When drafting the Declaration of Sentiments that

[AsadA969]

And keep in mind that sometimes we instructors slip into more informal language on our posts, so just because we write something a particular way in responding to a post doesn't mean it's acceptable GMAT grammar. I've tried to make my posts conform more to what the GMAT would consider acceptable, but some of my posts from a few years ago were terrible examples of GMAT grammar (not to mention punctuation and capitalization!).

yeah, I've sense about it. Thanks Tim.

[RonPurewal]

And keep in mind that sometimes we instructors slip into more informal language on our posts,

^^ 'slip into...' isn't the best way to write this, because it implies that 'more informal language' is somehow wrong or inferior.

we don't 'slip into' more informal language. we write in more informal language quite on purpose, because that sort of language is much, much easier to understand—especially when it's directed at a particular person.

formal writing, on the other hand, is objectively harder to understand.

in fact, the inherent difficulty of formal text is the only reason why GMAT CR is hard!
the situations described in the passages are not terribly complex, and the issues are not small nuances (the problems with the arguments are VERY BIG problems).
but, because the CR passages are written in dense formal text, even these situations—virtually all of which you could solve with plain common sense, were you to encounter them in the real world—become hard to understand.

likewise, if we wrote our forum posts in dense formal text, they would be pretty much useless to people who might actually stand to benefit from them. (it would be the irony of ironies: the only people who'd understand them would be ... the people who already find the verbal section easy!)

[tim]

Good points all around. Thanks, Ron!

[RonPurewal]

no problem. it's important to realize just how big the difference is. (try reading aloud from a business journal; you'll see my point.)

[GraceZ853]

also, it's not clear whether your understanding of timeframe here is sufficient.

if the "__ing" relates to the main action in the correct way but doesn't occur in the same timeframe, then this kind of sentence is wrong. the main action must occur in the timeframe of "__ing".

this isn't anything special, of course; it's the same principle that obtains for other "__ing" modifiers, too.

e.g.,

Running into the path of an oncoming bus, Tyler was killed instantly.
--> makes sense; tyler was killed while running in front of the bus.

Tyler was struck by a bus, dying instantly.
--> sensible for the same reason.

Running into the path of an oncoming bus, Tyler died in the hospital a few hours later.
Tyler was struck by a bus, dying in the hospital a few hours later.
--> both nonsense, since the actions occur in two different timeframes.

if the timeframes are NOT the same, then, regardless of causality, you can't use a __ing modifier (since this notion of simultaneity is a big part of the reason why __ing modifiers exist in the first place).
rather, you need a different construction altogether, e.g., Tyler ran into the path of an oncoming bus and died in the hospital a few hours later.

After reading your comments about timeframes, can I make a conclusion that:
''comma -ing'' modifier should actually satisfy THREE requirements:
1) it should apply to the subject of the preceding clause
2) it should have simultaneous relations to the action of the clause
3)it should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:
*immediate consequence
*unavoidable results
*describe another, ongoing action that serves as background for the main action


And I have another puzzle that: Is there any difference when the ''comma -ing'' modifier is put ahead of the main action or after the main action?
I know in following 2 sentences there is no difference between them:
Ruuning on the street too fast, I fell.
I ran on the street too fast, falling.
But is there an example that the position of the ''comma -ing'' modifier makes difference?


Thanks Ron in advance.

[GraceZ853]

Hi, Ron!
I just now read the comments again and now I have some new ideas.
It seems that ''the same timeframe'' is DIFFERENT from the '' the same time''.
And the ''the same timeframe'' means that we talk about the 2 actions of the main clause and the ''comma+-ing'' modifier from the same angle.
For us, the 2 actions both happen now or happened before.
Thus, if the action of the '' comma+-ing'' happened before the main action, we can use''comma+HAVING done something''.


And the ''comma -ing'' modifier should actually satisfy THREE requirements:
1) it should apply to the subject of the preceding clause
2) it should have the timeframe to the action of the clause
3)it should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:
*immediate consequence
*unavoidable results
*describe another, ongoing action that serves as background for the main action
*simultaneous
And there is LITTLE distinction between the immediate consequence and unavoidable results, right?


Could you please check if there is something wrong in my statements?
Thanks Ron in advance.

[RonPurewal]

that all seems accurate... but, remember, your life will be far easier if you commit examples, NOT 'rules', to memory.

really—if you can just remember 2 or 3 well-written examples of comma + __ing, you will intuitively understand EVERYTHING you wrote here.
moreover, you'll be able to use that knowledge MUCH more efficiently, because you won't have to go through the annoyance of applying 'rules' (at which human brains just aren't very good). instead, you'll be able to make analogies to your existing store of known examples—a process that's lightning-fast and MUCH more potent.

[RonPurewal]

And there is LITTLE distinction between the immediate consequence and unavoidable results, right?

i don't see any meaningful distinction between those two.
do you perceive a difference? if so, what is the difference? (WITH EXAMPLES—do not just describe with abstractions)

[AsadA969]

And keep in mind that sometimes we instructors slip into more informal language on our posts,

formal writing, on the other hand, is objectively harder to understand.

in fact, the inherent difficulty of formal text is the only reason why GMAT CR is hard!

but, because the CR passages are written in dense formal text, even these situations—virtually all of which you could solve with plain common sense, were you to encounter them in the real world—become hard to understand.

Is formal writing used only in CR? What do you think about SC, RC, PS, and DS? I've to know it because I should be serious about GMAC's writing style.
Thanks Ron for your unique response !

[RonPurewal]

the whole exam is written in formal prose, as are all standardized exams.
so, you don't need to become accustomed to, or switch among, different writing styles.

[RonPurewal]

note, though, that you should NOT perform 'SC analysis' on sentences from other parts of the test.
the SC sentences are VERY carefully written and VERY meticulously edited. (GMAC spends thousands of dollars per sentence on creating SC problems.)
clearly, random prose from elsewhere on the exam is not going to meet that standard. so, the only sentences on which you should perform 'SC analysis' are ... SC problems.

[AsadA969]

note, the SC sentences are VERY carefully written and VERY meticulously edited. (GMAC spends thousands of dollars per sentence on creating SC problems.)

If GMAC spends thousand of dollars for ONLY SC, that means they are not care seriously about other parts like CR, RC, PS, and DS. I've written the bold sentence because you said in the forum most of time just about SC (spends thousands of dollars per sentence on creating SC problems) not the other parts of GMAT. This comment is not related with GMAT Study; it is related with GMAC's question pattern. So, could you please clarify about the matter?
Thanks.

[tim]

They spend thousands of dollars on every question (please note carefully that Ron never claimed otherwise - this is a good exercise in the application of critical reasoning skills). On SC, that money goes into making sure the sentence is absolutely perfect according to the GMAT's canon of SC grammar. For other problems, they spend the money on other things rather than being meticulous about the grammar, because in the other problems GMAT grammar is not an issue.

[sandeepr433]

Hi Ron,

I have a doubt in the option E regarding the usage of "that".

Are there many Declarations of Sentiments adopted at different places or times?
Are we,in this sentence,talking about the one adopted at the Seneca Falls Women's Rights Convention in 1948?

I have eliminated E,thinking that this cant be the actual meaning,and that there is a change in the meaning in this option.

I have always eliminated choices using this rule.
Am I doing something wrong?

eg:I am reading the book that was in the 2nd shelf.

The sentence means there are many books in the shelves and I am reading the one that was in the 2nd shelf.


Thanks!
Sandeep

[RonPurewal]

well, sure, this is probably not the only thing in the entire history of the world that has ever been called the "Declaration of Sentiments".

in any case, that distinction has NEVER been required for ANY official GMAT problem, EVER -- so, if you are thinking about it, then you are probably being distracted from something else that's more important, more fundamental, easier, and/or more black-and-white.