SC The application of a new method for

[tim]

thanks JP. thanghnvn, i would say that in general your assessment of how the modifying phrase works is accurate..

[akash85]

Hi Ron,
This is with regard to your explanation on Sun Dec 25, 2011.
Could you pls help me clarify a doubt on this ques.

In Option (E) -> is the authors intent to say ...?

(1) have examined & have determined (both present perfect)
or
(2) or have examined (present perfect) & determined (simple past)

I believe (2) is incorrect since it wouldn't be logical to say that the 'determining' happens before 'examining'. Hence (1) makes more sense.

Is my assessment of option (E) correct.[/size]

[RonPurewal]

.

[manhhiep2509]

* the setup of the modifier -- "When they xxxx, they zzzz" -- doesn't really work here either. normally, this construction suggests that "zzzzz" is something that the scientists found while they were doing xxxx (a larger-scale effort), or as a result of doing xxxx.
for instance,
when i played a concert in france, i received unexpected jeers from some fans --> the second clause happened during the first one
when the detectives analyzed the DNA evidence, they discovered that the suspect was in fact innocent --> the second clause is a result of the first one
neither of these applies here. you want a modifier construction that given the idea that the "new method" describes the way in which the scientists made the determinations described. in other words, it's not a temporal relationship (as suggested by the word "when"); it's a modifier/descriptive relationship. choice (e), with its initial modifier, does this perfectly.

Hi Ron.

As I understand your last sentence in the above explanation, (V-ing + comma) and (comma + V-ing) work in the same way -- i.e. they both modify entire the following and preceding sentences respectively -- aren't they?

However, to me if I put "applying ..." after the main clause in choice e, I will find it obscure, provided that I did not know "applying ..." is a means to "examine" and "determine". So, (V-ing + comma) and (comma + V-ing) still have something different, right? What are the different between the two structures?

When I solved the problem, I thought that "applying ..." in choice E conveyed the same meaning as "when they applied ..", i.e. it says two actions happen at the same time. I chose choice E rather than choice C because I quite certainly know how "when" works, not how "V-ing" works.

-----

How can I eliminate choice B?
I find that "who determined" does not show the connection between the action and the two preceding actions -- apply and examine.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
This is with regard to your explanation on Sun Dec 25, 2011.
Could you pls help me clarify a doubt on this ques.

In Option (E) -> is the authors intent to say ...?

(1) have examined & have determined (both present perfect)
or
(2) or have examined (present perfect) & determined (simple past)

I believe (2) is incorrect since it wouldn't be logical to say that the 'determining' happens before 'examining'. Hence (1) makes more sense.

Is my assessment of option (E) correct.[/size]

It should be clear that both actions need to be in the same tense.

In the construction "have ___ed and ___ed", there's no need to repeat "have"; the single "have" can apply to both actions.

Other helping verbs are the same way:
I can pick you up and take you to the airport --> can pick, can take.
I will go home, change clothes, and go to the club --> will go, will change, will go.

[RonPurewal]

As I understand your last sentence in the above explanation, (V-ing + comma) and (comma + V-ing) work in the same way -- i.e. they both modify entire the following and preceding sentences respectively -- aren't they?

However, to me if I put "applying ..." after the main clause in choice e, I will find it obscure, provided that I did not know "applying ..." is a means to "examine" and "determine". So, (V-ing + comma) and (comma + V-ing) still have something different, right? What are the different between the two structures?

The order here reflects the order of thoughts/events.

If the ___ing represents something that's already in progress when the main event happens, then it goes before.
Digging in his garden for for a bone his dog had buried, Tom found an envelope containing $100,000.

If the ___ing is more general and the main event is a more specific application, then the ___ing goes before.
Using only his hands, Jonathan made a pile of rocks into a 20-foot-tall inukshuk.

^^ These are certainly not the only examples, but they're representative.

As far as "comma + ___ing" after a clause, that is covered amply in our books and on the forum.

[RonPurewal]

How can I eliminate choice B?

It suggests that the molars, not the scientists, made the discovery. That's the easiest way.

[RonPurewal]

"Through + (method)" is used only to describe final results. If you're talking about the steps of the method itself, that's "in"/"during"/"as part of" the method.
E.g., you can discover people's political preferences through a survey.
You can't ask questions through a survey, but you can ask questions in a survey, or, equivalently, as part of a survey.

[750plus]

Dear Members at Manhattan,

I have a doubt.

In choice (C)
When they applied a new method for analyzing the chemistry of tooth enamel, scientists examined molars of prehuman ancestors, determining

and option (E)

Applying a new method for analyzing the chemistry of tooth enamel, scientists have examined molars of prehuman ancestors and determined

------------------------------------------------------
Here, I believe "determining" is used correctly in choice (C). Isn't the determination happened as a result of scientists examining the molars of pre human ancestors. And the V+ing form is used correctly here.

Whereas in option (E), scientists have examined molars of prehuman ancestors and determined

Examination and determination are placed in parallel. To me, this seems incorrect.

Please if you can clarify and let me know where am I going wrong.

Warm Regards
Rajat Gugnani

[RonPurewal]

comma + "determining" doesn't work here, for reasons i explained in this post:
post108571.html#p108571

this example is like writing "tyler was struck by a bus, dying in the hospital four hours later". doesn't work; he died later.

similarly, the scientists here examined the molars and then, later, drew conclusions.

[RonPurewal]

also, the "when..." opener doesn't work in that choice, either.

consider the following:
when you look at RC detail questions, you should first search for keywords.
note how this works. the thing initially considered as a "given" is looking at RC detail questions; the question answered here is, basically, "what should happen when i look at those questions?"

if we try to write "when they applied xxxx method" here, the resultant meaning doesn't make sense.
that wording would imply that [i]using the method was a "given"—i.e., they were already bent on using a method, and so they went out and found something to which they could apply that method (= examining molars).

in fact, that portion of the sentence would make perfect sense if we wrote it the other way around (When scientists examined xxxxx, they used yyyyy method). however, this version is not very conducive to adding the last part (about the scientists' conclusions).

[thanghnvn]

[quote="llzzyy234"]The application of a new method for analyzing the chemistry of tooth enamel allows scientists to examine molars of prehuman ancestors and determining that their diets were more varied than had been supposed.

(A) The application of a new method for analyzing the chemistry of tooth enamel allows scientists to examine molars of prehuman ancestors and determining
(B) Through the application of a new method for analyzing the chemistry of tooth enamel, the molars of prehuman ancestors were examined by scientists who determined
(C) When they applied a new method for analyzing the chemistry of tooth enamel, scientists examined molars of prehuman ancestors, determining
(D) Applying a new method for analyzing the chemistry of tooth enamel, the molars of prehuman ancestors have been examined by scientists, who determined
(E) Applying a new method for analyzing the chemistry of tooth enamel, scientists have examined molars of prehuman ancestor

pls, look at choice B
the use of "through" is wrong???
"through" needs an active sentence. Is that right?

I want to know how to use "through". pls, help

[RonPurewal]

generally, "xxxxx through [process]" indicates that xxxxx is an outcome of the process.

e.g.,

Most medicinal compounds are discovered through random trial and error..
(the discovery is the result of random trial and error; it's not part of the process.)

Many survival techniques can be learned from the Air Force manual, but some must be learned through experience.
(the learning is the outcome of a person's experience)

[RonPurewal]

"through" needs an active sentence. Is that right?

i don't really know what this means.

if it means "can't use the passive", then, no, that's wrong. see the second example above.

[harika.apu]

thanks for posting the image.

choice (c) is tough here, but here are some things:

* the simple past tense is not ideal. the sentence is describing the results of a new analytical method, so, presumably, those results have some sort of immediate application to / impact on the present state of knowledge. the present perfect is the tense that is used to express this sort of relationship.
moreover, in choice (c), there is an undesirable parallelism between the different verbs in the past tense: "applied/examined" is in the same tense as "were more varied". since these verbs appear the same tense, the unintentional suggestion in the sentence is that we are talking about the diets of pre-human ancestors at the same time as the analysis described. that's not good.
in the correct answer, the difference in tenses -- the present perfect for the analysis vs. the simple past for historical statements about the diet of prehuman ancestors -- properly suggests the difference in time frames.

* the setup of the modifier -- "When they xxxx, they zzzz" -- doesn't really work here either. normally, this construction suggests that "zzzzz" is something that the scientists found while they were doing xxxx (a larger-scale effort), or as a result of doing xxxx.
for instance,
when i played a concert in france, i received unexpected jeers from some fans --> the second clause happened during the first one
when the detectives analyzed the DNA evidence, they discovered that the suspect was in fact innocent --> the second clause is a result of the first one
neither of these applies here. you want a modifier construction that given the idea that the "new method" describes the way in which the scientists made the determinations described. in other words, it's not a temporal relationship (as suggested by the word "when"); it's a modifier/descriptive relationship. choice (e), with its initial modifier, does this perfectly.

2. The structure in E "scientists have examined molars of prehuman ancestors and determined" make me confused.
Is "determined" a past tense or a present perfect here?
If it is a present perfect, that means "have" can be omitted after "and".

yep, it's a present perfect. there's no need to repeat the "have", as it applies to both parts of the construction.
i have been there and done that --> same sort of thing in this construction (which is also correct).

Hello Ron ,
I could not understand why option C does not fit into any two usages of when you suggested above.
i interpreted this way - when they applied technology , result is - they could examine molars of prehuman ancestors.
Am i wrong here ?

Thanks