Because she knew many of the leaders of colonial America...

[bodhisattwabiswas]

Because she knew many of the leaders of colonial America and the American Revolution personally, Mercy Otis Warren was continually at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789, a vantage point combining with her talent for writing to make her one of the most valuable historians of the era

(A) same as above

(B) a vantage point, when combined with her talent for writing, that made

(C) a vantage point that combined with her talent for writing, and it made

(D) and this vantage point, which combined with her talent for writing to make

(E) and this vantage point, combined with her talent for writing, made

sorry to dig up the post after so long...
I would like to know whether the use of 'when' is right in B.? Or we should use 'if' instead of 'when'?
Does 'when' always refer a physical time-frame? I read in one of Ron's post that 'where' may not refer physical location in some cases; does this flexibility valid for 'when' too?
And I realized the meaning issue in A. But is A. grammatically correct. I mean don't we need to add 'that' to and remove 'to' from A. to make it grammatically correct?
Please explain...

[samwong]

I know B is wrong because "when" is incorrectly modifying the "vintage point". Is "that" correctly modifying the "vantage point" or is "that" modifying "writing"?

B) a vantage point, when combined with her talent for writing, that made

Are the commas part of the modifier "when...writing"?

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

"That" (in this sense) isn't used with commas, so the commas must belong to the pink thing.
If you take the pink thing out, the commas have to leave with it. You're left with "a vantage point that...".

[Suapplle]

Why A is wrong?

does phrase "combining with her talent for writing" not serve the intended purpose "make one of the most valuable historians of the ear".

Tense of "combining " should be same as that it is attached.
We cannot say that it is wrong because It is not in past test.

"ing" modifiers are active forms. in other words, if properly used, they should have a meaning equivalent to that of an active-voice verb whose subject is the noun in question.
so, if you are going to write "a vantage point combining...", that's equivalent to saying that "the vantage point combined..." -- in other words, suggesting a literal act of combining, as in a chemical reaction or something along those lines.

Hi,Ron,I read all the threads twice,but I still cannot understand this question clearly.
in choice (A),what is the difference between "combining" and "combined".
"vantage point combining......" means that vantage point itself combine with her talent ?I don't understand.
in choice C,what's wrong with "and it made"?
please help,thanks!

[RonPurewal]

in choice (A),what is the difference between "combining" and "combined".
"vantage point combining......" means that vantage point itself combine with her talent ?

Exactly correct.

in choice C,what's wrong with "and it made"?

Not parallel to "that combined".

[Suapplle]

in choice (A),what is the difference between "combining" and "combined".
"vantage point combining......" means that vantage point itself combine with her talent ?

Exactly correct.

in choice C,what's wrong with "and it made"?

Not parallel to "that combined".

hi,Ron,can "it made..." Function As a independent clause,"it"refers to "vantage point that combined with her talent"?

[RonPurewal]

I don't understand this question. (I don't know what "independent clause" means; please try to ask the question without using that terminology. Thanks.)

[bodhisattwabiswas]

I think my post somehow got missed...
(sorry to post a new post for this)

[jlucero]

Because she knew many of the leaders of colonial America and the American Revolution personally, Mercy Otis Warren was continually at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789, a vantage point combining with her talent for writing to make her one of the most valuable historians of the era

(A) same as above

(B) a vantage point, when combined with her talent for writing, that made

(C) a vantage point that combined with her talent for writing, and it made

(D) and this vantage point, which combined with her talent for writing to make

(E) and this vantage point, combined with her talent for writing, made

sorry to dig up the post after so long...
I would like to know whether the use of 'when' is right in B.? Or we should use 'if' instead of 'when'?
Does 'when' always refer a physical time-frame? I read in one of Ron's post that 'where' may not refer physical location in some cases; does this flexibility valid for 'when' too?
And I realized the meaning issue in A. But is A. grammatically correct. I mean don't we need to add 'that' to and remove 'to' from A. to make it grammatically correct?
Please explain...

If/when can sometimes be used interchangeably (When/if I study for the GMAT, I'll do well). I'm not exactly sure what a "physical time-frame" is, but you can use "when" in sentences like B, if you want to say that Warren was a valuable historian when she had a vantage point combined with her talent for writing. This brings us to one big difference between when/if: usage in the past:

If I had studied for my test, I would have passed (I didn't pass)
When I studied for my tests, I passed (sometimes I did pass)
Combined with my natural ability, my hard work paid off (both things were present)

This is the correct meaning in E. Warren didn't sometimes have talent for writing or a vantage point that was helpful. Both things were present and helped to make her valuable as a historian.

[bodhisattwabiswas]

Because she knew many of the leaders of colonial America and the American Revolution personally, Mercy Otis Warren was continually at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789, a vantage point combining with her talent for writing to make her one of the most valuable historians of the era

(A) same as above

(B) a vantage point, when combined with her talent for writing, that made

(C) a vantage point that combined with her talent for writing, and it made

(D) and this vantage point, which combined with her talent for writing to make

(E) and this vantage point, combined with her talent for writing, made

sorry to dig up the post after so long...
I would like to know whether the use of 'when' is right in B.? Or we should use 'if' instead of 'when'?
Does 'when' always refer a physical time-frame? I read in one of Ron's post that 'where' may not refer physical location in some cases; does this flexibility valid for 'when' too?
And I realized the meaning issue in A. But is A. grammatically correct. I mean don't we need to add 'that' to and remove 'to' from A. to make it grammatically correct?
Please explain...

If/when can sometimes be used interchangeably (When/if I study for the GMAT, I'll do well). I'm not exactly sure what a "physical time-frame" is, but you can use "when" in sentences like B, if you want to say that Warren was a valuable historian when she had a vantage point combined with her talent for writing. This brings us to one big difference between when/if: usage in the past:

If I had studied for my test, I would have passed (I didn't pass)
When I studied for my tests, I passed (sometimes I did pass)
Combined with my natural ability, my hard work paid off (both things were present)

This is the correct meaning in E. Warren didn't sometimes have talent for writing or a vantage point that was helpful. Both things were present and helped to make her valuable as a historian.

thanks a lot for the explanation...

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[samwong]

Because she knew many of the leaders of colonial America and the American Revolution personally, Mercy Otis Warren was continually at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789, a vantage point combining with her talent for writing to make her one of the most valuable historians of the era

(A) same as above

(B) a vantage point, when combined with her talent for writing, that made

(C) a vantage point that combined with her talent for writing, and it made

(D) and this vantage point, which combined with her talent for writing to make

(E) and this vantage point, combined with her talent for writing, made

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I eliminated C for the following reason:
Comma + AND can connect two clauses. So "Mercy Otis Warren" is the subject of the first clause and "it" is the subject of the second clause.

MGMAT SC (5th ed. p237): "a subject pronoun in one clause often refers to a noun in subject position in another parallel clause."

Thus, "it" refers to "Mercy Otis Warren." However, "it" can not refer to a person, therefore C is wrong.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

Because she knew many of the leaders of colonial America and the American Revolution personally, Mercy Otis Warren was continually at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789, a vantage point combining with her talent for writing to make her one of the most valuable historians of the era

(A) same as above

(B) a vantage point, when combined with her talent for writing, that made

(C) a vantage point that combined with her talent for writing, and it made

(D) and this vantage point, which combined with her talent for writing to make

(E) and this vantage point, combined with her talent for writing, made

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I eliminated C for the following reason:
Comma + AND can connect two clauses. So "Mercy Otis Warren" is the subject of the first clause and "it" is the subject of the second clause.

MGMAT SC (5th ed. p237): "a subject pronoun in one clause often refers to a noun in subject position in another parallel clause."

Thus, "it" refers to "Mercy Otis Warren." However, "it" can not refer to a person, therefore C is wrong.

Thank you.

That's not a valid reason for elimination.
For instance, South Americans have been eating quinoa for thousands of years, but recently it has become a favorite among the upper classes on other continents.
"It" is clearly "quinoa". There's no objection that it might stand for "South Americans".

[RonPurewal]

In fact, if you're going to connect two complete sentences with "and", their subjects will most often be different. If the two subjects were the same, you could just write "XXX verb1 and verb2" rather than "XXX verb1(,) and XXX verb2".

The idea you're quoting is probably cited in the context of complete sentences connected by words like because, which aren't allowed to connect anything EXCEPT complete sentences.
E.g., Because Steven had not studied for the test, he failed it. --> There's no way to avoid having two subjects here, even though they are the same person.

[thanghnvn]

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dict ... sh/combine

look at above dictionary.

"combined with " become an idiom and it is used as adverbial phrase.

end of story. nothing to understand.