Hi instructors, could you please take a look at my questions?
Thanks!

don't "bump" threads like this, unless you want to wait longer for an answer to your query!

we answer the questions on this forum in a strict time order, from oldest to newest. therefore, when you "bump" questions like this, you are actually moving your question to the LAST place in the queue.
you "bumped" this thread twice in a period of about two weeks, meaning that you delayed our response by about two weeks.



nope, that rule still applies. i'll show you how.

Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans [that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors [to see more patients]], spending...

[editor:
fixed. thanks.]

in this case, the COMMA -ING modifier could grammatically modify either the blue clause or the purple clause (which is nested within the blue one). from context, it should be clear that the modifier is meant to modify the purple clause.
(this is normally what happens in this type of situation with nested clauses: an attached COMMA -ING modifier will normally modify the embedded, smaller clause. there is no need to memorize the statistical rule for this, however -- in most cases, such as this one, the context will make quite clear what is being modified and what is not.)

the COMMA -ING modifier modifies the action of the purple clause, and also applies to the subject of the purple clause -- namely, the relative pronoun "that". this relative pronoun, in turn, refers to "lower-end insurance plans". so the rule still works.

Hi Ron, thanks for your reply!

However, I think you might explain the wrong answer here, the OA is D, the correct whole sentence is:
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending less time with each.

I figure that "spending", as in a comma+ing form, modifies the nearest action "see", and apply to the owner of this action "doctors", which is actually not the subject of the preceding clause. I wonder if I get this right?

ha! fixed. thank you.

Hi Ron, if I understand correctly, you mean ", spending... (comma ing form)" refers to the subject of the purple clause which is "lower-end insurance plans". However, I think subject "lower-end insurance plans" shall be logical with "spending...", but it seems not here. Pls help clarify that. thx.

Also, I understand from your previous posts that

COMMA -ING modifiers are adverbial. they:
* modify the ENTIRE PRECEDING CLAUSE
* are ATTRIBUTED TO THE SUBJECT of the PRECEDING CLAUSE

But in the post link below, you mentioned COMMA -ING can modify a phrase. I'm lost with that.
in-the-past-several-years-astronomers-t4433.html

In the example you cite "circling" would follow "planets" directly except that "planets" is followed by a modifying phrase marked off by commas. In other words, the commas have nothing to do with the -ing word.

Consider:

John photographed his wife wearing a bustier.
No comma, so "wearing..." modifies "wife." She wore the bustier.

John photographed his wife, wearing a bustier.
Comma, so "wearing..." attributes actions to "John." He wore the bustier.

John photographed his wife, a stunning redhead, wearing a bustier.
Here the commas don't tell us. We know that they're marking off the appositive "a stunning redhead," but only context can help us say whether "wearing a bustier" is adverbial or adjectival.

Thanks for your excellent explanation. Further question: In your last example, if it appears in official test, can I assume it's the wrong answer if interpreting "wearing a bustier" as adverbial and adjectival are BOTH logically correct?
Can the COMMA of the form ", doing..." be shared with the modifier's COMMA? e.g. "wearing a bustier" is adverbial.

In the "Circling" example, since COMMA only makes logical sense by functioning as part of the modifier, hence, it's considered no ambuiguity.

Further the previous question NOT answered yet:
Why subject "lower-end insurance plans" shall be logically correct with "spending less time with...", I think the logical subject of "spending..." is "doctors".

Thx

"can I assume it's the wrong answer if interpreting "wearing a bustier" as adverbial and adjectival are BOTH logically correct? "

I would say "yes," though I can't think of any real GMAT question that matches that description.

"Can the COMMA of the form ", doing..." be shared with the modifier's COMMA?"

Yes.

"In the "Circling" example, since COMMA only makes logical sense by functioning as part of the modifier, hence, it's considered no ambuiguity."

I agree, if I understand you correctly.

Oops, missed one of your questions.

You ask,

Further the previous question NOT answered yet:
Why subject "lower-end insurance plans" shall be logically correct with "spending less time with...", I think the logical subject of "spending..." is "doctors".

In D, the OA, "spending" is adverbial. It doesn't modify "doctors" or any other noun. From Ron's earlier post:

- 'spend' should not be parallel to 'see', because it functions as a modifier of 'see' (it's a descriptive adverb modifier, detailing the way in which the doctors see the patients).

I didnt understand the third sentence and how it differs in meaning if taken as adverbial or adjectival , can you elaborate the third option with example

here, the modifier "a stunning redhead" is blocked off by two commas, so those commas are going to be there no matter what. therefore, it's impossible to tell whether the structure of the sentence without this modifier contains a comma.

viz.:
John photographed his wife, a stunning redhead, wearing a bustier.
note the purple commas -- those are included with the modifier.

try the following:
* add the purple modifier into the first sentence;
* add the purple modifier into the second sentence.
in both cases, you'll get the same result as in michael's third example. therefore, it's impossible to tell whether this sentence refers to the first meaning or to the second meaning.

this question still stayed unanswered: from above it seems you said "spending" applied to the subject of the purple clause--that/lower-end insurance plans, but how could "low-end insurance plans" spend less time on each patient? it should be the doctors that spend right?
maybe this SC problem IS an exception of the comma+ Ving rule?

sorry, if you replace "clause" with "action" then the previous explanation works. (i'll admit that i have to google terms like "clause" before i post here -- i have memorized almost no grammar terms at all, even after having posted here almost six thousand times.)

the modifier modifies the purple ACTION ("see more patients"), and thus applies to the subject/agent of that action ("doctors").

these modifiers modify actions; those actions can be represented by infinitives, etc. as well as by whole clauses.

yea~~I got it, this explanation makes much more sense! Thank you! I get more understanding about the "comma+ Ving" from this problem!

great!

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor