V-ing

[momo32]

Dear Instructors，

V-ING xxxx, A took XXX and designed XXX

In above sentence, The action of ''V-ing" should occur at the same time of when A took XX and designed XXX.

Its right?
THX

[RonPurewal]

NB: It would be helpful if you could write actual example sentences next time, thus allowing the discussion to occur in a particular context (which ALWAYS matters in these kinds of things).

Discussing SC constructions outside of context is almost always pointless anyway—but, for modifiers, it's especially pointless.

Remember, modifier errors are essentially never grammatical in nature. Rather, a modifier error will occur when the modifier applies to something that, though not grammatically problematic, is simply nonsense.

[RonPurewal]

In more specific terms: Please don't write things like "V-ING"; at least, don't write only such things.

Instead, try to create examples of your own, since that's the single type of learning that's best suited to our brains.

Learning rules as rules is basically the worst way to proceed, unless the rules happen to be things as simple as "Drive on the right".

[RonPurewal]

Anyway, on to your question:

In above sentence, The action of ''V-ing" should occur at the same time of when A took XX and designed XXX.

Its right?
THX

There are a few different possibilities here. They have 3 essential elements in common:

1/
The following subject should be the person/animal/thing that does the "__ing" action.

2/
The __ing modifier should have an intimate relationship to the entire following action—not just to the subject.

3/
The __ing action should be true/ongoing in the timeframe of the main event. The __ing may precede the main action in either time or logic.

--

Now, see, these are rules written as rules. Note that they're basically impossible to understand by themselves; we need examples. Thre's a big, big lesson here about How Our Brains Want To Learn.

Two examples appear in the next post.

[RonPurewal]

Here are a couple of examples.

Facing west over the ocean, our hotel affords beautiful views of the Pacific sunset.
1/ What faces west? The hotel does. OK.
2/ "Facing west over the ocean..." is the reason why "our hotel affords beautiful views of the sunset". I.e., it is NOT just a random description of the hotel.
3/ The "precedence" here is logical: the __ing is the REASON for the main observation. Obviously there's no time order in this sentence.

Walking down the street today, I met the founder of one of my favorite denim brands.
1/ Who was walking? I was.
2/ "Walking down the street" describes the backdrop for the event in the main part ("I met..."). It does not apply only to "I".
3/ Time order: Presumably I started walking down the street first. As I was already walking, I met this person.

You get the idea.

[RonPurewal]

In terms of tailoring your studies to the test you're actually going to take (i.e., the official GMAT)—note that there's no sense in trying to get TOO specific.

E.g., it would be foolish to try to categorize all of the specific types of "intimate relationship" that you might see for requirement #2. Rather, just noting that "there must be a relationship" is sufficient.

Remember—SC problems don't depend on subtle distinctions.
Official problems depend on BIG differences (e.g., "Relationship or no relationship?"). If you see a truly subtle distinction, it will ALWAYS be a distraction from a much more marked (and much more easily decided) difference in the choices.

As a result, the sort of basic understanding represented by #1-3 here is more than adequate. Trying to be SUPER EXACT about everything is a waste of time (and, in practical terms, impossible anyway).