with + [noun] + [participle] on GMAT Sentence Correction

July 1, 2015

Here are five practice SC problems, exploring this particular grammatical structure. Full explanations will appear at the end of the article.

1) With Arcsun Corporation announcing their new home video system, Playlite has to upgrade their systems to compete with them.

(A) With Arcsun Corporation announcing their new home video system, Playlite has to upgrade their systems to compete with them

(B) With Arcsun Corporation announcing its new home video system, Playlite must upgrade their systems in competition with it

(C) Because Arcsun Corporation is announcing their new home video system, Playlite has to upgrade its own systems by competing with them

(D) Since Arcsun Corporation is announcing their new home video system, Playlite is to upgrade their systems by competing with them

(E) Since Arcsun Corporation has announced its new home video system, Playlite must upgrade its own systems to compete with Arcsun

2) With a rotational axis tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, Uranus exhibits extreme seasons: hemispheres go from continuous sunlight to continuous darkness in its 84-year cycle.

(A) With a rotational axis tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, Uranus exhibits extreme seasons: hemispheres go

(B) With a rotational axis tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, Uranus exhibiting extreme seasons, because hemispheres went

(C) Uranus has a rotational axis that is tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, exhibiting extreme seasons, and the hemispheres went

(D) Uranus’s rotational axis tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, it exhibits extreme seasons, with hemispheres going

(E) As a consequence of a rotational axis that is tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, Uranus exhibited extreme seasons, such as the hemispheres going

3) With American cryptanalysists breaking the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet losing the strategic element of surprise at Midway, which allowed the America Fleet to ambush the Japanese and win a decisive victory.

(A) With American cryptanalysists breaking the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet losing the strategic element of surprise at Midway, which allowed

(B) With American cryptanalysists breaking the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet strategically lost the element of surprise at Midway, and this allowed

(C) Because of the American cryptanalysists breaking the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet strategically lost the element of surprise at Midway, to allow

(D) Because American cryptanalysists had broken the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet lost the strategic element of surprise at Midway, allowing

(E) Since American cryptanalysists broke the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet strategically lost the element of surprise at Midway, and this allowed

4) With a global team of analysts studying every move of the Asian market, Boisin Capital, prepared each morning for that day’s major market trends that its accuracy on predicting an “up” or “down” day in the Western Markets is higher than 98%.

(A) With a global team of analysts studying every move of the Asian market, Boisin Capital, prepared

(B) With a global team of analysts studying every move of the Asian market, Boisin Capital is so prepared

(D) Because a global team has been studying every move of the Asian market, Boisin Capital, so prepared

(E) Because of a global team which had been studying every move that Asian market made, Boisin Capital is as prepared

5) With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating off their reduced numbers easily.

(A) With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating their reduced numbers easily.

(B) When the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt, with the English longbowmen being able to inflict significant damage on them, their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily was able to eliminate them.

(C) The muddy field delayed the advance of the French infantrymen at the battle of Agincourt, allowing the English longbowmen to inflict significant damage on them, and as the number of the French infantrymen was reduced, the English infantry easily could eliminate these remaining few.

(D) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt tried to advance but had been delayed by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen inflicted significant damage on them, and the English infantry eventually would eliminate their reduced numbers with ease

(E) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt delayed in their advance by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt inflicting significant damage on them, so their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily could eliminate those left.

The ambiguity

Students often ask about this structure, with + [noun] + [participle]. This structure is identified as wrong for certain official Sentence Correction questions (e.g. the GMATPrep question “Unlike most other mergers in the utility industry . . . “) , and yet it is part of a correct sentence in other questions (e.g. the GMATPrep question “Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy . . . “). Is this structure right or wrong? The frustrating answer is: “It depends.” All five of the practice questions above use this structure, and in some the structure is perfectly correct, while in others, it is egregiously wrong. What is going on?

I will attempt to make a rough distinction of two different use of this structure, one of which is inexcusably unacceptable, and the other of which is completely fine. This is not necessarily a completely rigorous distinction, and will not exhaust all possible uses of this structure, but at least it will give students a guide.

This distinction depends on MEANING. The GMAT Sentence Correction is more a test of meaning than a test of grammar. Folks focus on the grammar, and sometimes they completely forget how important meaning is. Meaning trumps grammar. A student who goes through Sentence Correction problems paying attention to grammar and ignoring meaning will not be successful.

Case I: action by a different agent

This first case is the 100% wrong case. Think about it this way. The independent clause of a sentence has a subject and verb, and that subject is the “actor,” the doer-of-the-action, in the main clause. If we want to talk about a different “actor” performing a different action, then we need another clause: either a second independent clause, joined by a correlative conjunction (e.g. “and“, “but“, “or“) , or a pair of correlative conjunctions; or a dependent clause, introduced by a subordinate conjunction or a relative pronoun/adverb.

Subordinate conjunctions: ON A WHITE BUS: Only if; Now that; Although, after, as; While, whereas, whether; If, in case; Though; Even though, even if; Because, before; Until, unless; Since, so, so … that.

Relative pronoun: who, whom, whose, what, that, which, whoever, whatever

Relative adverbs: why, how, where, when, however, wherever, whenever

If the main clause talks about one actor and his action, and we want to discuss a second actor and his separate action, we need a full clause, either independent or dependent. That’s the rule.

The mistake is to use this structure, “with” + [noun] + [participle], as a substitute for a full clause. For example,

In sentence #6, in walking to Canossa, the Emperor Henry IV is one actor performing one action in the subordinate clause, and Pope Gregory VII is another actor performing a different action in the main clause. In sentence #7, the CEO is one actor performing one action in the main clause, and the sales are another “actor” doing something else. In each case, the correct solution is to use a subordinate clause, a full clause to contain a new action. In both cases, using the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure in the place of a full clause is completely wrong. This use will always be wrong on the GMAT Sentence Correction.

Case II: additional description

This second case is perfectly acceptable. In this case, there is an actor performing an action in the main sentence, and the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure simply acts a noun modifier to provide some additional description to one of the nouns. This structure doesn’t contain a whole new action performed by somebody else, but merely adds what we might call some artistic detail to the sentence. For example

In both cases, there’s not another “actor” performing an action in addition to the action of the main clause. Instead, the “with” phrase adds some descriptive detail to the sentence: it functions as a noun-modifier, as an adjectival phrase. What’s being described in the “with” phrase is not an action but merely a fixed detail of something. This is 100% correct, and could appear as part of the OA in a GMAT Sentence Correction question.

One test

One way to tell the difference is to imagine the sentence without the participle phrase, just “with” + [noun]. If the sentence still makes perfect sense in this form, then the participle was purely descriptive, we are in Case II, and the use of the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure is perfectly legitimate. If we drop the participle, and suddenly after the word “with” we have an unconnected noun that has no obvious relationship to the rest of the sentence, then the participle was providing an important action, we are in Case I, and the use of the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure is not acceptable. For example, using the sentences above:

Notice that this opening preposition phrase now makes no sense. It is an unconnected noun hanging out at the beginning of the sentence with no obvious grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence. The Pope did not perform his action “with” the Emperor. This sentence makes no sense, because the participle in version 6b was providing an action that was an essential part of the sentence. That action needs a clause of its own. By contrast,

This make perfect sense. The Euglena manufactures food with its chloroplasts. This sentence works either with or without the participle phrase, so that phrase must be purely a decoration, a detail, not essential to the action in the sentence. This is Case II, and sentence #9 is perfectly correct as is.

Summary

If the foregoing discussion gave you some insights into the use of the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure, then you might want to revisit the above sentences before you read the explanations below. As always, you will build your intuition for the usage of this and other structures as you read: reading is one of the best ways to improve your GMAT Verbal score.

Practice problem explanations

1) Split #1: As explained in this blog, this question contains a “Case I” use of the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure, action by a different actor. In the main clause, Playlite is the actor, and in the “with” phrase, Arscun Corporation is another actor. This is wrong. For this other actor, we need a new clause. (A) & (B) are wrong because of this.

Split #2a: Pronouns! Both companies are collective nouns. Collective nouns such as Arcsun Corporation or Playlite may have many members, but they are singular nouns and, as such, demand singular pronouns.

(A) “their” … “their” … “them” = totally wrong

(B) “its” … “their” … “it” = right on Arcsun, wrong on Playlite

(D) “their” … “their” … “them” = totally wrong

(E) “its” … “its” = pronouns are correct

Split #2b: another pronoun mistake is using the same pronoun in the same clause to refer to two different antecedent. In (A) & (D), even if the “their” and “them” were correct in singular/plural, they would be wrong because they refer to two different antecedent. If the sentence had all “it” and “its,” this still would be incorrect, because we can have multiple it’s referring to different antecedents. This is precisely why we needed to repeat Arcsun’s name in (E).

Answer = (E)

2) Split #1: As explained in this blog, this question contains a “Case II” use of the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure, additional description. The participle following “with” is not an action word: it merely paints a picture, describes the appearance of the planet Uranus. This is 100% acceptable, so we can’t eliminate anything on the basis of this split.

The sentence is radically reorganized on each choice, so we have to analyze each choice separately.

(A) “with”-phrase, comma, independent clause, colon, independent clause. = that’s a grammatically correct organization of a sentence, and there are no errors; this choice is promising.

(B) “with”-phrase, comma, [noun] + [participle], “because” + [subordinate clause] = this sentence has no independent clause; it commits the missing-verb mistake. This is wrong.

(C) [independent clause], comma, [participial phase], comma, “and,” [independent clause] = that’s a grammatically correct organization of a sentence, but there’s no logical connection between “exhibiting extreme seasons” and what the hemispheres do. The extreme seasons and what the hemispheres do seem like two separate things in this version, whereas one is an explanation of the other in the prompt. This changes the meaning. Also, there’s a mismatch of verb tenses, because “went” is past tense. This is wrong.

(D) [absolute phrase], comma, [short independent clause], comma, “with”-phrase = this could be a grammatically acceptable organization, but the antecedent of the pronoun “it” is “Uranus’s,” which is in the possessive. The “with”-clause at the end is arguably the acceptable kind discussed in this blog, but the very short independent clause, following by a much longer “with”-phrase, is awkward. This is wrong.

(E) [prepositional phrases][noun modifying clause], comma, [independent clause], comma, [subordinate clause] = this could be a grammatically acceptable organization, but the verb tense “exhibited,” past tense, is wrong. Also, the description of the hemispheres explains what is meant by “extreme seasons,” but it’s not an example of “extreme seasons;” the latter is what the construction “such that” implies. Finally, this is excessively wordy. This is wrong.

The only possible answer is (A).

3) Split #1: As explained in this blog, this question contains a “Case I” use of the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure, action by a different actor. In the main clause, the Japanese Imperial Fleet is the actor, and in the “with” phrase, the American cryptanalysists are other actors. This is wrong. For this other actor, we need a new clause. (A) & (B) are wrong because of this. Choice (C) is a similar mistake: another preposition, “because of,” with [noun] + [participle] structure, action by a different actor; this is also wrong.

Split #2: Adjective vs. adverb. The answer choices vary between the adjective “strategic” and the adverb “strategically.” What’s happening here? Think about the situation. The folks in the Japanese Imperial Fleet wanted the element of surprise, but they lost it. Having the element would have been good: it was a “strategic” element of surprise. Losing the element of surprise was very bad: there was nothing “strategic” about losing the element of surprise. All the answers that have the formulation “… strategically lost the element of surprise…” are wrong: choices (B) & (C) & (E) make this mistake.

Split #3: pronoun mistake. A pronoun can have as its antecedent a noun or other pronoun, but the antecedent of a pronoun cannot be the action of an entire clause. Choices (B) & (E), at the end of the underlined section, use the pronoun “this” to refer to the action of the previous clause. Unlike a pronoun, a participle such as “allowing” can modify a verb or an entire clause.

The only possible answer is (D).

4) Split #1: As explained in this blog, this question contains a “Case II” use of the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure, additional description. As discussed above, one way to tell that it’s “Case II” is to imagine the sentence without the participle phrase at all.

“With a global team of analysts, Boisin Capital, prepared …”

That makes perfect sense by itself. Boisin has a global team of analysts. Now, if we add the participial phrase, we are merely adding description, not an essential action. This is 100% acceptable, so we can eliminate anything on the basis of this split.

The sentence is radically reorganized on each choice, so we have to analyze each choice separately.

(A) This choice commits the famous missing-verb mistake. The main noun is “Boisin Capital,” and this is followed by a participle, “prepared,” but it never gets a bonafide verb. This is incorrect.

(B) The “with” structure at the beginning is fine, and there are no mistakes. This choice is promising.

(C) This choice make use of the hypothetical language, “would be,” which is strange and awkward. It also makes the idiom mistake “as prepared … that,” instead of “so prepared . . . that.” This in incorrect.

(D) The “because” clause at the beginning is fine, but this choice also commits the missing-verb mistake, similar to (A). This is incorrect.

(E) The “because of” construction at the beginning is fine, but this choice makes the idiom mistake “as prepared … that,” instead of “so prepared . . . that.” This in incorrect.

The only possible answer is (B).

5) A question about the Henry V‘s victory at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.

Split #1: As explained in this blog, this question contains a “Case I” use of the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure, action by a different actor. In the main clause, the English longbowmen are the actors, and in the “with” phrase, the muddy field is another actor. This is wrong. One way to see this, as discussed above, is to examine the sentence without the participle:

With the muddy field, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage …

This makes no sense. The English longbowmen weren’t doing anything with the muddy field. An essential piece of the action has been lost in dropping that participle. For a separate actor performing a separate action, we need a whole new clause. (A) & (B) are wrong because of this.

The sentence is radically reorganized on each choice, so we have to analyze each choice separately.

(A) In addition to the problematic structure at the beginning, this choice repeats the Case I mistake at the end, a double whammy! This is completely incorrect.

(B) In addition to the problematic structure at the beginning, this choice repeats the Case I mistake immediate after the first: two incorrect “with” + noun] + [participle] structures right in a row. Also, the antecedent of “their” is exceptionally unclear and ambiguous. This choice is incorrect.

(C) This choice makes no mistakes. All the pronouns have clear relationships with their antecedents. This is promising.

(D) This choice has a combination of small problems. The tense mismatch in the first part, “tried … but had been delayed,” doesn’t make sense. Presumably, the “trying” and the “being delayed” would be more or less simultaneous. Also, that first part is very wordy. The overall sentence is just connect with a string of and’s, and this gives no sense of the logical interconnection of these events, what cause what. The antecedent of “their” is ambiguous. The hypothetical tense, “would reduce,” is strange and awkward for a factual historical event. This choice is incorrect.

(E) The first part of the sentence is unusual: it appears to be an absolute phrase, but the logical relationship of this action to the rest of the sentence doesn’t fit the use of the absolute phrase. Furthermore, an absolute phrase would not be connected to the main clause by the word “and.” The antecedent of “their” is ambiguous. Here again, the overall sentence is just connect with a string of and’s, and this gives no sense of the logical interconnection of these events, what cause what. This is incorrect.

The only possible answer is (C).

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

Share5

Comments

34 responses to “with + [noun] + [participle] on GMAT Sentence Correction”

flyingmak

May 17, 2023

This was the CHATGT response:

I understand your point. What you mentioned is indeed the rule in most cases. However, in the case of “with + noun + participle” constructions, it’s slightly different. This structure is a type of absolute phrase.

An absolute phrase can modify a whole sentence, not just one noun, and it usually adds information that is not essential to the understanding of the main clause. It’s called “absolute” because it’s often independent and could stand alone, yet in context it somehow relates to the rest of the sentence.

In this case, “With Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV walking to Canossa Castle in penance” is an absolute phrase modifying the main clause, “Pope Gregory annulled Henry’s excommunication by granting him forgiveness.” It’s showing the conditions under which the main action occurred.

So while your understanding is correct for standard independent and dependent clauses, this specific construction is an exception. It can be used in a single sentence to describe two actions carried out by two different agents. However, like I mentioned before, it’s best used judiciously to avoid potential confusion.

The English language is full of such exceptions, which is part of what makes it both complex and richly expressive.

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  May 19, 2023
  
  Thank you. We stand by the article as we have written it and specifically in reference to the GMAT. Generally, absolute phrases cannot stand alone, hence the name “phrase.” If you’d like to learn more about Absolute phrases, check out this helpful resource: https://chompchomp.com/terms/absolutephrase.htm
  
  Reply
Rahul Thakur

August 9, 2022

Thank you so much. All this makes sense now! The blogs are really useful!

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  August 15, 2022
  
  We’re glad we were able to clarify this concept for you! 😁
  
  Best,
  The Magoosh Help Team
  
  Reply
Brij Gupta

August 13, 2021

Thanks for this blog.

Q1:Choice E
Since Arcsun Corporation has announced its new home video system, Playlite must upgrade its own systems to compete with Arcsun.

It should be “complete with Arcsun’s” NOT “complete with Arcsun”.

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  September 7, 2021
  
  Hi Brij,
  
  Thanks for the response. Both could work! If the sentence used “compete with Arcsun’s,” then it would be comparing Playlite’s systems to Arcsun’s systems. However, as written, the sentence has Playlite competing with Arcsun.
  
  From a perspective of finding an error-free answer, A, C, and D all use “their” to describe a singular proper noun, and B does the same in its main clause. Therefore, E must be correct, though your answer would still also be valid 🙂
  
  Reply
Amy

June 10, 2019

Hi,

Very helpful post!

One probing question on the usage of “with” vs “as,” such as in the following example

The steel industry has changed radically over the last two decades, [as large, integrated companies, such as Bethlehem Steel, that] once conducted operations from mining at one end of the process to shipping at the other have greatly downsized…”

The other tempting answer for me is [with large, integrated companies, such as Bethlehem, that]

Would you be able to clarify what’s the difference between usage of “as” vs “with”? Is “as” used more as an example? and “with” should not be used in such a case?

Thank you!

Reply
1. David Recine
  
  June 10, 2019
  
  Hi Amy,
  
  Let’s take a closer look at the specific question you mentioned. As I recall, it’s an official GMAT Prep question. Here’s the full text:
  
  The steel industry has changed radically over the last two decades, [as large, integrated companies such as Bethlehem Steel] once conducted operations from mining at one end of the process to shipping at the other have greatly downsized, or in some cases shut down altogether.
  
  (A) as large, integrated companies such as Bethlehem Steel
  
  (B) as large, integrated companies, such as Bethlehem Steel, that
  
  (C) with large, integrated companies, such as Bethlehem Steel, that
  
  (D) while large, integrated companies, such as Bethlehem Steel, that
  
  (E) and large, integrated companies such as Bethlehem Steel
  
  Now, let’s compare the correct choice and your alternate tempting answer choice, side by side:
  
  The steel industry has changed radically over the last two decades, [as large, integrated companies, such as Bethlehem Steel, that] once conducted operations from mining at one end of the process to shipping at the other have greatly downsized, or in some cases shut down altogether.
  
  The steel industry has changed radically over the last two decades, [with large, integrated companies, such as Bethlehem, that] once conducted operations from mining at one end of the process to shipping at the other have greatly downsized, or in some cases shut down altogether.
  
  The interesting thing about the correct answer and the other answer you found tempting is that both would be acceptable in informal, general use of English. However, under more formal and strict academic writing rules, there are– as you’ve noticed– differences between “as” and “with.” In the case of the correct answer vs. the tempting answer, the difference is grammatical: If you were to use “with,” you’d want to change the verb forms and get rid of the relative clause, as follows: “with large, integrated companies such as Bethlehem formerly conducting operations from mining at one end of the process and shipping at the other greatly downsizing, or in some cases shutting down altogether.” The rule here is that if you add description in the form of clause inside a “with” prepositional phrase, the verbs should end in -ing, and there should not be a relative clause (a clause starting with “that,” “which,” etc…) within the main clause after “with.”
  
  That really was a good question you asked, but also a tricky one. Let me know if you have any follow up questions or need some additional clarification. 🙂
  
  Reply
Vijay Gupta

August 20, 2018

Can we use “since” in place of “because”.

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  August 24, 2018
  
  “Since” can be interchangeable with “because” in many cases. However, in GMAT SC, “because” is often preferable to “since.” There are a couple of reasons for this.
  
  For one thing, “because” is generally regarded as more formal than “since.” This distinction in formality is a very minor one, but seeing “since” instead of “because” can be treated as a sign that there are other bigger things wrong with the answer choice.
  
  Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, “since” has more possible meanings than “because.” As a result, “since” can be more confusing and ambiguous. For instance, “since” can mean “from a time in the past, continuing in the present.” So “Since a global team has been studying” could mean “because a global team has been studying,” or could mean “from the time a global team began studying until this present time….” This kind of ambiguity isn’t acceptable in correct GMAT SC answers.
  
  Reply
Sumit

August 11, 2018

Hi Mike,
Excellent post as always.

*With the cost of wireless service plummeting in the last year and mobile phones becoming increasingly common, many people are* now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends, when numerous wireless companies provide unlimited airtime for a relatively small monthly fee.

This is gmat prep question with correct OA. In this, if we drop the participle *plummenting*, sentence looks weird. Please help to fill the void in my understanding.

Regards,
Sumit

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  August 24, 2018
  
  Glad you enjoyed the post, Sumit. 🙂 In the case the sentence you shared, the Case II pattern from this post is in play. However, it’s important to remember that the “drop” test isnt about seeing if we don’t need the -ing modifier. It’s about seeing if the “with” phrase still has an apparent connection to rest of the sentence, even when the -ing modifier is removed.
  
  In the sentence you’ve just shown me, removing “plummeting” does give us a sentence that’s confusing. We suddenly get:
  
  *With the cost of wireless service in the last year and mobile phones becoming increasingly common, many people are* now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends, when numerous wireless companies provide unlimited airtime for a relatively small monthly fee.
  
  In that case, it’s still clear that the cost of wireless service in the last year is somehow leading to people using their mobile phones to make more long distance calls, especially evening and weekend calls. What’s no longer clear is exactly how the cost of wireless service from last year is leading people to use their mobile phones for long distance evening/weekend calls. But the relationship between the nouns in the “with clause” and the rest of the sentence isn’t completely severed and made meaningless, as it would be in Case I. (Note that in the Case IIs Mike gave, you get similar less-clear but not fully unclear meanings if you omit the -ing modifiers.)
  
  Reply
Sidharth Sharma

July 18, 2018

With Buyers Sidelined, Home Prices Slide

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119326355265670448

The headline is wrong in this post of WSJ according to the above mentioned principle

it should be When buyers get sidelined , home prices slide

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  July 19, 2018
  
  You may be right. Before I discuss this further, though, it’s worth mentioning that newspaper headlines in English operate under grammar rules all their own. In other words, you shouldn’t expect newspaper headlines to conform to the same grammar standards seen in full paragraph and complete sentences found in academic writing.
  
  Setting that aside, let’s take a look. It does look, at a glance, like this violates Case 1, because there appear to be different actors in each clause. But let’s take a closer look. In the noun-verb pairing “buyers sidelined,” “sidelined” is a passive voice verb. That means that the buyers are being sidelined by someone… or by something. Without reading the full article (which WSJ seems to have put behind a paywall), it still seems very likely that buyers are being sidelined by market conditions. And home prices, then, are also sliding due to market conditions.
  
  So in terms of meaning (but not grammar), we have two clauses where the doer– the cause of the action– is the same. The longhand version of this headline might be “With Buyers Sidelined by the Market, Home Prices Slide Due to the Market.” But more likely, even in a longhand sentence, the phrase “due to the market” at the end would be omitted but implied. So the doer is the same in both clauses, and although the structure greatly diverges from the way the rule is usually applied, this sentence would probably b e permissible in GMAT SC. You’d be unlikely to see such a sentence in GMAT SC though, since the headline and the longer sentence I created are following common patterns for headlines, rather than the academic sentence patterns seen in GMAT SC.
  
  Reply
Aditya Pimple

March 13, 2018

This is, by far, the most useful article.
Thank you.

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  March 13, 2018
  
  Thanks for your kind words, Aditya. Glad this post helped. 🙂
  
  Reply
Sumit

December 25, 2017

Hi Mike,

Many daring vacationers who participate in guided boat tours on the Tarcoles River *encounter
native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses are peaking out* from the
surface of the murky water.

• encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows,whose eyes and noses are peaking out
• encountered native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses peak out
• had encountered native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses peak out
• encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows,with eyes and noses peaking out
• encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows,with eyes and noses that are peaking out

The OA is D. Can we apply the test of dropping – ing modifier and checking if it makes sense.

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  January 11, 2018
  
  If I’m understanding your question correctly, Sumit, then yes, the ing-modifier-drop test works well here. If you remove “lurking in the shallows,” “crocodiles” has a clear connection to “with eyes and noses….” And at the same time, if you remove “are peaking out,” the connection between “native crocodiles lurking…” and “with eyes and noses…” is also very clear, although the thought becomes a bit incomplete.
  
  Reply
  1. Sumit
    
    August 5, 2018
    
    Hi, I have two follow up question. If we drop participle *peaking* in OA D, the sentence does not make sense.
    
    With + noun ( nose and eyes) + peaking ( v-ing form).
    _____________
    
    Their is one more question in OG. I will mention the correct answer here.
    
    Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and *seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging* like socks on clothesline.
    
    In this correct option, if we drop participle ( hanging), the sentence does not make sense.
    
    So does this rule of dropping participle is not applicable to COMMA +WITH +NOUN + Ing?
    
    Reply
    1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
      
      August 24, 2018
      
      Hi Sumit,
      
      As I mentioned in my reply to another similar comment you made (great questions on this by the way!), even in Case II, the with clause may make less sense internally if you drop the participle word. However, the real purpose of the “drop test” for Case I isn’t to see if the “with” clause makes less sense if you drp the ing word– it’s to see if the “with” clause suddenly has NO CLEAR CONNECTION to the rest of the sentence once the -ing word is dropped. In Mike’s Case I example, “With Holy Roman Emperor IV” loses its participle and becomes a stray prepositional phrase with no obvious connection to anything said in the main sentence,
      
      On the other hand, if you have “eyes and noses out from the surface” without “peaking,” it’s still clear that the eyes and nose belong to the crocodiles, even if the wording indicating that relationship is now somewhat more confusing. So the sentence does pass the drop test– relationship between “with…” and the rest of the sentence remains intact.
      
      As for the second sentence, I would actually argue that if we drop the participle “hanging,” the sentence still makes sense, based on logic and context. Let’s take a closer look:
      
      Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and *seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs* like socks on clothesline.
      
      In those case, it says that the monkeys have arms and legs that are like socks on a clothesline. How can the arms and legs of a living thing be like socks on a clothesline? Logically, the limbs of the monkeys would be like socks on a clothesline because their limbs were hanging limp. So even if you drop “hanging,” the sentence still makes sense, as “hanging” (or a similar word like “dangling” or “drooping”) is clearly implied by meaning and context.
      
      Again though, the drop rule is only a test of whether or not the “with” clause still has an apparent relationship to the rest of the sentence. It’s not a test of whether or not the “with” clause still makes perfect sense when the participle is removed. The “sense” of the “with” clause can be altered or reduced and the clause can still pass the drop test.
      
      Does that make sense? Let me know if you have any other doubts, Sumit.
      
      Reply
Dev Sharma

September 11, 2017

In Question 3 option C, the use of because of+Noun+participle is not wrong?

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  September 12, 2017
  
  No, that use would be wrong in Q3, option C, as mentioned in the answer explanation later in the post; “because of” works as a preposition.
  
  Reply
Toby Okonkwo

November 22, 2016

Hi Mike,

Thanks for this article!

“Case II: additional description
This second case is perfectly acceptable. In this case, there is an actor performing an action in the main sentence, and the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure simply acts a noun modifier to provide some additional description to one of the nouns…….In both cases, there’s not another “actor” performing an action in addition to the action of the main clause. Instead, the “with” phrase adds some descriptive detail to the sentence: it functions as a noun-modifier, as an adjectival phrase.”

Based on the text above, how can we still say that B is correct in example 4? Judging by this standard, the “the global team of analysts is studying every move in the asian market”. Is that not a dinstinct action. I can see how the “test” you proposed can help here, since the sentence in option B would make sense wven without the “studying every move” part of the sentence.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  November 23, 2016
  
  The distinction there is a little tricky, isn’t it? But answer (B) in example 4 really is correct, and it doesn’t actually introduce a separate actor or a separate action.
  
  So what is the main verb in the sentence in example 4? That would be “is prepared.” Who is being prepared? “Boisin Capital.” The phrase “With a global team of analysts” doesn’t actually introduce a new actor, because the global team of analysts is part of Boisin Capital. These analysts work within Boisin Capital. Their team is not an independent actor, but is a tool that Boisin Capital uses to be prepared for new market trends.
  
  So “with a team of global analysts” describes not a separate actor/subject, but instead describes the method by which Boisin capital does something. When you add “studying every move,” this also does not create a separate act, and instead just adds a little more detail about Boisin’s methods for staying prepared. Boisin stays prepared by having a team of global analysts, and Boisin stays prepared by having their team of global analysts study every move in the Asian market.
  
  So this really does fit Case II by adding extra detail without truly introducing a new action. Does this make sense?
  
  Reply
Jan Shan

October 24, 2016

In question 1 Answer Choice (E), the pronoun “its” also refers to 2 different antecedents. Why (E) is correct then? Thank you in advance.

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  October 25, 2016
  
  Hi Jan,
  
  You are correct that using “its” multiple times alone can be ambiguous. That is why it is important to repeat “Arcsun” in the second clause to remove ambiguity. “Playlite must upgrade its own systems to compete with Arcsun.”
  
  Reply
Daya

December 29, 2015

Hi,

In question 5, Option C ,

(C) The muddy field delayed the advance of the French infantrymen at the battle of Agincourt, allowing the English longbowmen to inflict significant damage on them, and as the number of the French infantrymen was reduced, the English infantry easily could eliminate these remaining few.

In the last line, the word “these”, a plural pronoun, refers to the immediate antecedent “The number of french men” which is singular…. How is this right?

Reply
1. Magoosh Test Prep Expert
  
  February 8, 2016
  
  Hi Daya,
  
  Although it is a bit far away, both “them” and “these remaining few” refer to “French infantrymen.”
  
  Reply
Rohit

September 17, 2015

Hi Mike,

Thanks for this nice Post.

Can we reproduce this concept with other prepositions as well?

e.g.: Because of a law passed in 1993 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them. (Source: GMAT Prep): Correct

(of a law passed)

Above rule seems working over here as well, can we generalize above rule to other prepositions (at least to a few) as well?

Reply
akhilesh

August 14, 2015

Hi Mike,

As always excellent post.
I would like to ask you that how do we find out whether the with is making sense for sentences in which the with clause comes later in the sentence. Is there some way for us to apply the concepts you have taught here in such sentences.

For example
As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing the bee to sustain a fatal injury.

(A) As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing
(B) As the heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes
(C) The honeybee’s stinger, heavily barbed and staying where it is inserted, results in the fact that the act of stinging causes
(D) The heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, and results in the act of stinging causing
(E) The honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes

Reply
Henry

July 15, 2015

Good job!

So you have relaxed your hard position that GMAT does not absolutely like [preposition] + [Noun] + [Participle] structure: evolution 🙂

Reply
aditya

July 6, 2015

In case of 4th sentence ,
Golbal team of analyst is a different actor and Boisin Capital is a different actor.
Then why this With + noun + participle construction is cosidered as correct ??

Does this mean this global team and boisin capital are working together and cosidered as one single entity ?

Reply
1. Nikhil
  
  July 10, 2015
  
  If u are in the doubt, try using the second way to check if the usage is right… Remove the participle and then see if the sentence makes sense.
  
  IMO the second method is less time consuming and much more easier to use.
  
  Hope this helps
  
  Reply
  1. Aaron
    
    January 4, 2022
    
    Hi Mike,
    
    Thanks for this very helpful post.
    
    I encountered the following question in the official prep test, and it doesn’t seem to follow the two cases you mentioned. Can you please help me out here? How does it pass the strip -ing/ed test?
    
    [With California expected to see severe electricity shortfalls and perhaps blackouts on as many as 30 days this summer, the administration has grown increasingly concerned about] public health and safety there.
    A. With California expected to see severe electricity shortfalls and perhaps blackouts on as many as 30 days this summer, the administration has grown increasingly concerned about
    B. With California expecting to see severe electricity shortfalls this summer, and there will possibly be blackouts for as much as 30 days, the administration’s concern has grown increasingly about
    C. As California is expected to be seeing severe electricity shortfalls and perhaps blackouts on as much as 30 days this summer, the administration’s concern is increasing for
    D. Insofar as California is expected to see severe electricity shortfalls this summer, and there will possibly be blackouts on as many as 30 days, the administration has increasing concern about
    E. Insofar as California expects to see severe electricity shortfalls and the possibility of blackouts for as much as 30 days this summer, the administration has grown increasingly concerned about
    
    Correct Answer (A)
    
    Thank you!
    Aaron
    
    Reply