct?please clarify,thanks in advance!

It's modifying that whole action, "monkeys sleeping on the branches".

Hi,Ron,I remember that "comma+with" modify the subject and action in the main clause.here,"visitors to the park" is the subject,why "comma+with" does not modify the "visitors"?

[tim]

There is no rule that says a comma-with MUST modify a subject and verb. What you need to do is figure out what makes sense in context and make sure no actual rules are violated. Of course, to do this you have to make sure you know what is and is not a rule. :)

[calm.jing]

There is no rule that says a comma-with MUST modify a subject and verb. What you need to do is figure out what makes sense in context and make sure no actual rules are violated. Of course, to do this you have to make sure you know what is and is not a rule. :)

Hi tim,

I thought you confirmed that "comma+with" phrase can not modify the preceding noun. it must modify the previous clause. " in this post. http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post80792.html?sid=0d3cb59ff66ff702b654ec5a75de56f3&sid=0d3cb59ff66ff702b654ec5a75de56f3#p80792
I am confused.

What exactly does "comma+prepositional phrase" modify? Is it wholly depending on context?

[tim]

Did you notice that nothing I said in my most recent post contradicts what I said earlier? You claimed that something MUST always be true, and I explained that that was wrong. Please read BOTH of these threads again in their entirety to make sure you don't get an incorrect understanding of how to deal with a comma and prepositional phrase. Yes it largely depends on context, but as I believe I have made clear numerous times, the rule in our book indicates it will not modify a noun.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi -- Can someone please explain why the verbs are incorrect in A? Why is it incorrect that both are in the past tense? Doesn't it make complete sense that the profits increased AFTER they fell? Description says that having two tenses in the past is incorrect?

Also, if C said -- "profits have increased after they fell" -- would that still be correct? Present Perfect and Simple Past?

[RonPurewal]

Hi -- Can someone please explain why the verbs are incorrect in A? Why is it incorrect that both are in the past tense? Doesn't it make complete sense that the profits increased AFTER they fell? Description says that having two tenses in the past is incorrect?

The tenses are fine.

The biggest issue with that choice is "it", which can't be used to stand for "profits".