<p>^^^ Yep
:)</p>
<p>good = D!!!</p>
<p>how about the speed skater question?</p>
<p>…“was” can still operate fine in this context. </p>
<p>It’s not “, winning.” Once again, there’s absolutely nothing between the “,” and “winning,” meaning it’s a run on at best. You switch to the past perfect without the necessary supporting words in the major clause–winning is clearly in the present tense, otherwise, it’s past perfect, but if it’s past perfect, it cannot be “was” up there.</p>
<p>However, using “by” to link in the gerund as a reason for “why” is legitimate.</p>
<p>Oh…and I seem to remember there were problems with “, winning” that came after that part…what was the full choice?</p>
<p>what was the experimental for writing the one about the parrot or the one about the tennis sisters that made it to the top (improving paragraphs)</p>
<p>The exp was the tennis sisters one</p>
<p>RedC-</p>
<p>No it wasnt the sentence was like:</p>
<p>Some random olympic swimmer rulz, winning 7 gold medals at the olympics. Clearly, not a run on. (I believe the winning part is a participial phrase)</p>
<p>yeah I agree</p>
<p>“winning” is clearly the correct answer</p>
<p>^^^^ Definitely!</p>
<p>It’s how they talk at the real Olympics:
“Michael Phelps became the beast of 2008, winning 16 medals in all.”</p>
<p>It sounds ucky if you say:
“Michael Phelps became the beast of 2008 by winning 16 medals in all.”</p>
<p>The one redcatharsis asked about-</p>
<p>It was training parrots.
The best place to put it would be after 13 because It was like… Dogs can be trained to salivate if they hear certain prompts that signify that they should salivalte. </p>
<p>The sentene they wanted to place was… The scientist took great pains to insure there were no siganls given by her to the parrot. </p>
<p>Something like that was my reasoning</p>
<p>Hey guys, about the parrot passage</p>
<p>Do you remember one of the first questions had to do with editing the sentence that went like “Can they communicate like they do?”, where the “they do” part was underlined, did you select “the way humans can” as your answer choice?</p>
<p>yup thats what i said</p>
<p>^^^ I agree
Lol I’m starting to think that me and Bee are gonna get the same scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False?</p>
<p>I asked my teacher. It’s not grammatically accurate to use “, winning” since it makes it an independent clause. It takes out from the major clause–using by makes it dependent, which it is. “By,” according to her, is more accurate.</p>
<p>Also, don’t you realize that “, winning seven gold medals” modifies Olympics only because it’s coming right after it? …</p>
<p>What you’re talking about:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That means you would need: “Mark Spitz, winning seven gold medals, was named the most sensational athlete at the 1972 Summer Olympics.”</p>
<p>Meaning what you’re doing is misplacing it to modify “Olympics.”</p>
<p>Note how the participial phrase follows Thomas Edison immediately?</p>
<p>RedC-</p>
<p>Two things (one of which I may be completely wrong on):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In no way, shape, or form is “winning 7 gold medals” an independent clause. With all due respect to your teacher, if he or she cannot differentiate between an independent or dependent clause, then she doesnt understand a very broad concept in English.</p></li>
<li><p>You may have a point with your misplaced modifier statement. HOWEVER, I have taken quite a few SATs (both in the BB and through Q and A) and have seen sentences used by the CB where the modifying phrase followings an adjective as it did in the sentence. I may be wrong, but usually it seems the CB only uses misplaced modifiers when the modifying phrase directly follows a noun. (I dont think the phrase followed olympics but it may have)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Actually, sry the phrase did come after olympics. However, I believe in the context of the sentence “,winning” made more sense. Idk…I remember reading it and picking that one for a reason that is currently vague to me.</p>
<p>yea but in the context of the sentnece i feel like by winning was better.</p>
<p>It’s definitely winning. The others made absolutely no sense.</p>
<p>Na, in the context of the sentence by winning was worse than winning. The only problem was that “,winning” may have created a misplaced modifier. However, the phrase preceding the winning clause was “in the Olympics” and because it was a prepositional phrase, I do not think a misplaced modifier was created.</p>