with + [noun] + [participle]

1) With Arcsun Corporation announcing their new home video system, Playlite has to upgrade their systems to compete with them.

(A) With Arcsun Corporation announcing their new home video system, Playlite has to upgrade their systems to compete with them

(B) With Arcsun Corporation announcing its new home video system, Playlite must upgrade their systems in competition with it

(C) Because Arcsun Corporation is announcing their new home video system, Playlite has to upgrade its own systems by competing with them

(D) Since Arcsun Corporation is announcing their new home video system, Playlite is to upgrade their systems by competing with them

(E) Since Arcsun Corporation has announced its new home video system, Playlite must upgrade its own systems to compete with Arcsun

2) With a rotational axis tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, Uranus exhibits extreme seasons: hemispheres go from continuous sunlight to continuous darkness in its 84-year cycle.

(A) With a rotational axis tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, Uranus exhibits extreme seasons: hemispheres go

(B) With a rotational axis tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, Uranus exhibiting extreme seasons, because hemispheres went

(C) Uranus has a rotational axis that is tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, exhibiting extreme seasons, and the hemispheres went

(D) Uranus’s rotational axis tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, it exhibits extreme seasons, with hemispheres going

(E) As a consequence of a rotational axis that is tilted nearly parallel to the plane of the Solar System, Uranus exhibited extreme seasons, such as the hemispheres going

3) With American cryptanalysists breaking the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet losing the strategic element of surprise at Midway, which allowed the America Fleet to ambush the Japanese and win a decisive victory.

(A) With American cryptanalysists breaking the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet losing the strategic element of surprise at Midway, which allowed

(B) With American cryptanalysists breaking the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet strategically lost the element of surprise at Midway, and this allowed

(C) Because of the American cryptanalysists breaking the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet strategically lost the element of surprise at Midway, to allow

(D) Because American cryptanalysists had broken the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet lost the strategic element of surprise at Midway, allowing

(E) Since American cryptanalysists broke the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet strategically lost the element of surprise at Midway, and this allowed

4) With a global team of analysts studying every move of the Asian market, Boisin Capital, prepared each morning for that day’s major market trends that its accuracy on predicting an “up” or “down” day in the Western Markets is higher than 98%.

(A) With a global team of analysts studying every move of the Asian market, Boisin Capital, prepared

(B) With a global team of analysts studying every move of the Asian market, Boisin Capital is so prepared

(C) With a global team of analysts studying every move of the Asian market, Boisin Capital would be as prepared

(D) Because a global team has been studying every move of the Asian market, Boisin Capital, so prepared

(E) Because of a global team which had been studying every move that Asian market made, Boisin Capital is as prepared

5) With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating off their reduced numbers easily.

(A) With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating their reduced numbers easily.

(B) When the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt, with the English longbowmen being able to inflict significant damage on them, their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily was able to eliminate them.

(C) The muddy field delayed the advance of the French infantrymen at the battle of Agincourt, allowing the English longbowmen to inflict significant damage on them, and as the number of the French infantrymen was reduced, the English infantry easily could eliminate these remaining few.

(D) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt tried to advance but had been delayed by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen inflicted significant damage on them, and the English infantry eventually would eliminate their reduced numbers with ease

(E) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt delayed in their advance by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt inflicting significant damage on them, so their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily could eliminate those left.

The ambiguity

Students often ask about this structure, with + [noun] + [participle].  This structure is identified as wrong for certain official Sentence Correction questions (e.g. the GMATPrep question “Unlike most other mergers in the utility industry . . . “) , and yet it is part of a correct sentence in other questions (e.g. the GMATPrep question “Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy . . . “).  Is this structure right or wrong?  The frustrating answer is: “It depends.”  All five of the practice questions above use this structure, and in some the structure is perfectly correct, while in others, it is egregiously wrong.  What is going on?

I will attempt to make a rough distinction of two different use of this structure, one of which is inexcusably unacceptable, and the other of which is completely fine.  This is not necessarily a completely rigorous distinction, and will not exhaust all possible uses of this structure, but at least it will give students a guide.

This distinction depends on MEANING.  The GMAT Sentence Correction is more a test of meaning than a test of grammar.  Folks focus on the grammar, and sometimes they completely forget how important meaning is.  Meaning trumps grammar.  A student who goes through Sentence Correction problems paying attention to grammar and ignoring meaning will not be successful.

Case I: action by a different agent

This first case is the 100% wrong case.  Think about it this way.  The independent clause of a sentence has a subject and verb, and that subject is the “actor,” the doer-of-the-action, in the main clause.  If we want to talk about a different “actor” performing a different action, then we need another clause: either a second independent clause, joined by a correlative conjunction (e.g. “and“, “but“, “or“) , or a pair of correlative conjunctions; or a dependent clause, introduced by a subordinate conjunction or a relative pronoun/adverb.

Subordinate conjunctions: ON A WHITE BUS: Only if; Now that; Although, after, as; While, whereas, whether; If, in case; Though; Even though, even if; Because, before; Until, unless; Since, so, so … that.

Relative pronoun: who, whom, whose, what, that, which, whoever, whatever

Relative adverbs: why, how, where, when, however, wherever, whenever

If the main clause talks about one actor and his action, and we want to discuss a second actor and his separate action, we need a full clause, either independent or dependent.  That’s the rule.

The mistake is to use this structure, “with” + [noun] + [participle], as a substitute for a full clause.  For example,

In sentence #6, in walking to Canossa, the Emperor Henry IV is one actor performing one action in the subordinate clause, and Pope Gregory VII is another actor performing a different action in the main clause.  In sentence #7, the CEO is one actor performing one action in the main clause, and the sales are another “actor” doing something else.  In each case, the correct solution is to use a subordinate clause, a full clause to contain a new action.  In both cases, using the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure in the place of a full clause is completely wrong.  This use will always be wrong on the GMAT Sentence Correction.

 Case II: additional description

This second case is perfectly acceptable.  In this case, there is an actor performing an action in the main sentence, and the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure simply acts a noun modifier to provide some additional description to one of the nouns.  This structure doesn’t contain a whole new action performed by somebody else, but merely adds what we might call some artistic detail to the sentence.   For example

In both cases, there’s not another “actor” performing an action in addition to the action of the main clause.  Instead, the “with” phrase adds some descriptive detail to the sentence: it functions as a noun-modifier, as an adjectival phrase.   What’s being described in the “with” phrase is not an action but merely a fixed detail of something.  This is 100% correct, and could appear as part of the OA in a GMAT Sentence Correction question.

One test

One way to tell the difference is to imagine the sentence without the participle phrase, just “with” + [noun].  If the sentence still makes perfect sense in this form, then the participle was purely descriptive, we are in Case II, and the use of the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure is perfectly legitimate.  If we drop the participle, and suddenly after the word “with” we have an unconnected noun that has no obvious relationship to the rest of the sentence, then the participle was providing an important action, we are in Case I, and the use of the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure is not acceptable. For example, using the sentences above:

Notice that this opening preposition phrase now makes no sense.  It is an unconnected noun hanging out at the beginning of the sentence with no obvious grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence.  The Pope did not perform his action “with” the Emperor.  This sentence makes no sense, because the participle in version 6b was providing an action that was an essential part of the sentence.  That action needs a clause of its own.  By contrast,

This make perfect sense.  The Euglena manufactures food with its chloroplasts.  This sentence works either with or without the participle phrase, so that phrase must be purely a decoration, a detail, not essential to the action in the sentence.  This is Case II, and sentence #9 is perfectly correct as is.

Summary

If the foregoing discussion gave you some insights into the use of the “with” + [noun] + [participle] structure, then you might want to revisit the above sentences before you read the explanations below.  As always, you will build your intuition for the usage of this and other structures as you read: reading is one of the best ways to improve your GMAT Verbal score.

추가 예문

In the construction “clause + comma + with”, “comma+with” modifier modifies the nearest preceding ACTION.

Example:
Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.

here SLEEPING is being modified. how are they sleeping? – WITH ARMS AND LEGS HANGING…

please post your doubts on any specific question you have come across facing this issue.