Medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford

[kkunal]

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

(A). strongly recommending middle-aged people to
(B). strongly recommending that middle-aged people should
(C). and strongly recommended for middle-aged people to
(D). and their strong recommendation was for middle-aged people to
(E). and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people

Source: GMATPrep
Screenshot is limited to 400 pixels in width - hence linking a cropped image from test

The official answer is 'E'.

[RonPurewal]

Hello,
Do you have a question about this problem?

Please ask at least one specific question about the problem. Thank you.

[ojasvis696]

If I am not wrong this represents a cause effect relationship .. hence why is choice a incorrect .

[ojasvis696]

If I am not wrong this represents a cause effect relationship .. hence why is choice a incorrect .

[RonPurewal]

If I am not wrong this represents a cause effect relationship .. hence why is choice a incorrect .

Exactly the same reason as this:
post105807.html#p105807

Check it out.

[750plus]

In regard with option A

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

I'm removing the fluff [modifier] and this is what remains

In 1984 medical researchers concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

I have a doubt in option A, exactly the same as two posters above my post. I read the explanation that Mr. Purewal has given by redirecting to another post for comma + concluding, but I'm finding it difficult to apply to comma + recommending.

Isn't this the case?

Here the researchers concluded something and as a result they are recommending something. So, as long as they don't know that sedentary life styles lead to heart and lung disease, how can they recommend ?

So, I believe that the causality is present in the sentence.

This is why I think that option A is INCORRECT. However, I'd like you to point out the flaw, if any, in the explanation.

Verb-ing modifies the previous clause and modifies the subject. Here, ' that ' marks the entry of the clause. So, the clause here is ' sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives '

Recommending modifies ' sedentary life styles ' Obviously, life style cannot recommend anything, it has to be researchers. This makes choice A incorrect

Warm Regards
Rajat Gugnani

[RonPurewal]

no. you can only use 'comma + __ing' if the __ing part is inseparable from whatever is described in the main clause.

e.g.,
Joseph was struck by a cab, dying instantly.
this sentence CORRECTLY uses 'comma __ing'.
notice that, in this context, it's impossible to separate 'joseph was struck' and 'joseph died'—in other words, it's impossible to conceive of either of them independently of the other—because they are two aspects of exactly the same event.

*Joseph was struck by a cab, dying in the hospital an hour later.
this sentence is INCORRECT, because these are two separate events.

"concluding xxxx" and "recommending yyyy" are certainly not inseparable, so 'comma __ing' can't be used here.

[RonPurewal]

here's another set of examples that may help.

Tom found a yellow cardinal, disproving the notion that all cardinals are red.
--> CORRECT
when tom found the yellow cardinal, that very finding WAS the 'disproof'. it is impossible to think of (i) finding the yellow cardinal and (ii) disproving "all cardinals are red" as two separate things... absolutely impossible.

*Tom found a yellow cardinal and disproved the notion that all cardinals are red.
--> INCORRECT
"x and y" implies that these are two separate events... but they aren't.

--

*Tom found a yellow cardinal, posting photos online to rebut the notion that all cardinals are red.
--> INCORRECT
two separate actions: {i} finding the cardinal, (ii) posting the photos. can't use 'comma __ing'.

*Tom found a yellow cardinal and posted photos online to rebut the notion that all cardinals are red.
--> CORRECT

[RonPurewal]

hopefully the point of the above examples is clear: you can't use 'comma __ing' unless it is actually IMPOSSIBLE, in context, to consider the main clause and the '__ing' as two separate actions/events.

here, on the other hand, we absolutely can—and in fact must—think of the two actions as separate, one after the other. the researchers reached some conclusions (an internal thought process, in their own heads), AND THEN made some recommendations (public declarations). so, no, can't use 'comma __ing',

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, if anyone is randomly interested, yellow cardinals actually do exist.

[750plus]

incidentally, if anyone is randomly interested, yellow cardinals actually do exist.

Thank You for the link and the useful information.

I just saw the pictures and convinced myself I didn't read the whole text !

Warm Regards

[750plus]

hopefully the point of the above examples is clear: you can't use 'comma __ing' unless it is actually IMPOSSIBLE, in context, to consider the main clause and the '__ing' as two separate actions/events.

here, on the other hand, we absolutely can—and in fact must—think of the two actions as separate, one after the other. the researchers reached some conclusions (an internal thought process, in their own heads), AND THEN made some recommendations (public declarations). so, no, can't use 'comma __ing',

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

I don't know how you stay patient and reply with such courtesy even after being asked about the same problem by different individuals.

Well, that's a trait of an excellent teacher.

The whole jigsaw puzzle makes sense to me now, Mr. Purewal.

Thanks Again

[750plus]

hopefully the point of the above examples is clear: you can't use 'comma __ing' unless it is actually IMPOSSIBLE, in context, to consider the main clause and the '__ing' as two separate actions/events.

here, on the other hand, we absolutely can—and in fact must—think of the two actions as separate, one after the other. the researchers reached some conclusions (an internal thought process, in their own heads), AND THEN made some recommendations (public declarations). so, no, can't use 'comma __ing',

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

I don't know how you stay patient and reply with such courtesy even after being asked about the same problem by different individuals.

Well, that's a trait of an excellent teacher.

The whole jigsaw puzzle makes sense to me now, Mr. Purewal.

Thanks Again

[RonPurewal]

The whole jigsaw puzzle makes sense to me now, Mr. Purewal.

Thanks Again

you're welcome.

[RonPurewal]

I don't know how you stay patient and reply with such courtesy even after being asked about the same problem by different individuals.

Well, that's a trait of an excellent teacher.

(:

'being asked about the same problem' can be annoying—but only if the same individual keeps asking. ('yes, i know you just said that X is true... but, is X true?')
even then, this forum is one of my professional duties. fortunately, i don't find it difficult to stay professional in my replies.

the pink comment is especially ironic because, if different individuals DIDN'T ask about the same problem(s), our business could not exist!