Prep Q: Because of wireless service costs plummeting...

[rgaddam]

@Ron - Can you please clarify something for me.

Because of wireless service costs plummeting in the last year, and as mobile phones are increasingly common, many people now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends, when numerous wireless companies provide unlimited airtime for a relatively small monthly fee.

A. Because of wireless service costs plummeting in the last year, and as mobile phones are increasingly common, many people

B. As the cost of wireless service plummeted in the last year and as mobile phones became increasingly common, many people

C. In the last year, with the cost of wireless service plummeting, and mobile phones have become increasingly common, there are many people

D. With the cost of wireless service plummeting in the last year and mobile phones becoming increasingly common, many people are

E. While the cost of wireless service has plummeted in the last year and mobile phones are increasingly common, many people are

choice (e) can be knocked out for its bad parallelism.
the two actions described at the beginning - cost plummeting, phones becoming more common - are clearly simultaneous, so we need to use parallel structure for these simultaneous events.
the first is "the cost ... has plummeted", so the second MUST be "phones ... have become increasingly common". it's not written that way, so (e) is incorrect.

1)the first clause (the cost has plummeted)
2) the second clause (mobile phones have become increasingly common)
3) "while" - a subordinator is used

Are we not supposed to repeat (According to pg 54 on MGMAT SC guide 4th ed) the subordinator to maintain the parallelism?

Ex: While the cost of wireless service has plummeted in the last year and while the mobile phones have become increasingly common...

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Are we not supposed to repeat (According to pg 54 on MGMAT SC guide 4th ed) the subordinator to maintain the parallelism?

Ex: While the cost of wireless service has plummeted in the last year and while the mobile phones have become increasingly common...

Thanks

whoa, we're going to have to edit that page, since neither of these things is really true; (1) you don't have to repeat subordinators**, and (2) it's ok to have different subordinators in parallel.

for proof of (1), see OG verbal supplement #1, which starts with
Like ants, termites have an elaborate social structure in which a few individuals reproduce and the rest are... --> i.e., you don't have to repeat "in which" in front of "the rest are..."

also see this gmat prep problem:
Even though her career was cut short when she was in her prime and the fifteen recordings she made were disappointing artistically as well as technically --> you don't have to repeat "even though" in front of "the fifteen recordings..."
ref: post11370.html#p11370

as for (2), this hasn't really been explicitly tested, but it's ok to have different subordinators as long as they serve the same grammatical purpose overall. for instance, there's nothing wrong with writing people who speak english but whose parents do not.

i will submit this for review.

[RonPurewal]

**forgot the footnote --

** in some situations, you do have to repeat the subordinator, but not for the sake of parallelism -- rather, for the sake of getting rid of ambiguity.
for instance:
claire said that she finished the test early but her sister took the whole period.
--> AMBIGUOUS
this could mean
(a) claire said both of these things [claire said (X and Y)]
, or (b) claire said the first thing but the narrator knows the second one firsthand [(claire said X) and Y)]

claire said that she finished the test early but that her sister took the whole period.
--> UNAMBIGUOUS
now we know for sure that claire said both of these things.

--

the reason for the confusion can be traced back to an OG10 problem about wolves in minnesota, in which "where ... and where" is used to get rid of the same sort of ambiguity.

[thanghnvn]

Because of wireless service costs plummeting in the last year, and as mobile phones are increasingly common, many people now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends, when numerous wireless companies provide unlimited airtime for a relatively small monthly fee.

A. Because of wireless service costs plummeting in the last year, and as mobile phones are increasingly common, many people

B. As the cost of wireless service plummeted in the last year and as mobile phones became increasingly common, many people

C. In the last year, with the cost of wireless service plummeting, and mobile phones have become increasingly common, there are many people

D. With the cost of wireless service plummeting in the last year and mobile phones becoming increasingly common, many people are

E. While the cost of wireless service has plummeted in the last year and mobile phones are increasingly common, many people are


The key is D. Why not E?

In my view, 'with' in choice d seems to imply that many people physically own something.

Here attached another example from prep test,

On account of a law passed in 1993, making it a crime punishable by imprisonment that a United States citizen hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them.

A. On account of a law passed in 1993, making it a crime punishable by imprisonment that a United States citizen hold
B. With a law passed in 1933 that makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment that a United States citizen hold
C. A law passed in 1933 that made it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen holding
D. Because of a law passed in 1933 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold
E. Due to a law being passed in 1933 that makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold

The key is D.
'with' in choice b is also bad: it seems to imply that immigrants arrived with the law in their hands.

hm, interesting.

first, you should be able to answer this problem based on heavy hitters such as parallelism.
parallelism is one of the most important error types on the exam, and it's also one of the most common, if not the most common.

choice (e) can be knocked out for its bad parallelism.
the two actions described at the beginning - cost plummeting, phones becoming more common - are clearly simultaneous, so we need to use parallel structure for these simultaneous events.
the first is "the cost ... has plummeted", so the second MUST be "phones ... have become increasingly common". it's not written that way, so (e) is incorrect.

in addition, (e) uses while in a questionable sense. when while appears at the beginning of a clause like this, it's normally used to introduce contrast ("while most of the class spent the weekend studying for class, i spent the weekend at the beach").

--

now, an analysis of the grammatical weirdness that's going on in the correct answer:

i'm learning something new here, but that happens decently often with these things. sentence correction is a slippery fish.

it appears that 'with' may be used with an __ING form to represent circumstances that are contemporaneous with the action described in the main clause.
that's what's going on here: the "with ___ing" constructions are used to describe things that are contemporaneous with the described uptick in the use of mobile phones.

First of all, I am a big fan of your each and every explanation. :)

I would just like to add to what you have said here. This is a example of an absolute phrase. And, as Ron rightly said, absolute phrase is used to zoom down at comtemporaneous circumstances associated with main action.
There are two absolute phrase constructs which is known to me
a) With NOUN VERB+ING : With cost of x plummeting, many people are blah -------
b) With NOUN Adverb of place: With twinkle in his eye, the old man said goodbye to his grandson. (copied from DOING GRAMMAR).

When we break these complex sentences into two or more simple sentences, WITH is altogether left out.
When with precedes an absolute phrase, with is an introductory word, like a subordinate conjunction. It is not part of the absolute itself. So absolute phrase that are introduced by with are not prepositional phrases. They remain absolute phrases.

Example: The cost of wireless service are plummeting since (in) the last year.
Mobile phones are becoming increasingly common.
Many people are now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends.

Similarly, we can make simple sentences for 2nd example.
Twinkle was in his eye.
Old man said goodbye to his grandson.

As we see in these examples With is left out when understanding and simplifying the meaning of the absolute prhases starting with WITH (as WITH are not part of it).

Treatment of prepositional phrases starting with WITH is different.
WITH + NOUN (noun of preposition)
Example: With in prepositional phrases change to possessive words like has or have.

A house with a computer and a set of encyclopedias announces the sophistication of its occupants.

a. A house has a computer and a set of encyclopedias.
b. A house announces the sophistication of its occupants.

Note: all information is from DOING GRAMMAR.

you post the nice thing. the problem is that "with..." phrase in D is not refer to "many people" and is correct.

pls, tell me DOING GRAMMAR by what author. I want to see the book. thank you.

[RonPurewal]

pls, tell me DOING GRAMMAR by what author. I want to see the book. thank you.

just type "doing grammar" (or "doing grammar amazon" or some other such thing) into google, and you will find the author's name about a hundred million zillion different times.

[jp.jprasanna]

repeat post see below!

[jp.jprasanna]

B incorrectly uses the past tense before the comma.
More importantly, the sentence lacks a main verb: it should read "many people ARE now using"

yep.

to elaborate on the first point: if the verbs before the comma are in the past tense, then parallelism requires that the verb(s) following the comma also be in the past tense.

hi Ron - Why cant the 2 parts be in different tense? Option B says

As the cost of wireless service plummeted in the last year and as mobile phones became increasingly common,

As clause and As clause
As long the both the part that are connected to "and" are of the same type then we are good right?

For example :

As the fiscal deficit was bridged and as the exports are continuously increasing, Bureaucrats will be spending their vacation in Mexico.

As (clause - past tense) and as (clause - present tense), Subject... (future tense)...

I understand there are other problem with Option B just wanted to clarify on the modifier part!

Cheers

[thanghnvn]

Pls, help
Can I eliminate E because of " last year", which is not suitable with " has plummet"

I want to comment of "with" in OA , choice D.

normally, in the structure "with phrase" +comma+main clause , "with phrase" modify the main clause AND/OR REFERS TO THE SUBJECT OF THE MAIN CLAUSE.

OA D shows that "with phrase" dose not need to refers to the subject of the main clause. inhere, "with phrase" modify the main clause without refering to the subject of the main clause. This point is a good lession for us.

experts Manhantan, pls, commen on my thinking. Thank you.

[tim]

JP, i think the big problem is with "as"; "as" conveys a suggestion of things happening simultaneously and thus requires a consistent tense. Change "as" to "because" and i think you'll be okay..

[tim]

Pls, help
Can I eliminate E because of " last year", which is not suitable with " has plummet"

I want to comment of "with" in OA , choice D.

normally, in the structure "with phrase" +comma+main clause , "with phrase" modify the main clause AND/OR REFERS TO THE SUBJECT OF THE MAIN CLAUSE.

OA D shows that "with phrase" dose not need to refers to the subject of the main clause. inhere, "with phrase" modify the main clause without refering to the subject of the main clause. This point is a good lession for us.

experts Manhantan, pls, commen on my thinking. Thank you.

no, you cannot eliminate E based on the issue you're looking at. that verb is perfectly appropriate given the time frame..

your comment on D is at best nonsensical and at worst contradictory. care to try again?

[jp.jprasanna]

Thanks Tim and Ron - In the 1st page violetwind has posted the below question - Could you please let me know which one is the correct answer?


Over the course of the eighteenth century, the average output of ironwork tripled as a result of several improvements in blowing machinery and because coal replaced charcoal as the fuel used in the smelting of iron ore.

- Over the course of the eighteenth century, the average output of ironwork tripled as a result of several improvements in blowing machinery and because coal replaced charcoal as the fuel used in the smelting of iron ore.

- Is this Non parallel? so is the below sentence grammatically wrong as well?
I cleared the exam with good score as a result of [b]studying [/b] hard and because Manhattan forum helps students a lot.

Also I think "because coal replaced charcoal as the fuel used in the smelting of iron ore" is wrong as "because" needs to followed by a clause and not NOUN phrase; If "because" were to be replaced by "because OF" then it would make more sense and parallelism issues also gets fixed. pls correct me if Im wrong.

- Over the course of the eighteenth century a tripling in the average output of ironwork was due to the replacement of charcoal by coal for the fuel used in the smelting of iron ore, in addition to several improvements in blowing machinery.

- Is this also NON Parallel ?
- With charcoal’s being replaced by coal as the fuel used in the smelting of iron ore and several improvements in blowing machinery, the average output of ironwork tripled over the eighteenth century.

- Is guess no errors here also I guess "charcoal’s being" is correct similar to below sentence
I dont like her coming here - CORRECT; I dont like she coming here - WORNG!

- The replacement of charcoal with coal for the fuel used in the smelting of iron ore and several improvements in blowing machinery, the average output of ironwork tripled over the eighteenth century. -

- This 1 surely has parallelism problems -> "the replacement of..... not parallel with "several ...."


- Charcoal being replaced by coal as the fuel used in the smelting of iron ore, and several improvements in blowing machinery, which tripled the average output of ironwork over the course of the eighteenth century.

Similar problem to D and WHICH TRIPLED is used wrongly. NO main clause!

Also there are IDIOM error in all the choices expect C

replace someone or something by someone or something and replace someone or something with someone or something

Cheers

[jlucero]

#1- This problem doesn't look like it's from GMAT Prep, so we can't answer your question. If it is from GMAT Prep, someone feel free to include a screenshot (in a new thread) and we'll comment away.

#2- After a quick Google search, it looks like this question is mostly referenced in a couple of Chinese documents. Oftentimes these questions are horribly written and are the WORST resource for you to learn how the real GMAT will be written. Learn from OG and GMAT Problems if you want to be better at identifying real GMAT issues. Not ones that show up mysteriously on the internet.

[p111]

claire said that she finished the test early but her sister took the whole period.
--> AMBIGUOUS
this could mean
(a) claire said both of these things [claire said (X and Y)]
, or (b) claire said the first thing but the narrator knows the second one firsthand [(claire said X) and Y)]

Hi Ron,
I understand we dont need to repeat subordiantors until they create some ambiguity.
I judged the below underlined sentences as Independent clauses(IC) and thereby marked them as wrong due to comma-splice error:
- Like ants, termites have an elaborate social structure in which a few individuals reproduce (FANBOYS+IC not beginning with a comma)and the rest are serving the colony by....
- The company announced that its profits declined much less in the second quarter than analysts had expected it to(FANBOYS+IC not beginning with a comma)and its business will improve in the second half of the year.
- Even in the post quoted, option b in my opinion is wrong in the same way(comma-splice error).
(claire said X) and Y) - Y is an IC(a seperate staement) & cant just be joined without a comma. Hence this causes a comma-splice error.

Am i wrong in here. Please suggest !!
IF yes, Is there any marker or a way to differentiate when such constructions result in an IC & when they are just be considered a parallel part & related to some previous subordinator in the sentence.
Or Should we be considering my above stated statement as a type of error & eliminate choices based on that. :)

[RonPurewal]

i don't know most of the grammar terms here, but it's clear that you misunderstand what a "comma splice" is.

a "comma splice" is a construction in which you attempt to "stick" two complete sentences together with nothing but a comma.
e.g.,
A truck just turned over on the freeway, we're going to be late by at least an hour.
--> not ok.

if you have (complete sentence) + "and" + (other complete sentence), then that construction is fine.
it's not true that a comma is always necessary there; that's mostly a stylistic issue, depending on (a) the lengths of the two sentences -- the longer they are, the more likely it becomes that you'll need a comma to make the whole combination readable -- and (b) the intimacy of the relationship between what's said in the two sentences.
i.e., if you have two short, closely related sentences joined by "and", then you usually won't see a comma:
Four officers were dead and two more were injured.

--

most importantly, punctuation is not tested on the gmat!
don't waste effort trying to figure out all the nuances of punctuation; even if you do, they'll solve exactly zero SC problems on the test.

[duyng9989]

what a long, heavy, confusing posts :(. I am trying to digest things in here.

I have a question:

According to this post sc-the-results-of-the-company-s-cost-cutting-measures-are-t8497.html

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

But in With prepositional phrase, it seems that it can stand for absolute phrase, whole clause modifier, subject modifiers. Correct?

The more I read, the more I get lost on With modifier.

Why this sentence, with does not modify the subject, the visitor?

"Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.

Correct Answer: seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging "