with + [noun] + [participle] on GMAT Sentence Correction

BY MIKE MᶜGARRY ON JULY 1, 2015 , UPDATED ON JANUARY 15, 2020, IN GMAT SENTENCE CORRECTION

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.
 

Here are five practice SC problems, exploring this particular grammatical structure.  Full
explanations will appear at the end of the article.

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
 1) Split #1: As explained in this blog, this question contains a “Case I” use of the “with” +
[noun] + [participle] structure, action by a different actor.  In the main clause, Playlite is the
actor, and in the “with” phrase, Arscun Corporation is another actor.  This is wrong.  For this
other actor, we need a new clause.  (A) & (B) are wrong because of this.
Split #2a: Pronouns!  Both companies are collective nouns.  Collective nouns such as Arcsun
Corporation or Playlite may have many members, but they are singular nouns and, as such,
demand singular pronouns.
(A) “their” … “their” … “them” = totally wrong

(B) “its” … “their” … “it” = right on Arcsun, wrong on Playlite

(C) “their” … “its” … “them” = wrong on Arcsun, right on Playlite

(D) “their” … “their” … “them” = totally wrong

(E) “its” … “its” = pronouns are correct

Split #2b: another pronoun mistake is using the same pronoun in the same clause to refer to two
different antecedent.  In (A) & (D), even if the “their” and “them” were correct in singular/plural,
they would be wrong because they refer to two different antecedent.  If the sentence had all “it”
and “its,” this still would be incorrect, because we can have multiple it’s referring to different
antecedents.   This is precisely why we needed to repeat Arcsun’s name in (E).
Answer = (E)

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

 2) Split #1: As explained in this blog, this question contains a “Case II” use of the “with” +
[noun] + [participle] structure, additional description.  The participle following “with” is not an
action word: it merely paints a picture, describes the appearance of the planet Uranus.  This is
100% acceptable, so we can’t eliminate anything on the basis of this split.
The sentence is radically reorganized on each choice, so we have to analyze each choice
separately.

(A) “with”-phrase, comma, independent clause, colon, independent clause.  = that’s a

grammatically correct organization of a sentence, and there are no errors; this choice is
promising.
(B) “with”-phrase, comma, [noun] + [participle], “because” + [subordinate clause] = this
sentence has no independent clause; it commits the missing-verb mistake.   This is wrong.
(C) [independent clause], comma,  [participial phase], comma, “and,” [independent clause] =
that’s a grammatically correct organization of a sentence, but there’s no logical connection
between “exhibiting extreme seasons” and what the hemispheres do.  The extreme seasons and
what the hemispheres do seem like two separate things in this version, whereas one is an
explanation of the other in the prompt.  This changes the meaning.  Also, there’s a mismatch of
verb tenses, because “went” is past tense.  This is wrong.
(D) [absolute phrase], comma, [short independent clause], comma, “with”-phrase = this could be
a grammatically acceptable organization, but the antecedent of the pronoun “it” is “Uranus’s,”
which is in the possessive.  The “with”-clause at the end is arguably the acceptable kind
discussed in this blog, but the very short independent clause, following by a much longer “with”-
phrase, is awkward.   This is wrong.
(E) [prepositional phrases][noun modifying clause], comma, [independent clause], comma,
[subordinate clause] = this could be a grammatically acceptable organization, but the verb tense
“exhibited,” past tense, is wrong.  Also, the description of the hemispheres explains what is
meant by “extreme seasons,” but it’s not an example of “extreme seasons;” the latter is what the
construction “such that” implies.  Finally, this is excessively wordy.  This is wrong.

The only possible answer is (A).

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

 3) Split #1: As explained in this blog, this question contains a “Case I” use of the “with” +
[noun] + [participle] structure, action by a different actor.  In the main clause, the Japanese
Imperial Fleet is the actor, and in the “with” phrase, the American cryptanalysists are other
actors.  This is wrong.  For this other actor, we need a new clause.  (A) & (B) are wrong because
of this.  Choice (C) is a similar mistake: another preposition, “because of,” with [noun] +
[participle] structure, action by a different actor; this is also wrong.
Split #2: Adjective vs. adverb.  The answer choices vary between the adjective “strategic” and
the adverb “strategically.”  What’s happening here?  Think about the situation.  The folks in the
Japanese Imperial Fleet wanted the element of surprise, but they lost it.  Having the element
would have been good: it was a “strategic” element of surprise.  Losing the element of surprise
was very bad: there was nothing “strategic” about losing the element of surprise.  All the answers
that have the formulation “… strategically lost the element of surprise…” are wrong:
choices (B) & (C) & (E) make this mistake.

Split #3: pronoun mistake.  A pronoun can have as its antecedent a noun or other pronoun, but
the antecedent of a pronoun cannot be the action of an entire clause.  Choices (B) & (E), at the
end of the underlined section, use the pronoun “this” to refer to the action of the previous clause. 
Unlike a pronoun, a participle such as “allowing” can modify a verb or an entire clause.
The only possible answer is (D).

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

 4) Split #1: As explained in this blog, this question contains a “Case II” use of the “with” +
[noun] + [participle] structure, additional description.  As discussed above, one way to tell that
it’s “Case II” is to imagine the sentence without the participle phrase at all.
“With a global team of analysts, Boisin Capital, prepared …”
That makes perfect sense by itself.  Boisin has a global team of analysts.  Now, if we add the
participial phrase, we are merely adding description, not an essential action.  This is 100%
acceptable, so we can eliminate anything on the basis of this split.

The sentence is radically reorganized on each choice, so we have to analyze each choice
separately.
(A) This choice commits the famous missing-verb mistake.  The main noun is “Boisin Capital,”
and this is followed by a participle, “prepared,” but it never gets a bonafide verb.  This is
incorrect.
(B) The “with” structure at the beginning is fine, and there are no mistakes.  This choice is
promising.
(C) This choice make use of the hypothetical language, “would be,” which is strange and
awkward.  It also makes the idiom mistake “as prepared … that,” instead of “so prepared . . .
that.”  This in incorrect.
(D) The “because” clause at the beginning is fine, but this choice also commits the missing-verb
mistake, similar to (A).  This is incorrect.
(E) The “because of” construction at the beginning is fine, but this choice makes the idiom
mistake “as prepared … that,” instead of “so prepared . . . that.”  This in incorrect.
The only possible answer is (B).

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.

 5) A question about the Henry V‘s victory at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.

Split #1: As explained in this blog, this question contains a “Case I” use of the “with” + [noun] +
[participle] structure, action by a different actor.  In the main clause, the English longbowmen
are the actors, and in the “with” phrase, the muddy field is another actor.  This is wrong.  One
way to see this, as discussed above, is to examine the sentence without the participle:
With the muddy field, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict
significant damage …
This makes no sense.  The English longbowmen weren’t doing anything with the muddy field. 
An essential piece of the action has been lost in dropping that participle.  For a separate actor
performing a separate action, we need a whole new clause.  (A) & (B) are wrong because of this.
The sentence is radically reorganized on each choice, so we have to analyze each choice
separately.

(A) In addition to the problematic structure at the beginning, this choice repeats the Case I
mistake at the end, a double whammy!  This is completely incorrect.
(B) In addition to the problematic structure at the beginning, this choice repeats the Case I
mistake immediate after the first: two incorrect “with” + noun] + [participle] structures right in a
row.  Also, the antecedent of “their” is exceptionally unclear and ambiguous.  This choice is
incorrect.
(C) This choice makes no mistakes.  All the pronouns have clear relationships with their
antecedents.  This is promising.
(D) This choice has a combination of small problems.  The tense mismatch in the first part, “tried
… but had been delayed,” doesn’t make sense.  Presumably, the “trying” and the “being
delayed” would be more or less simultaneous.  Also, that first part is very wordy.  The overall
sentence is just connect with a string of and’s, and this gives no sense of the logical
interconnection of these events, what cause what.  The antecedent of “their” is ambiguous.  The
hypothetical tense, “would reduce,” is strange and awkward for a factual historical event.   This
choice is incorrect.
(E) The first part of the sentence is unusual: it appears to be an absolute phrase, but the logical
relationship of this action to the rest of the sentence doesn’t fit the use of the absolute phrase. 
Furthermore, an absolute phrase would not be connected to the main clause by the word “and.” 
The antecedent of “their” is ambiguous. Here again, the overall sentence is just connect with a
string of and’s, and this gives no sense of the logical interconnection of these events, what cause
what.  This is incorrect.
The only possible answer is (C).