关于现在分词，这题又颠覆我三观了。。恳请baby NN现身！！！

Using technology as new as space-age fabrics and as ordinary as common dry-cleaning chemicals,
scientists and historians, in their attempt at cleaning and preserving the American flag that flew over
Fort McHenry in Baltimore in 1814, are hoping that it will then last another 200 years.

(A) and as ordinary as common dry-cleaning chemicals, scientists and historians, in their attempt at
cleaning and preserving the American flag that flew over Fort McHenry in Baltimore in 1814, are
hoping
(B) and as ordinary as common dry-cleaning chemicals, scientists and historians are attempting to
clean and preserve the American flag that flew over Fort McHenry in Baltimore in 1814, hoping
(C) and as ordinary as common dry-cleaning chemicals, an attempt by scientists and historians to
clean and preserve the American flag that flew over Fort McHenry in Baltimore in 1814 is being
made in the hope
(D) but also as ordinary as common dry-cleaning chemicals, scientists and historians who are
attempting to clean and preserve the American flag that flew over Fort McHenry in Baltimore in
1814, hoping
(E) but also as ordinary as common dry-cleaning chemicals, an attempt by scientists and historians
at cleaning and preserving the American flag that flew over Fort McHenry in Baltimore in 1814 in
hopes

答案选B。可是现在分词不是做最近分局的伴随状语吗？？那岂不是做flag that flew over Fort McHenry in Baltimore in 1814的伴随状语？？？？可是这样明显不对啊。请大牛们解答啊！感激不尽！！

感谢ls三位，还有版主NN也给我解疑答惑了 太感谢！不过还是有一点很疑惑，就是comma+现在分词，根据ron 的说法，"comma+V-ing" modifies the entire action of the preceding clause and applies to the subject within that clause.Babynn关于这点做了很多阐述，我引用她的一个经典帖子，这两个地方也是我说的现在分词修饰离最近的分句的出处。

其实自从弄清楚了这点，我做题时验证过很多次，都没错，comma+现在分词并非修饰主句的，只是这个地方怎么又矛盾了呢？？？希望NN们能给我reconcile一下~~

“4.2.1 分词优先作状语（伴随状语，结果状语）

MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause

白勇书里：SVO+逗号+doing，ing分词短语在句末
1）伴随动作：状态和功能，与句子的谓语动作同时发生，逻辑主语等于主句主语

adverbial modifier 这时候如果表伴随，要注意伴随的动词时态要一致用现在时来修饰完成时错误



2）伴随结果，整个句子是原因，到时分词动作产生，无逻辑主语（准确解释是：反正我现在就理解为"modifies the entire action of the preceding clause. " and "applies to the subject within that clause."（至于什么叫做applies，直接的、间接的，都算applies））

如果句式复杂点，比如主句套从句甚至再套一层从句，然后"comma + v-ing"，这种情况下咱要注意它是修饰"preceding clause"的。

例：og12 65
 In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer, so that it absorbs the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.
(A)        act as a buffer, so that it absorbs
(B)        act like a buffer so as to absorb
(C)       act as a buffer, absorbing
(D)       acting as a buffer, absorbing
(E)     acting like a buffer, absorb
正确答案C

我觉得，这道题和咱的结论一点都不矛盾：
"comma+V-ing" modifies the entire action of the preceding clause and applies to the subject within that clause.首先，不能理解为修饰buffer。buffer在物理学里是减震器，生化里面是缓冲液，不管怎么说，都不可能用"absorbing the energy of crashing waves ..."来描述"buffer"。这题是说：
A that would do xxx and act as a buffer, absorbing .....
A=a breakwater of rocks
所以说", absorbing ...."是修饰整个这部分"A that would do xxx and act as a buffer"
有同学注意到，这一部分是充当全句的宾语，所以就有疑问：为什么absorbing .....会修饰这个宾语"a breakwater of rocks" (A)?
这就回到了我前面粗体强调的：
modifies the entire action of the preceding clause
注意：这里是preceding clause，而不是说主句——甭管这个句子多么复杂，只管前面那个从句。这句话里面，preceding clause就是指that引导的从句："A that would do xxx and act as a buffer"，在这个preceding clause里面，主语是"a breakwater of rocks"



另例：Biochemists found thatgeldanamycin induces cellular stress, leading to cell death.
这句话，"leading to cell death" is the direct and immediate consequence of the entire action of the preceding clause "geldanamycin induces cellular stress", and it applies to the subject within that clause (geldanamycin).  
就说preceding clause是前面那个that从句，你不能理解为"leading to cell death"的主语是biochemists, No!



不正确的例子：Biochemists found thatgeldanamycin induces cellular stress, promoting the development of anti-cancer drugs.
为什么错？因为根据默认语法规则，"comma+v-ing"必须修饰前面那个从句，也就是that之后的从句geldanamycin induces cellular stress,而这显然不合逻辑意思
——我们的逻辑意思是，生物学家的这个发现"promoting..."，而非发现的现象本身"promoting..."”