Industrialization and modtern methods of insect control have

[aditya8062]

RON my question is related to option A of this problem
A say :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.

in one of your post u have said that :you also shouldn't use "having X..." unless having X actually has a direct effect upon the action in the main clause.
for example : having failed the exam 5 times already, M. was astonished when he received a passing mark.
i brought a cat ,having heard of two-for -one sale.--->correct (the main clause is the consequence of "having")
i brought a cat,having satisfied my need for a pet ----->wrong (the main clause is not the consequence of "having")
link :http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/geologists-once-thought-that-the-molten-rock-known-as-lava-t722-15.html
doubt now if i go by this logic then option A can make sense for comma +having can work as cause
in other words we can view A as
having gone virtually unregulated since they were developed more than 50 years ago,Industrialization and modern methods of insect control have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants

all i am contending is that after reading your above link (the one i have referenced ) i believe that comma + having behaves differently from normal "comma + verbing " modifier
To further substantiate my point here is one problem from gmat prep :Some patients who do not respond therapies of depression may simply have received inadequate treatment, having, for example, been prescribed a drug as a dosage too low to be effective or having been taken off a drug too soon.---->"comma +having " is not the result here but the cause
kindly help me understand this RON
thanks and regards

[RonPurewal]

RON my question is related to option A of this problem
A say :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.

in one of your post u have said that :you also shouldn't use "having X..." unless having X actually has a direct effect upon the action in the main clause.
for example : having failed the exam 5 times already, M. was astonished when he received a passing mark.
i brought a cat ,having heard of two-for -one sale.--->correct (the main clause is the consequence of "having")
i brought a cat,having satisfied my need for a pet ----->wrong (the main clause is not the consequence of "having")
link :http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/geologists-once-thought-that-the-molten-rock-known-as-lava-t722-15.html
doubt now if i go by this logic then option A can make sense for comma +having can work as cause
in other words we can view A as
having gone virtually unregulated since they were developed more than 50 years ago,Industrialization and modern methods of insect control have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants

If the __ing modifier comes BEFORE the main sentence, the relationship is reversed. You can't exchange the parts.

e.g.,
Having just finished a marathon, Mary was too tired to dance with her friends.
--> Here, the __ing modifier is the cause. It's still not the main part of the sentence, though, because its point is auxiliary; the main idea is that Mary was too tired to dance.

You could not put this __ing modifier after the main part of the sentence. If you did, the sentence would no longer make sense.

[RonPurewal]

all i am contending is that after reading your above link (the one i have referenced ) i believe that comma + having behaves differently from normal "comma + verbing " modifier
To further substantiate my point here is one problem from gmat prep :Some patients who do not respond therapies of depression may simply have received inadequate treatment, having, for example, been prescribed a drug as a dosage too low to be effective or having been taken off a drug too soon.---->"comma +having " is not the result here but the cause
kindly help me understand this RON
thanks and regards

In that instance, the __ing modifier is illustrating/elaborating on the earlier part. It's not "cause and effect"; it's "let me tell you about this more specifically".
Different relationship altogether.

[aditya8062]

Thanks a lot RON

RON said :If the __ing modifier comes BEFORE the main sentence, the relationship is reversed. You can't exchange the parts.

e.g.,
Having just finished a marathon, Mary was too tired to dance with her friends.
--> Here, the __ing modifier is the cause. It's still not the main part of the sentence, though, because its point is auxiliary; the main idea is that Mary was too tired to dance.

You could not put this __ing modifier after the main part of the sentence. If you did, the sentence would no longer make sense.

if i am interpreting u correctly then i believe that following can be concluded :

sentence 1 :i brought a cat ,having heard of two-for -one sale--->this sentence is wrong .
correct sentence would have been sentence 2 : having heard of two-for -one sale, i brought a cat

sentence 3 :i brought a cat,having satisfied my need for a pet---->correct sentence .here "comma+having" is acting as an elaboration of previous clause

sentence 4: having satisfied my need for a pet, i brought a cat---->wrong sentence

if i make a broader conclusion then i think that if "having" comes before the main clause as is done in sentence 2 then "having" should play the role of "cause"
however if the construciton is "comma +having" as is done in sentence 3 then it works like normal "comma+verbing" modifier,making an elaboration of previous clause

kindly tell me if my logic is correct
thanks and regards

[RonPurewal]

I can't meaningfully evaluate sentences 1 and 2, because I don't understand what they are supposed to mean. (I don't see any reasonable connection between (a) hearing about a retail sale and (b) bringing a cat somewhere.)

In sentence 3, "having satisfied" should be changed to "satisfying". ("Having satisfied" suggests a pre-existing sense of satisfaction.)

You are correct that sentence 4 doesn't really work.

[lindaliu9273]

Hi Ron,

I eliminate B at the beginning. Because manhattan book introduce "while" as subordinator just as "although, because,since....".
And they link to complete sentences.

I always think that "although, becasue" should lead a complete clause(S+V). (Pls correct me if this is wrong)

So I think "while" should follwed by complete sentence here.

One general question that confuse me: Two sentences must be connected by conjuction. But when we see a conjuction, must it link two complete sentences? Or conjuctions don't have to always connect two complete sentences?

Thank you so much!

[RonPurewal]

"Because" has to come before a complete sentence.

"While" doesn't. It can also be followed by a description that's not a whole sentence, as long as that description applies to the subject of the full sentence.
E.g., I normally write letters while driving on the freeway. (As long as I'm the driver, this sentence is correct.)

"Although" (like "though") can also be followed by such descriptions (e.g., #36 in OG 13th).

[RonPurewal]

One general question that confuse me: Two sentences must be connected by conjuction. But when we see a conjuction, must it link two complete sentences? Or conjuctions don't have to always connect two complete sentences?

Thank you so much!

I don't know grammar terminology, so I probably don't understand your question.

I looked up "conjunction" and found that the definition includes things like "and" and "or".
I'm sure you know that those words don't have to connect entire sentences (I bought rice and beans). So, I'm not clear on what you are asking.

Can you ask this question in a way that doesn't involve grammar terms?
Thanks.

[aditya8062]

Good Day Ron
my sincere apologies for the post of "Wed May 14, 2014" ,where i had written "sentence 1" and "sentence 2" wrongly and had asked you to evaluate

the intended sentences were suppose to be as follows:

sentence 1 : i bought a cat ,having heard of two-for -one sale

sentence 2 : having heard of two-for -one sale, i bought a cat

i somehow feel that "sentence 1" is wrong because "comma + having" is not really an elaboration of previous clause
however i feel that "sentence 2" is correct because "having heard...." acts as cause . kindly evaluate my reasoning

doubt 2: Ron i will be thankful to you if you kindly evaluate the following "broader conclusion" that i had written in my post of "Wed May 14, 2014" , which is as follows:

"if i make a broader conclusion then i think that if "having" comes before the main clause as is done in sentence 2 then "having" should play the role of "cause"
however if the construction is "comma +having" then it works like normal "comma+verbing" modifier,making an elaboration of previous clause"

[jlucero]

Good Day Ron
my sincere apologies for the post of "Wed May 14, 2014" ,where i had written "sentence 1" and "sentence 2" wrongly and had asked you to evaluate

the intended sentences were suppose to be as follows:

sentence 1 : i bought a cat ,having heard of two-for -one sale

sentence 2 : having heard of two-for -one sale, i bought a cat

i somehow feel that "sentence 1" is wrong because "comma + having" is not really an elaboration of previous clause
however i feel that "sentence 2" is correct because "having heard...." acts as cause . kindly evaluate my reasoning

doubt 2: Ron i will be thankful to you if you kindly evaluate the following "broader conclusion" that i had written in my post of "Wed May 14, 2014" , which is as follows:

"if i make a broader conclusion then i think that if "having" comes before the main clause as is done in sentence 2 then "having" should play the role of "cause"
however if the construction is "comma +having" then it works like normal "comma+verbing" modifier,making an elaboration of previous clause"

No. Both of those sentences are incorrect. In fact, if you google the phrase "having heard of" you will find mostly references to books using archaic phrases, phrasings unlikely to be found on the GMAT. Which means you also shouldn't use your "rule" to make broader conclusions. There are many many MANY (in fact, I would probably say most) modifiers that work just as well at the beginning or end of the sentence.

[melodyc660]

this problem seems to have two versions in option C as I searched through various sources.

in this post it was provided:

C. while they have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants at the same time, and have

'and have' here could mean 'and Industrialization and modern methods of insect control have ...'

but in at least 2 other sources option C is:

C. while they have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants at the same time, which have

now this one applies to pollutants even though it doesn't follow pollutants immediately after comma, but it can't refer to 'at the same time' obviously

I don't know which version is the original but the answer choice is definitely right, so the question is - how to eliminate C? Does 'while at the same time' and 'while XXXX at the same time' create a very distinctive difference in meaning? I thought because the 'which have' modifies pollutants, then there is no ambiguity that the first two 'they's refer to methods, and last 'they' refers to pollutants, so I couldn't decide if this option is definitely wrong.

[RonPurewal]

the answer choice is definitely right

did you mean to write "wrong"? if not, i'm confused.

Does 'while at the same time' and 'while XXXX at the same time' create a very distinctive difference in meaning?

no difference at all; "at the same time" may be placed either before or after the action (or, for reasons of emphasis or style, it can even interrupt the action).

[RonPurewal]

I thought because the 'which have' modifies pollutants,

nope. "which" is not allowed to do this.

"which" can describe two kinds of constructions:
1/ a plain noun (directly before it)
2/ noun + prep + noun (Local politicians are concerned about the pollutants in the river, which have begun to kill significant numbers of fish).

neither of these applies to this sentence; in particular, this sentence is not an example of #2, because "pollutants at the same time" is not a construction ("at the same time" is attached to the entire preceding action, not to "pollutants").

so, "which" does not properly refer to anything at all.

[melodyc660]

thank you so much Ron.

I meant to say that answer is A regardless of how choice C was written xD
but I picked C in the version mentioned above because *it sounded almost right to me*

[RonPurewal]

ok.

remember, "sound" is irrelevant, since spoken english is not the language in which this exam is written.