Public Health SC

[gbyhats]

Hi dear Manhattan instructors

in fact, a formal english sentence can never start with a verb, unless the sentence is a command. (SC doesn't test commands.)

Can the following sentence be considered an exception? or "gone" in here is not a verb?

[GMAT prep]
Gone are the sharp edges and jutting planes of styles from former eras; instead, designers of everything from cars to computer monitors have adopted a cornerless style of smooth surfaces and curves that is more ergonomic, conforming to the shape of the body rather than flaunting shape for its own sake.

[link]:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t2227.html

[RonPurewal]

"gone" is a modifier. it describes whatever is actually gone.

[RonPurewal]

has/have/had gone is a verb. it should be clear that you can't start a sentence with has/have/had gone!

the "gone" part by itself, on the other hand, is a modifier. sentences beginning with such modifiers are quite common (e.g., #37 and #98 in the official guide).

[gbyhats]

Hi dear Ron!

It's wonderful to see your replies on such a beautiful day afternoon!

has/have/had gone is a verb. it should be clear that you can't start a sentence with has/have/had gone!

the "gone" part by itself, on the other hand, is a modifier. sentences beginning with such modifiers are quite common (e.g., #37 and #98 in the official guide).

That's interesting!
So "gone" is actually a adjective in the sentence "my watch was gone"

[RonPurewal]

functionally, yes, it's an adjective. you can verify this by replacing it with other adjectives, such as "missing" or "absent".

(the hard-core grammar people might technically have a different name for it, because you can't put it in front of the noun-- i.e., there can be a missing watch or an absent watch, but not a "gone watch". however, any such distinction, if there is one, will be completely irrelevant on this exam.)

[gbyhats]

(the hard-core grammar people might technically have a different name for it, because you can't put it in front of the noun-- i.e., there can be a missing watch or an absent watch, but not a "gone watch". however, any such distinction, if there is one, will be completely irrelevant on this exam.)

Whoa! That's a very interesting point!

It's always a pleasure to learn from your words! Either they are test taking strategy or they are irrelevant to GMAT -- but out of a passion for knowing the unknown

[RonPurewal]

well, thanks.

on the other hand, if you want to know grammar terms, you'll have to ask someone else. (:

[thanghnvn]

I an catch choic A immediately but I do not know why D is wrong.

please, explain the why D is wrong.
I do not think "leading..." is wrong in D . This phrase correctly modifies "concern" because though it is far from "concern"

[thanghnvn]

Ron,
can you advise us on "there were" clause? I see many times that the "there were" clause can be used in place of a clause in which the the subject is real, a clause such as in choic A

is the clause "there were" wordy? or the clause change the focus of sentence.

I am not clear. Pls, help

[evelynho]

Concerns about public health led to to the construction between 1876 and 1904 of the three separate sewer systems to serve metropolitan Boston.

A. Same
B. Concerns about public health have led to the construction of three separate sewer systems between 1876 and 1904 to serve
C. Concerns about public health have led between 1876 and 1904 to the construction of three separate sewer systems for serving
D. There were concerns about public health leading to the construction between 1876 and 1904 of three separate sewer systems serving
E. There were concerns leading between 1876 and 1904 to the constructions of three separate sewer systems for serving


OA A

I chose B but can someone explain why the dates must come before the object? Is it because if it is placed afterward, as in B, it improperly modifies the sewer systems opposed to the construction, which is correct? Also, is it wrong to say "have led" instead of just "led"? If so, can someone explain why?

Hello Instructors,

For my issue, I can not be 100.00% sure about the present perfect split for answer choices, then I move on and put my decision point on the modifier "between 1876 and 1904", the migratory word changed from choice to choice. That means I have to decide whether "between 1876 and 1904"modify "construction", "construction of three sewer system", or "led to". The original meaning relates the modifier to the construction thing, then I eliminate C&E.
"There were" is awkward and can be substracted without changing the intended meaning. Eliminate D.

The only difference between A and B is the present perfect tense and

"construction between 1876 and 1904 of three separate sewer systems"
"construction of three separate sewer systems between 1876 and 1904"

Since I can not handle present perfect tense, I have to tackle on the split of two modifiers quoted.
Please help with my issue, or instruct what I should learn from this case, so that I do not have to take guess.
Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

i don't know the terminology you're using, but, "have led" is most certainly incorrect, because there is no relevance to the present here -- we're talking about an event that culminated in 1904.

but, even if you don't use that tense, you can also use the modifiers you're talking about here.

specifically:
• "between 1876 and 1904" describes the construction ... so, that modifier should be placed as close as possible to the construction.
" "to serve metropolitan Boston" describes sewer systems ... so, that modifier should be placed as close as possible to sewer systems.

choice A places both of these modifiers PERFECTLY, right next to the things they modify, with absolutely no intervening constructions in between at all.

[evelynho]

i don't know the terminology you're using, but, "have led" is most certainly incorrect, because there is no relevance to the present here -- we're talking about an event that culminated in 1904.

but, even if you don't use that tense, you can also use the modifiers you're talking about here.

specifically:
• "between 1876 and 1904" describes the construction ... so, that modifier should be placed as close as possible to the construction.
" "to serve metropolitan Boston" describes sewer systems ... so, that modifier should be placed as close as possible to sewer systems.

choice A places both of these modifiers PERFECTLY, right next to the things they modify, with absolutely no intervening constructions in between at all.

Thank you for the elaborate explanation, crystal clear^^.

[tim]

Glad to hear it!

[RonPurewal]

Thank you for the elaborate explanation, crystal clear^^.

you're welcome.

[eveH982]

we cannot say

Concerns about public health have led to the construction of three separate sewer systems between 1876 and 1904 to serve…

since

"Have led" would mean concerns continued till today, whereas the objective of the sentence is that there were concerns during the 1800's.
Concerns are not there anymore because these concerns led to the construction of sewers.

so can we use "had led to", which means that the action lasted until the construction between 1876 and 1904?

thanks~~~