Industrialization and modtern methods of insect control have

[RonPurewal]

muralik -- all correct, except perhaps the following:

The clause after BUT is not an independent clause -- Sentence fragment --- WORNG.

if you have "x but y", the "y" doesn't have to be a clause -- it just has to be parallel to "x".
in this case, "y" is an -ING form, which is not parallel to anything in the other half of the sentence. therefore, nonparallel, so incorrect.

[pushkalk]

19. Industrialization and modern methods of insect control have improved the standard of living around the globe while at the same time they have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants, having gone virtually unregulated since they were developed more than 50 years ago.

B. while at the same time introducing some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants that have


Hi,

Besides the other topics discussed on this SC, is B correct because we have two participles in parallel construction ?
1> have improved
2> introducing

[RonPurewal]

Besides the other topics discussed on this SC, is B correct because we have two participles in parallel construction ?
1> have improved
2> introducing

no.

1/ "while" is NOT a parallel construction.

2/ "have improved" is a present-perfect verb; if "improved" is part of a verb, then it's not a participial modifier.

[divineacclivity]

Chester, you GMAT logic (looking for parallel construction) is sound, but you fell into a GMAT trap by relying solely on the definitive parallelism of answer choice A. Just becaue "have introduced" seems better than "introducing," we cannot conclude that the latter is provably incorrect. The real issue with this question is the modifier. The sentence is attempting to indicated that the chemical pollutants have gone unregulated since they were developed, a sentiment indicated clearly and correctly in answer choice B.

In answer choice (A) the modifier having does not clearly describe the pollutants. In fact, when the sentence is rewritten, having seems to most closely describe they, the subject of the clause (They, having gone virtually unregulated....., have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants).

Hope that helps!
-dan

Dan,

Is it ok to assume that "2nd verb+ing" is almost always preferred in a "while" sentence since it clearly communication the simultaneous doing/happening of the two activities in the sentence? e.g.
I read newspaper while at the same time eating my breakfast. - preferred over the following sentence?
I read newspaper while at the same time I ate my b'fast.

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Is it ok to assume that "2nd verb+ing" is almost always preferred in a "while" sentence since it clearly communication the simultaneous doing/happening of the two activities in the sentence?

sure -- if that's actually what you want to communicate.

remember that "while" can also be used as a general indicator of contrast, including contrast between two things that are not necessarily in the same timeframe.
e.g.,
while square-toed shoes have largely gone out of fashion in the club, they are still often seen at the office.

I read newspaper while at the same time eating my breakfast. - preferred over the following sentence?
I read newspaper while at the same time I ate my b'fast.

Thanks.

these sentences are both incorrect, because they are redundant. if you are using "while" to mean "at the same time" -- as is the case here -- then, of course, you shouldn't use both constructions.
if you take "at the same time" out of these sentences, either is acceptable. (gmac will not give you problems with two legitimately correct answers, so there's little sense in debating which is "better".)

in the current problem, the use of both "while" and "at the same time" is not redundant, because "while" is used to indicate contrast rather than to mean "at the same time".

[vikram4689]

Hi Ron

I am terribly confused. As per you, the correctness should come first...your colleague ruled out A as according to him...chemicals went unregulated..what is wrong if we assume that Industrialization and modern methods went unregulated.

infact chemical pollutants were developed....does not sound good...pollutants are never developed...modern methods are...

so, if we assume that the intent of author was to refer to methods and not to pollutants..what's wrong with A grammatically.....


Pls advice

when you have a COMMA + -ING type modifier, the following two rules hold:
* the modifier modifiers the <i>entire preceding clause</i> (i.e., the ACTION in that clause)
* the SUBJECT of the preceding clause is taken to be the SUBJECT of the -ing participle.

so, in this case, "having gone unregulated since they were developed..." refers to the industrial methods.
this is an actual ERROR - an incorrect pronoun - since the chemicals were developed 50 years ago.

agreed but why this is an error. methods were developed 50 years ago and were unregulated since then. because methods were unregulated, they introduced pollutants. what's the error.

secondly, doesn't b) non-sensically imply that pollutants were developed. no one develops pollutants though chemicals sometimes act as pollutants

i'm not questioning the answer but i could not find anything wrong with A. in fact i can find issues with b)

[divineacclivity]

vikram4689, in option A, modifier "having gone virtually ..." could be modifying either of the two: modern methods or chemical pollutants. So, A is flawed.
Ron, please correct me if I'm wrong. thanks in advance.

[jlucero]

Hi Ron

I am terribly confused. As per you, the correctness should come first...your colleague ruled out A as according to him...chemicals went unregulated..what is wrong if we assume that Industrialization and modern methods went unregulated.

infact chemical pollutants were developed....does not sound good...pollutants are never developed...modern methods are...

so, if we assume that the intent of author was to refer to methods and not to pollutants..what's wrong with A grammatically.....


Pls advice

when you have a COMMA + -ING type modifier, the following two rules hold:
* the modifier modifiers the <i>entire preceding clause</i> (i.e., the ACTION in that clause)
* the SUBJECT of the preceding clause is taken to be the SUBJECT of the -ing participle.

so, in this case, "having gone unregulated since they were developed..." refers to the industrial methods.
this is an actual ERROR - an incorrect pronoun - since the chemicals were developed 50 years ago.

agreed but why this is an error. methods were developed 50 years ago and were unregulated since then. because methods were unregulated, they introduced pollutants. what's the error.

secondly, doesn't b) non-sensically imply that pollutants were developed. no one develops pollutants though chemicals sometimes act as pollutants

i'm not questioning the answer but i could not find anything wrong with A. in fact i can find issues with b)

You might argue that methods can be unregulated but you can't say that industrialization is also unregulated, since industrialization & modern methods of insect control are co-subjects. And then you'd have to argue that both industrialization & modern methods of insect control were both developed more than 50 years ago.

B doesn't imply that pollutants were developed- it explicitly says that pollutants were developed. That's the intended meaning here- certain chemicals were developed that we now consider pollutants, therefore pollutants were developed (google DDT).

[jlucero]

vikram4689, in option A, modifier "having gone virtually ..." could be modifying either of the two: modern methods or chemical pollutants. So, A is flawed.
Ron, please correct me if I'm wrong. thanks in advance.

That's partly it. It's far more ambiguous than B which clearly declares what each modifier is describing.

[li.xi811]

it's true that the conjunction "while" can be used to signal simultaneity, but it's more often used to signify contrast.
e.g., while my friends studied six hours per week, i only studied half an hour per week.

in any case, you should just learn this one as an isolated truth (the same way you'd learn any other idiom).

Hi Ron,

When "while" is used to signify contrast, is it usually placed at the beginning of the sentence?

OG13 #130: Over 75 percent of the energy produced... while in Germany... OG says "while" is ambiguous as it might indicate simultaneity rather than contrast and "while" is replaced with "whereas" in the correct answer choice.

So would you ever say "my friends studied six hours per week, while i only studied half an hour per week"? I think the idea of contrast is pretty clear in this context. Does GMAT consider this sentence ambiguous?

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

We should keep OG material off the forum, so I'll keep it brief.
The example you've cited contains no danger of ambiguity if "while" is used, since it compares two generalities about energy production. There's clearly no indication of simultaneity.

[li.xi811]

We should keep OG material off the forum, so I'll keep it brief.
The example you've cited contains no danger of ambiguity if "while" is used, since it compares two generalities about energy production. There's clearly no indication of simultaneity.

Thanks Ron.

So as long as the intended meaning is clear, it doesn't matter where "while" is placed in the sentence to indicate contrast?

[RonPurewal]

We should keep OG material off the forum, so I'll keep it brief.
The example you've cited contains no danger of ambiguity if "while" is used, since it compares two generalities about energy production. There's clearly no indication of simultaneity.

Thanks Ron.

So as long as the intended meaning is clear, it doesn't matter where "while" is placed in the sentence to indicate contrast?

Well, you can't put it in the middle of one of the clauses. So, to that extent, it matters.

While xxxx, yyyy and Yyyy, while xxxx are both valid constructions; that's as far as it goes for the GMAT. The difference is stylistic; style is not tested on the exam.

[cshen02]

Found an interesting point on this question.
We cross out choice A, because "having gone virtually unregulated..." intend to modify chemical pollutants, but indeed modifies "Industrialization and modern methods of insect control".
When I came across this question today, I think it's not a big deal for the present participle to modify "Industrialization and modern methods of insect control", since they can be regulated and developed as well....Am I wrong on this point?

[RonPurewal]

Found an interesting point on this question.
We cross out choice A, because "having gone virtually unregulated..." intend to modify chemical pollutants, but indeed modifies "Industrialization and modern methods of insect control".
When I came across this question today, I think it's not a big deal for the present participle to modify "Industrialization and modern methods of insect control", since they can be regulated and developed as well....Am I wrong on this point?

1/
Industrialization isn't something that "was developed". Thus, "since they were developed..." means we aren't talking about "industrialization and modern methods of insect control". (We could say that modern methods of insect control "were developed""”but not industrialization.)

2/
Even if we allow this interpretation, the modifier doesn't make sense. If "comma + __ing" is used for cause and effect, the __ing has to describe the effect, not the cause.
E.g., we could write
The country's food industry is tightly regulated; its drug industry, on the other hand, is almost completely unmonitored, often producing contaminated products that sicken or kill thousands of patients.

You can see what's going on here: "producing contaminated products" is presented as the result of the industry's going "almost completely unmonitored", and so belongs in the comma + __ing part.

The structure of choice A effectively reverses cause and effect.