<p>High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates (do, this being why so many high school students) go on to pursue college degrees. </p>
<p>C. do; this fact explains why so many high school students
E. do, explaining why so many high school students</p>
<p>The answer is C. I understand that C makes sense because it creates an independent clause after the semicolon, but what's wrong with E? I always get stuck on these questions because i don't know when to use the semicolon, or when to leave the comma and how to start the sentence following the comma. Some clarification would be nice.</p>
<p>this is an odd one because usually they only have 1 grammatically correct sentence. In this case i think E is also grammatically correct, it’s just that it’s less clear than the other choice.</p>
<p>(E) is the better answer. (C) would be better if it were “do; many high school students.”</p>
<p>^Silverturtle.
The CB answer is C. Here is its explanation: Choice (C) is correct. It avoids the error of the original by providing a clause introduced by a semicolon, thus combining the two complete thoughts into one compound sentence.</p>
<p>E is wrong because "Choice (E) involves improper modification. It is not clear who or what is the subject of the verb “explaining.”'</p>
<p>So verbs like “explaining” have to have subjects preceding them? Always? Are there any exceptions? Or is it just that collegeboard prefers sentences with semicolon to those with commas? IDk, just speculating.</p>
<p>“explain” is a verb…it is not a semicolon issue. people explain. things explain. the sentence wants to say that the “fact” explains, not the “college graduates”</p>
<p>all verbs must have subjects preceding them, whether implied or made explicit, but not all verbs must have objects succeeding them. there is no implied subject in choice E because the subject is the “fact,” which is the knowledge of what had just been said in the sentence. this knowledge or information is not implied as it is a different subject</p>
<p>I disagree with the suggested answer. When it does not succeed a subject, a participial phrase at the end of a sentence can be used to modify the entire preceding clause, which is what the sentence attempts to do. (In that sentence, I used “which is what the sentence attempts to do” as a modifier of the entire preceding clause; the logic was clear and grammatically correct even though no subject was thereby modified. 
)</p>
<p>It is perhaps not the best answer one could compose to be substituted into the underlined space, but it is more correct than any wrong answer that I have ever seen on a College Board question. </p>
<p>(C) is not grammatically wrong either. The semicolon, however, serves no purpose in the sentence. If it were being employed to indicate a strong relationship, even one of causation, between the ideas conveyed in each clause, the phrase “this fact explains” would be verbose. Because this phrase is included, a period would be more fitting.</p>
<p>that is because you used “which,” which is “used as a relative referring to the thing, group, or event specified in the antecedent word, phrase, or clause.” if you just stick a gerund like “explaining” in there without using a word that specifies something implied (i.e. “that” as in “High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do, a fact that explains…”), the only thing that can be implied is the subject</p>
<p>Can you comment on my final point about choice (C) as well as the relevance of this:</p>
<p>"A participle can be the first word in a clause that gives more information about another clause. They often tell you what the consequences of the first clause were. This type of clause can be seen as a reduced non-defining relative clause, so there must be a comma before the participle. </p>
<p>‘They use a sitar on most tracks, giving their music an Eastern feel’" (<a href=“http://teleformacion.princast.es/qstutor/resources/or000000000000001/courses/cr000000000002716/Contenidos_generales/level7/grammar/7verbpar.html[/url]”>http://teleformacion.princast.es/qstutor/resources/or000000000000001/courses/cr000000000002716/Contenidos_generales/level7/grammar/7verbpar.html</a>).</p>
<p>The above example seems applicable and is what I was referring to in post #6 when I contended a participial can modify a clause in some cases.</p>
<p>^Ok So im a confused on which methodology is correct based upon Crazybandit’s and Silverturtle’s argument. </p>
<p>In a nutshell, Crazybandit is saying that you need " subjects preceding them [verbs], whether implied or made explicit…" or “a word that specifies something implied” for the new clause. </p>
<p>But Silverturtle is saying that “A participle can be the first word in a clause that gives more information about another clause…” and thus necessitates the use of a comma. Furthermore, he is saying that “When it does not succeed a subject, a participial phrase at the end of a sentence can be used to modify the entire preceding clause”</p>
<p>Silverturtle–your argument rests upon the assumption that “the information in the clause is not needed to make the identity of the noun before it clear” (<a href=“http://teleformacion.princast.es/qstutor/resources/or000000000000001/courses/cr000000000002716/Contenidos_generales/level7/grammar/7verbpar.html[/url]”>http://teleformacion.princast.es/qstutor/resources/or000000000000001/courses/cr000000000002716/Contenidos_generales/level7/grammar/7verbpar.html</a>), which is false because the real subject is “the fact” not the “college graduates” ,which is who we would assume as the subject, incorrectly, had there not been a second clause. So, we need that second clause to clarify the subject.</p>
<p>“Can you comment on my final point about choice (C)”</p>
<p>The semicolon is usable because the left and the right side are related. You use semicolons to replace conjuctions like “therefore” and “and” and nothing that is unnecessary more. It might be more concise to say “[therefore] many high school students…” but the sentence isn’t saying that. It is saying “…why so many high school students…”. There is a direct relationship between the two (i.e. “I will call you tomorrow; we will do so” vs “I will call you tomorrow. We will do it.”). A period works for both but a semicolon does as well</p>
<p>“They use a sitar on most tracks, giving their music an Eastern feel’” is definitely correct because the subject is implied and because the second part is elaborating on the first part. But that doesn’t mean you can attach two clauses just because they are related. There has to be similarities in motion. “She gave him a watch, thanking her” makes no sense</p>
<p>so this rule is not applicable to the original problem</p>
<p>The subtle distinction you brought up in discussing why the semicolon was used makes sense, crazybandit.</p>
<p>What’s the implied subject you refer to in the example sentence I quoted?</p>
<p>"They use a sitar on most tracks, giving their music an Eastern feel</p>
<p>this is grammatically ambiguous but the meaning is communicated well enough</p>
<p>if the sentence were written “Giving their music an Eastern feel, they use a sitar on most tracks,” the implied subject would be “they.” If written as what was originally, “giving” could refer to the whole clause. Adverbial participles modify whole clauses only because they replace words like “because” and “which.” But the implied is never clear unless the meaning is clear (which is why things are implied in the first place). As long as the sentence is not ambiguous like this thread’s original sentence, participles can replace a bunch of different forms. like i said before, there has (have? correct this for me. isn’t “there” singular?) to be similarities in motion</p>
<p>OR (going back to the original question) you can interpret as this: </p>
<p>“explaining” does refer to a whole clause, but since there are two clauses (“do not…” and “do…”) it is ambiguous. either way, it is ambiguous</p>
<p>Thanks for the explanation. </p>
<p>“there has (have? correct this for me. isn’t ‘there’ singular?) to be similarities in motion”</p>
<p>“there” can be singular or plural depending on the plurality (in which case one should write “there have”) or singularity (“there has”) of the succeeding subject.</p>
<p>“They use a sitar on most tracks, giving their music an Eastern feel’” is definitely correct because the subject is implied and because the second part is elaborating on the first part. But that doesn’t mean you can attach two clauses just because they are related. There has to be similarities in motion. “She gave him a watch, thanking her” makes no sense</p>
<h2>so this rule is not applicable to the original problem</h2>
<p>Ok so the original sentence is only wrong because there are two clauses, which makes the phrase “explaining…” ambiguous?</p>
<p>What if the sentence was “He received a watch from her, thanking her.” Would this be correct? (Her seems a little redundant… while I’m at it, would that be incorrect on the exam if such a problem were to come up?)</p>
<p>And I still don’t understand: “They use a sitar on most tracks, giving their music an Eastern feel.” Could you explain it another way please? It seems to be the sitar or “they” give the feel.</p>
<p>The subject of this sentence is “sitar”, not “they” , and therefore the verb giving is correctly modifying that subject, through implication .</p>
<p>how do you know the subject is not “they”?</p>
<p>“sitar” is the direct object of the verb “use,” whose subject (and thus the sentence’s) is “they.”</p>
<p>Silverturtle, if that is the case, can you explain why “They use a sitar on most tracks, giving their music an Eastern feel.” is acceptable?</p>
<p>I would assume the sitar gives their music an Eastern feel, but “giving” would then refer to the subject “they.” (If it matters, I’ve actually listened to a sitar, and I’m sure the sentence’s intention is to mean that the sitar gives the music the Eastern feel.)</p>
<p>The participial phrase modifies the entire clause, not just the subject.</p>