An economic recession can result from a lowering of

[ivy]

This question is different from the one discussed on this page.

Question:

An economic recession can result from a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.
- a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and start a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.
- a lowering of employment rates triggered by dropping investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.
- falling employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which cause cutbacks in consumer spending, starting a cycle of layoffs that lead to even lower employment rates.
- falling employment rates that are triggered by a drop in investment, causing people to cut consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs that lead back to even lower employment rates.
- falling employment rates that are triggered by a drop in investment, causing cutbacks in consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs leading to even lower employment rates.

Explanation:

The original sentence contains a clause beginning with "which" that logically describes the result of lower employment rates. However, as written, this clause seems to describe the result of "a drop in investment" because "which" modifies the noun just before it. We need to find a replacement that makes the causal relationship clear. Additionally, the phrase "causes people to cut consumer spending" is wordy and somewhat illogical since the people are the consumers. A more concise way to say this would be "causes cutbacks in consumer spending." Finally, the use of "back" is redundant, as it is implied by the word "cycle". (A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence. (B) The use of "which" incorrectly suggests that "dropping investment" "causes people to cut consumer spending" when, in fact, the
employment rates cause this phenomenon. Additionally, the phrase "causes people to cut consumer spending" is wordy and the use of "back" is redundant, as it is implied by the word "cycle". (C) CORRECT. This choice makes clear, through the use of the plural verb "cause", that the employment rates are responsible for the cutbacks in spending. Further it uses the concise phrase "cutbacks in consumer spending" and eliminates the redundant word "back." (D) This choice contains the wordy phrase "causing people to cut consumer spending" and the redundant phrase "lead back." Moreover, the words "causing" and "starting" illogically refer back to the economic recession. In fact, the falling employment rates, not the economic recession, cause the cutbacks in consumer spending and start the cycle of layoffs.(E) The words "causing" and "starting" illogically refer back to the economic recession. In fact, the falling employment rates, not the economic recession, cause the cutbacks in consumer spending and start the cycle of layoffs.

My question:

How can option C be correct? How can 'which' modify 'falling employment rates'? Does not it modify the noun it touches ('a drop in investment')?


Thank you!

[jnelson0612]

ivy, what is the original source of this question? It is reminding me of something I saw in the Official Guide, but I'm not sure.

[dhingra_gaurav007]

a small query..is the above question tweaked or its an original question..

As rightly said, usage of WHICH in (C) refers to drop in investment not the employment rates..

I will still go with Option E.. as its the best amongst the lot..though usage of 'that' makes it a bit verbose..but 'causing' is correctly modifying the entire clause before it..

[tim]

yeah, we're waiting on a source before dealing with this one. if it has been tweaked, we probably won't discuss it because there's no way to tell if the question is something we might validly see on the GMAT..