In hoping to restrain economic growth, interest rates were r

[rschunti]

In hoping to restrain economic growth, interest rates were raised by British policymakers, making it more expensive to borrow for businesses and consumers.
A. In hoping to restrain economic growth, interest rates were raised by British policymakers, making it more expensive to borrow for businesses and consumers.
B. Making it more expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow, interest rates were raised by British policymakers, in hopes of their restraining economic growth.
C. In making borrowing for businesses and consumers more expensive, British policymakers, in hopes they will restrain economic growth, had raised interest rates.
D. Hopefully restraining economic growth, British policymakers raised interest rates, making more expensive borrowing by businesses and consumers.
E. Hoping to restrain economic growth, British policymakers raised interest rates, making it more expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow

This is GMATPREP question. In the correct option "E", what "making it more expensive for business...." is modifying?

[RonPurewal]

This is GMATPREP question. In the correct option "E", what "making it more expensive for business...." is modifying?

that's what's called a participial modifier: it uses a present participle ('making') after a comma.

such modifiers are adverbial modifiers; as such, they modify the action of the entire preceding clause. if you want to pin down a specific word that they modify, you'd point to the verb of the preceding clause ('raised'); however, adverbial phrases don't need to appear next to the item they modify, so there's no point in such precise fingering.

[rschunti]

Why other choices are wrong? Also in the OA what "it" is referring to "making it....". If it is referring to interest rates, then is interest rates not a plural and it a singular?

[RonPurewal]

Why other choices are wrong? Also in the OA what "it" is referring to "making it....". If it is referring to interest rates, then is interest rates not a plural and it a singular?

the 'it' is an idiomatic construction. it's the same 'it' that you'll see in the following:
it is impossible for adult learners to speak most languages without an accent.
i'm not sure of the grammatical term for this construction, if there is any, but you should know that such constructions exist.

choice a:
- needless use of passive voice
- modifier indicates that interest rates were hoping to restrain economic growth
- 'borrow for businesses and consumers' = some unmentioned agent is borrowing for the benefit of businesses and consumers (not what is meant)

choice b:
- needless use of passive voice
- ambiguous 'their'

choice c:
- two 'ing's in a row = undesirable
- improper mix of future and past tenses
- needless use of past perfect
- wording that is just awful (not sure whether you have a sense of this - depends on your degree of exposure to well-written english)

choice d:
- present participle ('restraining') improperly signals ongoing CURRENT action (whereas the actual meaning is a hoped-for future result)
- 'making more expensive borrowing' = awkward construction (the natural english wording would be 'making borrowing more expensive', but even that is bad because it has two 'ing's in a row)

[thompson]

Dear Ron
how do u know that

choice d:
- present participle ('restraining') improperly signals ongoing CURRENT action

[RonPurewal]

Dear Ron
how do u know that

choice d:
- present participle ('restraining') improperly signals ongoing CURRENT action

that's the purpose of using a participial modifier ('restraining...') to open a clause like the one here.

analogy:
hoping to thwart widespread counterfeiting, the country's government recalled all of the existing currency and replaced it with new bills. --> notice that 'hoping' is CURRENT, in terms of the action described in the sentence

[hmgmat]

Hi Ron,

If the present participle phrase is rewritten to a dependent clause, what does it look like without changing any meaning?
It will look like:
- Because British policymakers hoped to restrain economic growth, they raised interest rates, making it more expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow.
OR
- While British policymakers were hoping to restrain economic growth, they raised interest rates, making it more expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow.
OR?

The reason I ask such question is that most the time, I don't clearly see the concrete relationship (e.g. sequence of two actions, cause-and-effect, simultaneous of two action, etc) between the present participle and the verb that is modified.

Another instance, I don't see a concrete relationship:
OG10#235: Spanning more than fifty years, Friedrich Miiller's career began in an unpromising apprenticeship as a Sanskrit scholar and culminated in virtually every honor that European governments and learned societies could bestow.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

If the present participle phrase is rewritten to a dependent clause, what does it look like without changing any meaning?
It will look like:
- Because British policymakers hoped to restrain economic growth, they raised interest rates, making it more expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow.
OR
- While British policymakers were hoping to restrain economic growth, they raised interest rates, making it more expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow.

the first of these is, i'd say, basically equivalent to the version in choice (e), but it's just not as concise or elegant. in addition, the time relationship simply isn't as clear; the "because" + past tense doesn't make it 100% clear that the policymakers were hoping to restrain growth as they took those actions. the correct answer to this problem is very carefully engineered.

the second is not good, since "while" can also suggest contrast:
while many of our best offensive players will return next year, almost all of our key defensive players are graduating.
note the contrast. in this case, "while" is very similar to "although".

Another instance, I don't see a concrete relationship:
(deleted - you can't write OG questions here)

an initial modifier with an initial "____ing" and NO SUBJECT actually modifies the following NOUN; it doesn't technically modify the action.
example:
coming home from school, the wind blew me off my bike --> incorrect; according to this sentence, the wind was coming home from school.
coming home from school, i was blown off my bike by the wind --> correct; in this sentence, "coming home from school" properly modifies "i".

in your OG example, "spanning more than fifty years" modifies the scholar's career, so the version you posted is correct (you should remember which problem it was - you can't post OG problems here).

[hmgmat]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your reply.

the first of these is, i'd say, basically equivalent to the version in choice (e), but it's just not as concise or elegant. in addition, the time relationship simply isn't as clear; the "because" + past tense doesn't make it 100% clear that the policymakers were hoping to restrain growth as they took those actions. the correct answer to this problem is very carefully engineered.

So if I change the sentence to:
Because British policymakers were hoping to restrain economic growth, they raised interest rates, making it more expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow.

Then, is it equivalent to the version in choice (E) except that it is not as concise?

If it is, doesn't it mean that an initial modifier with an initial "____ing" and NO SUBJECT could show a cause-and-effect relationship between the present participle phrase (the cause) and the main clause (the effect)? Then, it sounds like an adverbial modifier to me. =( In another post (if I understand it correctly), you said that your two examples mean the same thing, then is it true that both present participle phrases are adverbial modifiers? Probably I miss something.

What I am trying to figure out is: if a sentence starts with a present/past participle phrase, what are ALL possible relationships between the participle phrase and the main clause (besides that the participle phrase has to be logically modifying the following noun (phrase))?

A side question: long time ago (after MGMAT banned posting OG questions), MGMAT still allowed to post OG sentences but not the full questions. Is the rule changed to "no OG sentence"? Just want to check so that I won't break the rule =)

[JonathanSchneider]

This is a bit tricky, but here goes...

A participle phrase at the start of a sentence functions as a noun modifier. So, in answer choice E, "hoping..." modifies the subject of the sentence, "British policymakers."

A participle phrase after a comma, however, functions as an adverbial modifier. So, the example you just provided, "making ..." modifies the preceding clause. -ing forms after commas often give us the RESULT of the preceding clause. This is the case with the example you created as well.

[hmgmat]

Hi,

==============
Verb-ing..., clause.
==============

I agree that for a sentence starting with a present participle, the #1 requirement is that the following noun (phrase) (the subject of the main clause) has to be able to "execute" the action represented by the present participle; otherwise, it will be a dangling modifier. Hence, for a sentence starting with a present participle phrase, the present participle phrase is a noun modifier.

According to Ron's last post in this thread, (if I interpreted correctly) he kind of agree that "Hoping to restrain economic growth" caused British policymakers to raise interest rates.

But in the OG example I posted, Ron said that there is no relationship between the present participle phrase and (the main clause OR) the action of the main clause. Hence, I don't know whether there is a better way to summarize the function a present participle phrase in "Verb-ing..., clause". Of course, I can make the summary really simple - "present participle phrase in this kind of sentence structure modifies the following noun (phrase)". But I think that it would be nice to know more about the usage so that I can eliminate choices more accurately.

==============
Clause, verb-ing...
==============
Hmm...most the time, I see that the present participle phrase at the position stated above represents the result of the preceding clause.

However, there are couple instances that the participle phrases at the same position do not represent a result.

For instance:
To meet the rapidly rising market demand for fish and seafood, suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as they grow naturally, cutting their feed allotment by nearly half and raising them on special diets.

Above sentence is from GMATPrep. "cutting...and allotment..." kind of describes how suppliers are growing the fish, but does not represent the result of "growing".

Another instance, OG10#39 uses a present participle phrase (at the same position) to modify the preceding noun.

So, I am confused in what situation the present participle functions as an adverbial modifier (prep question above), what situation the present participle functions as an adjectival modifier (OG10#39), and what situation the present participle represents the result of the preceding clause, etc.

Any input is appreciate.

[RonPurewal]

caveat lector: the content of this post will get a bit subtle at times. you don't need anywhere near this degree of understanding to answer SC questions correctly.

Hi,

hello.

I agree that for a sentence starting with a present participle, the #1 requirement is that the following noun (phrase) (the subject of the main clause) has to be able to "execute" the action represented by the present participle; otherwise, it will be a dangling modifier. Hence, for a sentence starting with a present participle phrase, the present participle phrase is a noun modifier.

i'm not sure what you mean by "noun modifier", because the modifier doesn't function as a noun.
i think you mean "adjectival modifier", because the modifier functions AS an adjective (i.e., it modifies the noun). this title is also better because it's consistent with the other labels you've used (such as "adverb modifier" - which functions as an adverb).

According to Ron's last post in this thread, (if I interpreted correctly) he kind of agree that "Hoping to restrain economic growth" caused British policymakers to raise interest rates.

this is where it gets subtle. let me warn you again: there is no way that a gmat problem is going to depend on the level of subtlety present in the following discussion.

let me also warn you thus: do not attempt to construct your own ideal versions of sentences. instead, just critique the given answer choices.
i'm an editor myself, so, believe me, i have to stifle this urge ALL THE TIME. but stifle it you should.
in other words, we shouldn't even be having this little side discussion, but we'll have it anyway.

if you want to be VERY PRECISE, then, no, the "hope" is NOT the cause of the policymakers' actions.
if you "hope" that an action has a desired set of consequences, then, very technically, you are already performing (or have finished performing) the action.

examples:
because he hoped to make the olympics, james started training hard. --> not ideal
because he wanted to become an olympic athlete, james started training hard. --> ideal, because "want" is more appropriate for consequences that (1) have not yet materialized and (2) you're still planning for. "hope", by contrast, creates the image that the plans have already been set in motion, and all you can do now is ... hope.
hoping to make the olympics, james trained hard. --> good.

But in the OG example I posted, Ron said that there is no relationship between the present participle phrase and (the main clause OR) the action of the main clause.

i didn't say there was no relationship. what i said is that such phrases do NOT, generally, encode CAUSAL relationships.
most commonly, these phrases are used to show that the SIMULTANEITY of the main clause and the action depicted in the modifier.
example:
coming home from school, i was blown off my bike by the wind.
clearly, my coming home from school did not cause the wind to blow me off my bike. the point of this construction is that i was blown off the bike as i came home from school.

Hence, I don't know whether there is a better way to summarize the function a present participle phrase in "Verb-ing..., clause". Of course, I can make the summary really simple - "present participle phrase in this kind of sentence structure modifies the following noun (phrase)".

with GRAMMAR points, "make the summary really simple" is the holy grail of sentence correction.
this is one of those things that really IS "that simple". there aren't many of these, so enjoy this one.

But I think that it would be nice to know more about the usage so that I can eliminate choices more accurately.

as i said above in a slightly different form, anything to do with word choice / usage is best treated by a "see what they do in their correct answers, and extrapolate accordingly" approach.
i am loath to give ANY usage advice that is not solidly backed by official correct answers, because, as i stated above, there are occasional problems with word choice / usage that i (and most other experts) would consider atrociously wrong.

on the verbal section, overthinking is much more likely to lower your score than to raise it.

--

Above sentence is from GMATPrep. "cutting...and allotment..." kind of describes how suppliers are growing the fish, but does not represent the result of "growing".

you are correct.

this is an acceptable use of such clauses. think of the following: "the victorious boxer leaped with joy, pumping his fists and gesturing to the crowd." same thing: the clause describes other stuff that the boxer is doing as he leaps with joy, but it's not an effect of the leaping.

Another instance, OG10#39 uses a present participle phrase (at the same position) to modify the preceding noun.

wrong this time.

that's an adverb modifier just like all the other ones (these things, when they follow commas, are _always_ adverb modifiers): it tells why they were essential pieces of blah blah blah.
the OG10 itself actually tells you this. if you have a copy (which you presumably do, since you're quoting it), check out the answer key.

So, I am confused in what situation the present participle functions as an adverbial modifier (prep question above),

if it follows a comma, always.

what situation the present participle functions as an adjectival modifier (OG10#39),

not og10 #39, as stated above.
never, unless it DOESN'T follow a comma.

examples:
the highways circling nowhereville form a complete circle, enabling easy motor transit around the periphery of the city.
the modifier starting with "circling", which is not preceded by a comma, is an adjective type modifier (it modifies "highways").
the modifier starting with "enabling" is an adverb style modifier, as usual.

and what situation the present participle represents the result of the preceding clause, etc.

depends on context. it should be easy to figure out in any given case.

[hmgmat]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your patient and reply. You reply is very informative. ;-)

In your last example, I can see why "enabling easy motor transit around the periphery of the city" is an adverbial modifier because this participle phrase kind of represents the "side effect" coming from "the highways circling nowhereville form a complete circle".

However, I am not sure whether I misinterpreted the explanation of OG10#39:
- The explanation of OG10#39 says, "the participle protecting begins a phrase that explains what the shields did."
- The explanation of OG11(yellow)#24 (which is the same question) says, "protecting properly introduces a modifying phrase revealing the purpose of the items".

It seems to me that OG is trying to say that the participle phrase is an adjectival phrase modifying a noun (phrase), which is "shields" or "items". Or actually, there exists a kind of adverbial phrase modifying a noun (phrase)? Or do I completely misinterpret the explanations?

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

It seems to me that OG is trying to say that the participle phrase is an adjectival phrase modifying a noun (phrase), which is "shields" or "items". Or actually, there exists a kind of adverbial phrase modifying a noun (phrase)? Or do I completely misinterpret the explanations?

you misinterpreted the explanations.

first, let me assure you again: if you see an -ing modifier after a full clause and a comma, it WILL be an adverbial modifier.
always.
end of story.
i promise you.

second, if you read the explanation literally, you can figure this out: it says "explains what the shields did". if it were an adjective-style modifier, the o.g. would have said "described the shields (themselves)".

third, if this were an adjective-style modifier describing shields, it would be misplaced, as adjective-style modifiers with commas need to touch their referent nouns.

"first" is by far the most important of these three statements.

--

[hmgmat]

Thanks Ron.

If I understand your rule #1 and #3 *together*, it means that ", verb-ing..." as an adjective modifier can only exist in the middle of the sentence or at the beginning of a sentence but not the end. Correct?

Thanks in advance.