Pronoun Referent Problem

[Meggieski]

Reactions is the subject. "in an individual" is just fluff. Do not fall for these annoying additional prepositional phrases on the gmat. A is absolutely the answer.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by aras82

Guys, I have a different issue with this item.

I agree that 'that' does not always refer back to immediate previous noun.

But here my question is regarding A and C?

Why C is incorrect?

C says: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses.

Here creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses is a present participle clause without comma which correctly modifies immediately preceding noun or noun phrase, which in this case is emotional reactions in an individual.

So why C is incorrect?

OG explanation: This construction is less successful at clarifying the chain of events because creating seems to refer back to lying; if used as a participial, creating would have to be preceded by a comma.
My questions: 1. how come creating seems to refer back to lying?
2. On the contarary, If preceded by a comma, then creating would refer back to lying.

This explanation is giving me jitters. Any guru please comment and clarify the doubt.

While am way short of any guru, here are my 2 cents:

'creating', as a participle, when preceeded by a comma, tends to modify the entire preceeding clause; however without the comma, in this case, it tends to modify the subject of the preceeding subordinate clause (lying).
Look at it this way: Lying produces A in B creating C. If 'creating' were 'created' (past participle) it would refer to the nearest preceeding noun (individual).

[atishree]

Originally Posted by adi_800

jst adding one more example that shows that may nt refer to the immediate preceding noun...

The widely accepted big bang theory holds that the
universe began in an explosive instant ten to twenty
billion years ago and has been expanding ever since.
(C) that the beginning of the universe was an
explosive instant ten to twenty billion years ago
that has expanded

For C OG says
C) The relative clause that has expanded
describes instant, which makes no sense.

what I can understand out of this is, OG wants to say universe did not begin or has been expanding 0r is going to end as it is a theoretical concept. But the constituents of universe marked the beginning in an explosive instant(an event of explosion) particles of which are still in outward motion, so the instant isn't over yet , it has just expanded ever since it started. An instant is over when all the motion related to same comes to a halt.

My explanation can be completely wrong but that's physics more than concepts of english

[aras82]

Originally Posted by Fiver

While am way short of any guru, here are my 2 cents:

'creating', as a participle, when preceeded by a comma, tends to modify the entire preceeding clause; however without the comma, in this case, it tends to modify the subject of the preceeding subordinate clause (lying).
Look at it this way: Lying produces A in B creating C. If 'creating' were 'created' (past participle) it would refer to the nearest preceeding noun (individual).

I think you have mixed two things:

when participle is preceeded by a comma it tends to modify the entire preceeding clause refering to the subject of that clause.

However, when not preceeded it modifies preceeded noun or noun phrase.
So in this case it should modify 'emotional reactions in an individual'.

[aras82]

Originally Posted by arindambanerji

In C it means that the individual is creating the unconcious physiological responses

where as it is the "emotional reactions in an individual" that is creating the unconcious physiological responses


also i think in A "that" is not modifying "individual" but rather the phrase "emotional reactions in an individual"

what I've observed in many GMAT probs is opposite of what you quoted. That if we need to modify a preceeding noun phrase, 'particple without comma' is preferred than relative pronoun 'that'.

I can quote the actual examples if you want

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by aras82

I think you have mixed two things:

when participle is preceeded by a comma it tends to modify the entire preceeding clause refering to the subject of that clause.

However, when not preceeded it modifies preceeded noun or noun phrase.
So in this case it should modify 'emotional reactions in an individual'.

I was not referring to any general rule about a participle without a comma.
In fact i have quoted 'in this case' in my earlier post.

What i mean when i say that in this case when 'creating' is not followed by a comma is that 'creating' could be mistaken to be a verb (though not parallel to 'produces'). Also re-read the explanation that you have quoted earlier. This part of the explanation: if used as a participial, creating would have to be preceded by a comma, suggests that 'creating' could be mistaken for a verb instead of a participle and hence tends to refer back to the subject.
And that's how the earlier quoted example makes sense:
Lying produces A in B creating C

As a general rule as you have rightly pointed out:
1] Present participle without a comma tends to modify the nearest preceeding noun or noun phrase.
2] Present participle with a comma tends to modify the preceeding noun, noun phrase or entire clause, or the subject or object of the preceeding clause depending on the context.
3] Past participle with or without the comma modifies the nearest preceeding noun or noun phrase.
Let me know what your thougths are.

[adi_800]

I dont think we should keep in mind what a Ving refers to when it is preceded by a comma..what we need to look at is..when we have a comma followed Ving, just check whether Ving is used to express the result of the previous clause. If that is the case, then we have a correct usage of Ving...

lying produces emotional reactions in an individual, creating unconscious physiological responses.