Verbal problems from the *free* official practice tests and
problems from mba.com
gmat_s
 
 

A study of food resources in the North Pacific between 1989

by gmat_s Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:16 am

Source GMAT Prep
How to chose between b and c?

A study of food resources in the North Pacific between 1989 and 1996 revealed that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly resulting from increasing sea surface temperatures during the same period.


a) that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly resulting from increasing

b) that creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, possibly as a result of an increase in

c) that creatures of the seabed were suffering because of food supplies, which were dwindling possibly as a result of increasing

d) creatures of the seabed that were suffering from food supplies that were dwindling, possibly resulting from an increase in

e) creatures of the seabed that were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, which possibly resulted from increasing
esledge
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:33 am
Location: St. Louis, MO
 

GMAT Prep 1 SC

by esledge Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:31 pm

Between (B) and (C), there are two related issues, one of which is the determinant of the correct answer: 1) modifier choice, and 2) meaning.

Choice (C) uses the relative pronoun "which" to introduce the modifying phrase "which were dwindling..." Anytime you see "which," you should check to make sure it is correctly refering to the noun immediately preceding the comma, in this case "food supplies." So, that modifier is OK...it is the food supplies that were dwindling.

Choice (B) uses the modifying phrase "possibly as a result of an increase..." This phrase refers to the entire clause "food supplies were dwindling" (i.e., it gives an explanation for that entire statement). So, that modifier is OK too.

But note that the modifier difference required a meaning difference in the main body of the sentence. Choice (B) reads "creatures..were suffering because food supplies were dwindling," a logical statement, and close to the meaning in the original sentence. Choice (C) reads "creatures..were suffering because of food supplies." Choice (C) is less logical--the creatures were suffering because they had food supplies? or because there was something wrong with the food supplies they had?
Emily Sledge
Instructor
ManhattanGMAT
mridul12
 
 

Re: GMAT Prep 1 SC

by mridul12 Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:13 am

What is wrong with choice A ?



esledge Wrote:Between (B) and (C), there are two related issues, one of which is the determinant of the correct answer: 1) modifier choice, and 2) meaning.

Choice (C) uses the relative pronoun "which" to introduce the modifying phrase "which were dwindling..." Anytime you see "which," you should check to make sure it is correctly refering to the noun immediately preceding the comma, in this case "food supplies." So, that modifier is OK...it is the food supplies that were dwindling.

Choice (B) uses the modifying phrase "possibly as a result of an increase..." This phrase refers to the entire clause "food supplies were dwindling" (i.e., it gives an explanation for that entire statement). So, that modifier is OK too.

But note that the modifier difference required a meaning difference in the main body of the sentence. Choice (B) reads "creatures..were suffering because food supplies were dwindling," a logical statement, and close to the meaning in the original sentence. Choice (C) reads "creatures..were suffering because of food supplies." Choice (C) is less logical--the creatures were suffering because they had food supplies? or because there was something wrong with the food supplies they had?
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: GMAT Prep 1 SC

by RonPurewal Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:59 am

mridul12 Wrote:What is wrong with choice A ?



esledge Wrote:Between (B) and (C), there are two related issues, one of which is the determinant of the correct answer: 1) modifier choice, and 2) meaning.

Choice (C) uses the relative pronoun "which" to introduce the modifying phrase "which were dwindling..." Anytime you see "which," you should check to make sure it is correctly refering to the noun immediately preceding the comma, in this case "food supplies." So, that modifier is OK...it is the food supplies that were dwindling.

Choice (B) uses the modifying phrase "possibly as a result of an increase..." This phrase refers to the entire clause "food supplies were dwindling" (i.e., it gives an explanation for that entire statement). So, that modifier is OK too.

But note that the modifier difference required a meaning difference in the main body of the sentence. Choice (B) reads "creatures..were suffering because food supplies were dwindling," a logical statement, and close to the meaning in the original sentence. Choice (C) reads "creatures..were suffering because of food supplies." Choice (C) is less logical--the creatures were suffering because they had food supplies? or because there was something wrong with the food supplies they had?


The literal interpretation of A is that the food supplies themselves were the result of increasing sea surface temps -- and, worse, that the creatures were "suffering from ... food supplies" (!!)

Their suffering was caused not by the (dwindling) food supplies themselves, of course, but by the diminution of those supplies.
there is no choice with a NOUN to represent "dwindling" / "diminution", so we need something else that carries the same meaning -- here, "because supplies were dwindling".
rschunti
 
 

Need further clarifications

by rschunti Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:38 pm

Why in option "A" modifier "The study of the food resources.." is not modifying whole phrase "from dwindling food supplies"
Can "A" be fixed by just replacing this modifier "The study of the food resources" with this one "possibly as a result of an increase.."?

Why in option "B" this modifier "possibly as a result of an increase.." is modifying this clause "because food supplies were dwindling".
What are the rules? Pls can you explain with some examples?
Thanks
RSCHUNTI
 
 

Sorry for my typing errors in above. Pls read it as below

by RSCHUNTI Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:44 pm

Sorry for my typing errors in above. Pls read it as below:-

Why in option "A" modifier "possibly resulting from increasing.." is not modifying whole phrase "from dwindling food supplies". Why the interpretation could be that food supply is causing sea temperature to increase?

Can "A" be fixed by just replacing this modifier "possibly resulting from increasing.." with this one "possibly as a result of an increase.."?


Why in option "B" this modifier "possibly as a result of an increase in" is modifying this clause "because food supplies were dwindling".

What are the rules? Pls can you explain with some examples?
Thanks
Anon
 
 

Bump

by Anon Thu May 01, 2008 5:11 pm

Bump...
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: Bump

by RonPurewal Mon May 05, 2008 4:28 am

Anon Wrote:Bump...


if you see comma + 'resulting from', you can eliminate it.

you can have it as an adjective modifier, without a comma - as in the following sentence:
the flooding resulting from the abnormally strong storms had left six inches of standing water in the street.
note that the boldface is an adjective modifier, modifying 'flooding'.

...but its meaning clashes fundamentally with the usage of comma + __ing.
if something results from 'X', then 'X' happens FIRST.
in the structure 'sentence + , + __ing...', the modifier NEVER describes something that happens before the main sentence.

--

choice b features the standard use of a prepositional phrase to describe an action:
'(possibly) as a result of', like other prepositional phrases that follow commas, serves to modify the action of the preceding clause (i.e., were dwindling). this is totally standard usage, so make sure you know it.
Pathik
 
 

by Pathik Tue May 06, 2008 1:45 am

This is not to nit pick , but just to make sure I got the concept(Stacey's rule) right.

the flooding resulting from the abnormally strong storms had left six inches of standing water in the street

is this sentence, you wrote above with two ing in a row, correct.

By Stacey -- The key in the first question is that "Following gradually declining" pairs a participle (which ends in -ing) with a gerund (which also ends in -ing). Two -ing's in a row is a no-no.
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/og- ... t1585.html

I had hard time understanding above OG problem, so I had memorized above rule very well so as soon as I saw this sentence above I thought about two ing rule. Ron, This is in no way to nitpick above sentence.

Pathik
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

by RonPurewal Wed May 07, 2008 6:54 am

Pathik Wrote:This is not to nit pick , but just to make sure I got the concept(Stacey's rule) right.

the flooding resulting from the abnormally strong storms had left six inches of standing water in the street

is this sentence, you wrote above with two ing in a row, correct.

By Stacey -- The key in the first question is that "Following gradually declining" pairs a participle (which ends in -ing) with a gerund (which also ends in -ing). Two -ing's in a row is a no-no.
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/og- ... t1585.html

I had hard time understanding above OG problem, so I had memorized above rule very well so as soon as I saw this sentence above I thought about two ing rule. Ron, This is in no way to nitpick above sentence.

Pathik


hmmm.. ok, well, replace 'flooding' with 'floods' and the point stands.

i'm not sure whether this concept is formalized, or whether it has a name, but 'flooding' seems (to my native-speaker senses) to be more of a pure noun, rather than a gerund, in the above sentence. there are other -ing nouns that do this, as well:
swimming is my favorite sport
etc.
ayushrastogi82
Students
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:19 am
 

Re: Bump

by ayushrastogi82 Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:57 pm

RonPurewal Wrote:choice b features the standard use of a prepositional phrase as an adverb modifier:
'(possibly) as a result of', like other prepositional phrases that follow commas, serves to modify the action of the preceding clause (i.e., were dwindling). this is totally standard usage, so make sure you know it.


I understand that any prepositional phrase that either follow comma or doesn't follow comma serves to modify the action of the preceding clause.

e.g. both below mentioned sentences are correct wherein in both 'possibly as a result of an' is modifying the preceding clause.

creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, possibly as a result of an increase in temperature

creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling possibly as a result of an increase in temperature

Am i correct?
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: Bump

by RonPurewal Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:25 am

ayushrastogi82 Wrote:
RonPurewal Wrote:choice b features the standard use of a prepositional phrase as an adverb modifier:
'(possibly) as a result of', like other prepositional phrases that follow commas, serves to modify the action of the preceding clause (i.e., were dwindling). this is totally standard usage, so make sure you know it.


I understand that any prepositional phrase that either follow comma or doesn't follow comma serves to modify the action of the preceding clause.


nope. some of them do, but some of them act as adjectival modifiers (i.e., modifying nouns). this totally depends on context; there's no formula based on parts of speech alone.

for instance:
I went to see the royal palace in Brussels. --> in this case, "in Brussels" modifies just "the royal palace", not the whole clause.
I went to see the royal palace in 1995. --> in this case, "in 1995" modifies the whole clause.

e.g. both below mentioned sentences are correct wherein in both 'possibly as a result of an' is modifying the preceding clause.

creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, possibly as a result of an increase in temperature

creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling possibly as a result of an increase in temperature

Am i correct?


the second is wrong. if you modify the prepositional phrase itself with an adverb, then you must place a comma beforehand.
gmatprep14
Students
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:37 am
 

Re: A study of food resources in the North Pacific between 1989

by gmatprep14 Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:15 pm

if you see comma + 'resulting from', you can eliminate it.

you can have it as an adjective modifier, without a comma - as in the following sentence:
the flooding resulting from the abnormally strong storms had left six inches of standing water in the street.
note that the boldface is an adjective modifier, modifying 'flooding'.

...but its meaning clashes fundamentally with the usage of comma + __ing.
if something results from 'X', then 'X' happens FIRST.
in the structure 'sentence + , + __ing...', the modifier NEVER describes something that happens before the main sentence.


Well I had memorized this rule until I saw this question in MGMAT tests

Poor weather in early 14th-century Europe created meager harvests, causing the result of mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as many as 15 percent of the population.
causing the result of mass starvation in some areas and the elimination as many as
causing the result of mass starvation in some areas and eliminating as much as
resulting in mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as much as
and resulted in mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as many as
causing mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as many as

OA - C . This might mean either the rule is not true or there can be exceptions to the rule . Instructors , please explain .

I think I have seen similar thing in a gmatprep Q too. However my question is : How to discard option A in the original sentence
herogmat
Students
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:19 am
 

Re: A study of food resources in the North Pacific between 1989

by herogmat Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:59 pm

gmatprep14 Wrote:
if you see comma + 'resulting from', you can eliminate it.

you can have it as an adjective modifier, without a comma - as in the following sentence:
the flooding resulting from the abnormally strong storms had left six inches of standing water in the street.
note that the boldface is an adjective modifier, modifying 'flooding'.

...but its meaning clashes fundamentally with the usage of comma + __ing.
if something results from 'X', then 'X' happens FIRST.
in the structure 'sentence + , + __ing...', the modifier NEVER describes something that happens before the main sentence.


Well I had memorized this rule until I saw this question in MGMAT tests

Poor weather in early 14th-century Europe created meager harvests, causing the result of mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as many as 15 percent of the population.
causing the result of mass starvation in some areas and the elimination as many as
causing the result of mass starvation in some areas and eliminating as much as
resulting in mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as much as
and resulted in mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as many as
causing mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as many as

OA - C . This might mean either the rule is not true or there can be exceptions to the rule . Instructors , please explain .

I think I have seen similar thing in a gmatprep Q too. However my question is : How to discard option A in the original sentence


Good point... I am also having the same doubt . Can somebody please help?
herogmat
Students
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:19 am
 

Re: A study of food resources in the North Pacific between 1989

by herogmat Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:46 pm

bump...
can anybody please answer the above doubt ...