two questions

[KathyL227]

In addition to her work on the Miocene hominid fossil record, Mary Leakey was...
(??)

In addition to her work on the Miocene hominid fossil record, Mary Leakey's contributions included...
(aha, now this makes perfect sense)

Hi Ron,
Thanks for you reply. But it seems contradicts to your earlier explanations to these two questions. Also, from the OAs of those two questions, "in addition to" serves more like a preposition word.

Please refer to the the OAs of the two questions and :

from the evidence, i would conclude that "in addition to" should be classified along with prepositions.

when it comes to sentences starting with prepositional phrases, there's no question that the prepositional phrase doesn't have to modify the immediately following noun.
for instance:
In 1993, I graduated from Manual High School in Louisville.
--> this is definitely a correct sentence. there's no need for "in 1993" (which describes the entire following clause) to describe "I".

from what we can see here, it appears that "in addition to" is given the same sort of freedom.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

ok, but this is a straightforward relative judgment.
if the sentence starts with 'In addition to [stuff]', then a sentence is objectively better if it starts with the same kind of stuff, and objectively worse if it doesn't.

and, since these things are side-by-side in the choices, the comparison is right there.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p118235
it's a very big mistake to think only about individual choices. these problems are multiple-choice for a reason!

[KathyL227]

ok, but this is a straightforward relative judgment.
if the sentence starts with 'In addition to [stuff]', then a sentence is objectively better if it starts with the same kind of stuff, and objectively worse if it doesn't.

and, since these things are side-by-side in the choices, the comparison is right there.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p118235
it's a very big mistake to think only about individual choices. these problems are multiple-choice for a reason!

Hi Ron,
Thanks.
Can't agree more-not only the question itself, but also the choices provide the clues.
Have a nice day.
Kathy

[RonPurewal]

(:
you too.

[Crisc419]

from the evidence, i would conclude that "in addition to" should be classified along with prepositions.

when it comes to sentences starting with prepositional phrases, there's no question that the prepositional phrase doesn't have to modify the immediately following noun.
for instance:
In 1993, I graduated from Manual High School in Louisville.
--> this is definitely a correct sentence. there's no need for "in 1993" (which describes the entire following clause) to describe "I".

from what we can see here, it appears that "in addition to" is given the same sort of freedom.

Hey, Ron, sorry to bump this old thread up.
i feel confused about initial modifers.
the following is from your another post, do they contradict against each other?


" when you have an INITIAL MODIFIER THAT'S NOT A CLAUSE (i.e., it doesn't have its own subject and verb), then it must modify the immediately following noun.

example:
coming home from school, the wind blew me off my bike. --> INCORRECT, because the implication is that the wind itself was "coming home from school".
coming home from school, i was blown off my bike by the wind. --> correct (even though the passive voice is used)."

thanks
Cris

[RonPurewal]

if you don't mind, could you provide a link to that post, so that i could edit/update it? that's not entirely accurate.

the understanding you should have of "comma + __ing" is here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p102559
...note that the SAME understanding applies if the __ing (+ comma) is in the FRONT of the sentence -- the modifier should still apply to BOTH the subject AND the clause.

if you have "prep + noun" in front of the sentence, separated by a comma, then it should ALWAYS describe the entire sentence/clause that follows it.