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

[RonPurewal]

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

Never really thought about this before.
I tried to make a sentence with this tense combination; I can't find one that's workable. So, I'm going to say "no".

Here's my best attempt at an explanation:
When you say "after X happened", you're placing the timeframe of the sentence right at that point"”the past timeframe at the conclusion of "X".

If you want to use "Y has happened""”a verb with a present point of view"”then you'd use "since" instead (Y has happened since X happened).

GMAC will definitely not test such nuances.

[Tadashi]

hi Ron,
want to ask you a question about the option D.
Although I've read all your posts about D, I can't fully understand your words.

The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling

Why with structure in D can not convey the idea of consequence?

IMO, a five percent increase in the with structure in D seems to be wield.

Need your comments,
ARIGATO
Tadashi

[RonPurewal]

"- "With an increase" is at best unclear, and at worst nonsense if taken literally. Profits aren't "with" an increase; they increased.

"- While "after" is not strictly a parallel marker, it's still better to phrase similar things similarly than dissimilarly.
In choice D, "an increase" is a noun, while "falling" is an action.
In the correct answer, they're both actions.

[Tadashi]

U are right.
Thanks!
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[pop]

Please explain why E is wrong . i chose E.

is it wrong because there is no parallel structure on both sides of after
or it is worng because of use of 'with'

in general, "COMMA + prep phrase modifier" is an adverbial modifier, meaning that it modifies the entirety of the preceding clause.
in this sentence, we don't want an adverbial modifier, since it doesn't make any sense for this modifier to apply to the entire preceding clause.
rather, we want a modifier that will only modify the noun at the end of the preceding clause (i.e., "profits"). since this is the exact function of a "which" modifier, that's the modifier we want here.

Hi Ron,
This is my first time to post messages on this forum. Thanks for your help in advance!

You mentioned that E is wrong because it uses "COMMA + with phrase", which should modify the entirety of the preceding clause rather than the noun at the end of the preceding clause (i.e., "profits"). But I noticed another thread, which says "with phrase" can modify the nearest preceding noun: post91348.html#p91348

The example given was:
My friend bought a Honda CR-Z, with the manual transmission that he specifically wanted.
(Here, we're describing "Honda CR-Z")

Therefore, I was wondering whether "with phrase" can modify the nearest preceding noun. If it can, the reason we eliminate E seems not to be valid. Could you please feel free to let me know whether my understanding is wrong? Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

If that kind of thing modifies a noun, it should describe something that the noun has (= something that's a part of the noun, or else is possessed by the noun).
E.g., in the Honda example, the CR-Z has a manual transmission. The transmission is a feature of the car.

"A 5% increase" is not something that profits have, so the same thing doesn't make sense here. You need a verb tense that signals that the increase has occurred already. I.e., it's over.

[RonPurewal]

Also, "after having fallen" is illogical, too.

"After falling" makes sense.
See, "falling" is something that happens... and then it's over. Once it's over, stuff happens "after falling".

"Having fallen" never ends, since it describes the state of already having fallen. So, there's no such thing as "after having fallen", because "having fallen" never technically ends.

If that's too confusing, then you can also just eliminate "after having ___ed" because it's redundant. Both "after" and "having __ed" express the same idea, that the ___ing is finished.

E.g.,
After retiring, Bob moved to a lakehouse in northern Minnesota.
(correct)

Having retired, Bob moved to a lakehouse in northern Minnesota.
(also correct)

After having retired, Bob moved to a lakehouse in northern Minnesota.
(incorrect and/or redundant)

[ningli_21]

Please explain why E is wrong . i chose E.

is it wrong because there is no parallel structure on both sides of after
or it is worng because of use of 'with'

in general, "COMMA + prep phrase modifier" is an adverbial modifier, meaning that it modifies the entirety of the preceding clause.
in this sentence, we don't want an adverbial modifier, since it doesn't make any sense for this modifier to apply to the entire preceding clause.
rather, we want a modifier that will only modify the noun at the end of the preceding clause (i.e., "profits"). since this is the exact function of a "which" modifier, that's the modifier we want here.

Ron,

Just a quick question regarding the COMMA+ with cannot modify the preceding noun rule. In the following sentence, would you say COMMA+with is modifying the preceding noun "state" or is it modifying the whole preceding clause?

Bihar is India's poorest state, with an annual per capita income of $111.


If COMMA+with can be used to modify both preceding noun and preceding clause depending on the context, then is choice D technically wrong (It might still not be the BEST answer compare to C...)

[RonPurewal]

The same principle still applies to that sentence. ("with an annual income of xxxx" is a more exact description of "Bihar is India's poorest state").

I see what you're saying here. But, if the sentence can be interpreted in a way that follows the existing rule, then there's no reason to invent an exception to that rule.

[momo32]

in general, "COMMA + prep phrase modifier" is an adverbial modifier, meaning that it modifies the entirety of the preceding clause.

Dear Ron,

You mean that COMMA + prep phrase modifier just can modify preceding sentence.

In my mind, when we use comma with, we should check the subject.

i will eliminate some choices such as "it XXXXX, with XXX", because in my mind we dont know what is "it". and with XX cannot modify with

THX

[RonPurewal]

In my mind, when we use comma with, we should check the subject.

The subject is an indispensable component of "the preceding sentence". So, sure.

[RonPurewal]

i will eliminate some choices such as "it XXXXX, with XXX", because in my mind we dont know what is "it". and with XX cannot modify with

THX

These kinds of generalizations almost never work consistently.
You can't ignore context in SC!
In fact, this is one of the main reasons why SC is on the test in the first place—because the structures depend fundamentally on context, which, in turn, demands human intuition / common sense.
If one could make "formulas" like this, then SC would belong in the quant section.

Specific examples?
Specific context?

[ZHUJ908]

Also, "after having fallen" is illogical, too.

"After falling" makes sense.
See, "falling" is something that happens... and then it's over. Once it's over, stuff happens "after falling".

"Having fallen" never ends, since it describes the state of already having fallen. So, there's no such thing as "after having fallen", because "having fallen" never technically ends.

If that's too confusing, then you can also just eliminate "after having ___ed" because it's redundant. Both "after" and "having __ed" express the same idea, that the ___ing is finished.

E.g.,
After retiring, Bob moved to a lakehouse in northern Minnesota.
(correct)

Having retired, Bob moved to a lakehouse in northern Minnesota.
(also correct)

After having retired, Bob moved to a lakehouse in northern Minnesota.
(incorrect and/or redundant)

Bi bi bi ~~
why after falling means "sth that happens and then it's over", and "after fallen" "never ends"?

pls give me further explanation. Thanks a lot!!

[RonPurewal]

the above is my best attempt at an explanation. if it doesn't make sense, you can just remember that "after having __ed" is not a thing.