Absolute Phrases on the GMAT

January 30, 2013

It is not uncommon for test takers, when sloughing through the thicket of GMAT Sentence Correction questions to find themselves scratching their heads over a tricky little GMAT grammar conundrum known as an absolute phrase. What exactly are absolute phrases you ask? Well, before we dive into definitions and explanations, here are a couple of practice Sentence Correction questions:

1) The United States has the largest trade deficit of any country on Earth, other nations, such as China and Japan, holding stores of US dollars that increase each year.

(E) other nations, such as China and Japan, hold

2) The state of California contains 58 counties, of which some of them have a population less than 10,000.

(E) some of which to have

You may see a pattern linking these two questions. Full explanations to these problems will come at the end of the post.

Modifiers

Some modifiers modify nouns — these modifiers generally have to touch the noun they modifier. Other modifiers modify verbs — the placement rules for verb modifiers are a little looser than they are for noun modifiers. One type of modifier modifies not an individual word but the entire independent clause: these are called absolute phrases.

Absolute phrases

An absolute phrase has the form [noun] + [noun modifier]. It stands apart from the main clause of a sentence and modifies this main clause in some way. Examples include:

3) Babe Ruth leads all major league baseball players in career slugging percentages, Ted Williams and Ty Cobb having been better hitters for average than for power.

4) Virginia Woolf refused to publish the novel Ulysses through her own Hogarth Press, a slight that Joyce never forgave.

5) On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses to the door of the castle-church in Wittenburg, this flashpoint igniting a Reformation that would transform religion in the Western World.

6) Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II famously criticized the opera The Marriage of Figaro for having “too many notes”, a slight that, in the eyes of subsequent generations, reveals how little he appreciated the full range of Mozart‘s genius.

In those four, the underlined phrase is the absolute phrase. In #3 & #5, the form is [noun] + [participial phrase], and in #4 & #6, the form [noun] + [“that” clause]. In all four cases, the absolute phrase modifies or comments on the action at the center of the independent clause.

This grammatical form is rare, and it will not appear with tremendous frequency on the GMAT Sentence Correction. Nevertheless, it is 100% correct and, in fact, typical of formal writing, which makes it perfect for the GMAT. Learn to recognize this grammatical pattern —– you will find it in more high-brow reading. In a GMAT Sentence Correction question in which none of the answers seems to form a proper phrase or clause, it may be that an absolute phrase is lurking among the choices. With this in mind, take another look at those two practice questions above, before reading the explanations below.

Practice question explanations

1) Split #1: listing examples. Suppose we have a category C and examples in this category P and Q. It is grammatically incorrect to say “…. C, like P and Q.” Choices (B) & (C) & (D) make this mistake. This mistake is woefully common in colloquial English, but entirely unacceptable on the GMAT. The correct way to say this is ” …. C, such as P and Q.”

Split #2: The section of the sentence before the first comma is a full independent clause: this could stand on its own as a complete sentence. What happens after the first comma, at the very beginning of the underline section, varies wildly. Each choices requires its own analysis.

(A) “other nations … holding” —- [noun] + [participle]: this has the form of an absolute clause, which is perfectly correct.

(B) “and other nations … holding” —- the “and” implies another independent clause is coming, parallel to the first, but instead we get [noun] + [participle], which doesn’t fit the pattern. This choice is incorrect.

(C) “with other nations … holding” —- this structure is common in colloquial speech, but the GMAT doesn’t like this at all: “with” + [noun] + [participle]. The prepositions “with” is designed to hold a noun, maybe even a modified noun, but not an entire action. This choice is incorrect.

(D) & (E) “other nations … hold” —- This is [noun] + [verb], another full independent clause. By itself, everything after the first comma in these choices could stand as a complete sentence. The problem is — we have [independent clause], [independent clause] — that’s the structure of a run-on sentence. We always need some kind of conjunction (and, or, but, etc.) joining two independent clauses: they can’t just sit next to each other separated by a comma — that’s the classic run-on pattern. Both of these choices are incorrect.

The only possible answer is (A), with the absolute phrase.

2) Here, we get clause construction as well as what is sometimes called a “subgroup modifier”.

The word “which” is a relative pronoun, and this means two important things. First, “which” begins a subordinate clause that, like any clause, must have a full [noun] + [verb] structure. Second, the pronoun “which” itself is the subject of this subordinate clause. Choices (B) & (E) run afoul of the first rule — they follow “which” with a participle and an infinitive respectively, not a full bonafide verb. Choice (A) has a bonafide verb, “have”, but it gets in trouble with the second rule — it has a double subject, the word “which” and the phrase “some of them” — this would be a like the sentence, “My sister she is smart” — the [noun] + [pronoun] structure is redundant and incorrect. Choice (A) makes exactly the same mistake. None of these three choices is correct.

The phrase “some of them” is a noun. If we follow a noun with a full verb “have”, as (D) does, this creates an independent clause —- everything after the comma could stand on its own as a complete sentence. Again, the problem is — we have [independent clause], [independent clause] — that’s the structure of a run-on sentence. Choice (D) makes this mistake and is not correct. Choice (C) follows the noun “some of them” with the participle “having” — this is the [noun] + [participle] structure of an absolute phrase. This is grammatically correct, and because there’s a grave problem with each of the other four answer choices, (C) is the only possible answer.

So do you think you can you come up with your own tough absolute phrases? Leave some head scratchers in the comment section!

Author

Mike MᶜGarry

Mike served as a GMAT Expert at Magoosh, helping create hundreds of lesson videos and practice questions to help guide GMAT students to success. He was also featured as “member of the month” for over two years at GMAT Club. Mike holds an A.B. in Physics (graduating magna cum laude) and an M.T.S. in Religions of the World, both from Harvard. Beyond standardized testing, Mike has over 20 years of both private and public high school teaching experience specializing in math and physics. In his free time, Mike likes smashing foosballs into orbit, and despite having no obvious cranial deficiency, he insists on rooting for the NY Mets. Learn more about the GMAT through Mike’s Youtube video explanations and resources like What is a Good GMAT Score? and the GMAT Diagnostic Test.

View all posts

Share4

Pin1

Comments

29 responses to “Absolute Phrases on the GMAT”

Natz

January 15, 2019

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your explanation. I have troubles identifying the difference between the dangling modifiers and the absolute phrase and would be grateful for your advice on this.

Many thanks.

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  January 31, 2019
  
  Hi Natz,
  
  Great question! The defining characteristic of a dangling modifier is that it does not have a noun to modify! An absolute phrase modifies an entire clause, while it is unclear what a dangling modifier is modifying. You can distinguish between these two forms by asking yourself what the phrase is modifying–if there is no clear answer, then it’s likely a dangling modifier.
  
  Reply
Gaurav Minhas

August 21, 2018

hello Mike,
this was an awesome article. Makes things sooo much clear…… Now to apply this concept i was looking at some questions and came across this one…. can you please confirm that absolute Phrase is, in fact, at play here –

OG 2018, SC Q776
Yellow jackets number among the 900 or so species of the world’s social wasps, wasps that live in a highly cooperative and organized society consisting almost entirely of females—the queen and her sterile female workers.

Yellow jackets number among the 900 or so species of the world’s social wasps, [wasps] + [that live in a highly cooperative and organized society consisting almost entirely of females] …….

noun + noun modifier structure……… and ultimately a phrase describing social wasps?

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  August 24, 2018
  
  Thank you for your high praise of Mike’s articles, Guarav. They really are helpful, aren’t they? Let’s take a closer look at th OG sentence, to see if it does indeed contain an absolute phrase.
  
  This sentence doesn’t really contain an absolute phrase. Remember, an absolute phrase will modify an entire clause. It won’t just modify a noun phrase. But “the queen and her sterile female workers” only modifies the noun phrase “a highly cooperative and organized society consisting almost entirely of females.” For that matter, the larger subordinate clause (wasps that live in a highly cooperative and organized society consisting almost entirely of females—the queen and her sterile female workers) also doesn’t behave like an absolute phrase. This string of words only modifies the noun phrase “social wasps.”
  
  If the sentence were modified to include an absolute phrase, it might look like this:
  
  Yellow jackets number among the 900 or so species of the world’s social wasps, living in a highly cooperative and organized society consisting almost entirely of females—the queen and her sterile female workers.
  
  In that case, “living in a…” creates a phrase that modifies and explains both the noun and verb from the preceding clause. It modifies yellow jackets by adding more information about how they live. And it modifies the verb phrase “number…among…social wasps,” because it explains why yellow jackets are considered to be social wasps, based on the way they live.
  
  Does that make sense? Let me know if you have any other doubts, Guarav.
  
  Reply
David

December 12, 2015

Mike, my question is specific to your example sentence #2: “The state of California contains 58 counties, OF WHICH SOME OF THEM HAVE a population less than 10,000.” I am trying to fully understand the proper use and definition of working verbs and participles.

Previously you stated, “WHICH begins a subordinate clause that, like any clause, must have a full [noun] + [verb] structure.” If the definition of a participle is, “a word formed from a verb (e.g., going, gone, being, been ) AND used as an adjective (e.g., working woman, burned toast ) or a noun (e.g., good breeding ). In English, participles are also used to make compound verb forms (e.g., is going, has been ).”, why is the word HAVING in option B considered a participle? Isn’t HAVING not used as an adj, a noun, nor a compound verb in option B?

Thank you in advance for your help

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  February 8, 2016
  
  Hi David,
  
  Here’s the sentence for reference:
  
  The state of California contains 58 counties, some of which having a population less than 10,000.
  
  Now, “having” should be considered a participle because it would normally function as an adjective, and modify “some.” For instance:
  
  Having a population of less than 10,000, X is one of California’s 58 counties.
  
  Here we can see can see how “having” would function as an adjective. The problem with the original sentence is that “which,” which introduces a subordinate clause, should be followed by a full verb, and “having” is not a full verb. That’s why this is incorrect. So, you’re right to be confused about how “having” is functioning here, since it is placed incorrectly! But it wants to function as a participle here — as an adjective that would modify “some.” But since “of which” is already modifying “some,” and “which” should be followed by a full verb, “having” is misplaced.
  
  Reply
Tushar

May 13, 2014

awesome question and an excellent answer as always

2) The state of California contains 58 counties, some of which have a population less than 10,000.

Is this correct?

Reply
1. Mike
  
  May 14, 2014
  
  Dear Tushar,
  I’m happy to respond. 🙂
  Yes, that would be correct. That’s the easier correct sentence that folks would be expecting, which is what makes this construction much trickier — it’s not what people would expect.
  Does this make sense?
  Mike 🙂
  
  Reply
  1. David
    
    October 18, 2014
    
    The state of California contains 58 counties, some of which have a population less than 10,000.
    
    In this sentence there are two independent clauses without coordinating conjunction , is this correct ?
    
    Thanks!
    
    Reply
    1. Mike
      
      October 18, 2014
      
      David,
      I’m happy to respond. 🙂 My friend, that sentence is 100% correct. It has only one independent clause, before the comma. The word “which” signals the beginning of a subordinate clause. Does this make sense?
      Mike 🙂
      
      Reply
  2. Gaurav
    
    August 30, 2018
    
    Hello Mike,
    
    Doesn’t “The state of California contains 58 counties, some of which have a population less than 10,000.” create a run-on?
    
    GT
    
    Reply
    1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
      
      September 21, 2018
      
      Hi Gaurav,
      
      A run-on sentence is comprised of two independent clauses without an appropriate conjunction. this sentence has only one independent clause (“the state of CA contains 58 counties). The part after the sentence (…some of which…) is noun modifier. It provides us more information about the counties. Because it’s not an independent clause, this can’t be a run-on sentence!
      
      Reply
Siva Sanjeev

December 30, 2013

Hello Mike,
In your ex. 1

If option ‘C’ had ‘such as’ instead of ‘like’, would ‘C’ have been a more preferable answer?

Rewriting option C with such as.

The United States has the largest trade deficit of any country on Earth, other nations, such as China and Japan, holding stores of US dollars that increase each year.
(A) other nations, such as China and Japan, holding
(C) with other nations, such as China and Japan, holding

Reply
1. Mike
  
  December 31, 2013
  
  Siva,
  No, my friend, (A) would still be a much better answer, and (C) would still be wrong. You see, the structure “with” + [noun] + [active participle] is a structure that is never correct on the GMAT —- if we want to talk about that much action, we need to put it into a full [noun] + [verb] clause. The verb “hold” is an active verb, so the “with” construction is not acceptable. By contrast, (A) has a perfectly constructed absolute phrase.
  It’s important to read high quality material in English to develop an ear for these more sophisticated grammatical structures.
  Does all this make sense?
  Mike 🙂
  
  Reply
  1. Shuvabrata
    
    April 10, 2014
    
    Hi Mike,
    Can you please explain how (B) option, which uses ‘with’+[noun]+[participle] structure, is correct in the following question from OG-13 edition.
    
    Starfish, with anywhere from five to eight arms, have a strong regenerative ability, and if {one arm is lost it quickly replaces it, sometimes by the animal overcompensating and} growing an extra one or two.
    
    A one arm is lost it quickly replaces it, sometimes by the animal overcompensating and
    B one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating and
    C they lose one arm they quickly replace it, sometimes by the animal overcompensating,
    D they lose one arm they are quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating,
    E they lose one arm it is quickly replaced, sometimes with the animal overcompensating,
    
    Reply
    1. Mike
      
      April 10, 2014
      
      Dear Shuvabrata,
      The GMAT is so tricky. I would say almost 99% of the time, the “with” +[noun] + [participle] structure is completely inappropriate for conveying an action, but this question (OG13, SC #114) lands in that very tricky 1% case — this is, after all, one of the harder SC questions in the OG. Also, notice, they are not testing this issue here — all five answers involve [preposition”] + [noun] + [participle] in some way, so it’s unavoidable, and therefore not something about which a student would need to make a decision.
      I would say the OA in this question is acceptable — not ideal, not perfect,, but acceptable. Why is it acceptable? Well, it is acceptable to use “with” if we are describing the manner in which an action is done. For example:
      “He drives with great care.”
      “She studies with a mind hungry to learn.”
      In both cases, the “with” preposition is an adverbial phrase, a phrase that asks the adverb question “how?”: how is the action of the verb done? how does he drive? how does she study?
      It could be argued that the long phrase “with the animal sometimes overcompensating and growing an extra one or two” is a similar adverbial phrase describing the manner in which an action is done. Much in the same way, the first “with” preposition, before the underlined part, is clearly an adjectival phrase, that is, a noun modifier, modifying the noun “starfish.” If the “with” phrase is clearly adjectival or clearly adverbial, then it’s fine. The trouble is, the “with” +[noun] + [participle] structures that often appear, on the GMAT SC and in colloquial English, are not even pretending to be adverbial or adjectival:
      “With the CEO leaving after only five months, the company’s long term plan was in turmoil.” = YUCK!
      That’s a disastrous use of this structure, not adverbial, not adjectival, just 100% wrong. That’s far more typical, both on the GMAT SC and in colloquial English.
      Does all this make sense?
      Mike 🙂
      
      Reply
      1. Shuvabrata
        
        April 10, 2014
        
        Excellent explanation…Thanks a lot Mike! 🙂
        
        Reply
        
        Mike
        
        April 10, 2014
        
        Dear Shuvabrata,
        You are more than welcome, my friend. Best of luck to you!
        Mike 🙂
        
        Reply
        
        Tushar
        
        May 13, 2014
        
        awesome question and an excellent answer as always..
        
        Reply
      2. Bing
        
        August 4, 2021
        
        Doesn’t it follow the Case II where with[noun][participle] is acceptable if it continues the thought and no new noun and its corresponding action is introduced. As we are still talking about Starfish?
        
        Reply
        
        Magoosh Test Prep Expert
        
        August 12, 2021
        
        Hi Bing,
        
        I would say that this form is to be avoided. As Mike said, it is usually wrong, and this is a rare exception. Further, the question does not depend on that form. The fact that we are still talking about the starfish and not a different noun + verb definitely makes this case less bad, but it is still not good. Acceptable, maybe, but if we had an answer without the with + noun + participle, that would likely be a better option 🙂
        
        Reply
  2. Montezuma
    
    May 14, 2018
    
    Hi Mike,
    
    Does the following sound right to you?
    
    “With other nations, such as China and Japan, holding stores of US dollars that increase each year, the United States has the largest trade deficit of any country on Earth”
    
    I am trying to force fit the Case II that you have detailed here: https://magoosh.com/gmat/with-noun-participle-on-gmat-sentence-correction/
    
    Reply
    1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
      
      May 16, 2018
      
      Your example is a little problematic. In Mike’s Case II for with + [noun] + [participle] on GMAT Sentence Correction, the “with” phrase and the main clause both have the same actor/subject. Your sentence on the other hand features Case I, from that post, in which the “with” phrase and the main clause have different subject/actors. This, as Mike has mentioned before, is always wrong in GMAT SC. (And awkward by any written English conventions.) Because the “with” clause in your example sentence features the actions of “other nations,” while the main clause features the actions of “the United States,” you have two actors, and an improper Case I sentence rather than a proper Case II one.
      
      Reply
LanChi

September 5, 2013

Thanks for your useful explanation, Mike! I would be so appreciated if you can supply more practice questions with the form [noun] + [that clause]. Thanks for your support again!

Reply
1. Mike
  
  September 5, 2013
  
  Dear LanChi —
  If you sign up for Magoosh, we have a some practice questions with absolute phrases. Probably the best practice, though, would be to read — read the New York Times, read the Economist magazine — read, and get good at spotting absolute phrases in context. That’s when you really will understand this construction.
  Mike 🙂
  
  Reply
Jagadish

August 27, 2013

Thank a lot Mike 🙂 It made many things clear 🙂

Reply
1. Mike
  
  August 27, 2013
  
  Dear Jagadish,
  I’m glad that helped. Best of luck to you!
  Mike 🙂
  
  Reply
kannav

July 14, 2013

Great explanation

Reply
1. Mike
  
  July 14, 2013
  
  Dear Kannav,
  I’m glad you found it helpful. Thank you for the kind words, and I wish you the best of luck.
  Mike 🙂
  
  Reply