by mohitkant Mon May 03, 2010 2:32 am
Hi Stacey,
I have a query, please refer the GMAT prep question below, I am unable to justify the correct answer based on your comments.
Prospecting for gold during the California gold rush was a relatively easy task, because of erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds thrust to the surface by volcanic activity put gold literally within reach for anybody with a pan or shovel.
A. because of erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds thrust to the surface by volcanic activity put gold literally within reach for
B. because of erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and volcanic activity that thrust ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds to the surface, and putting gold literally within reach of
C. owing to erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and volcanic activity that had thrust ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds to the surface, and putting gold literally within reach of
D. since erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and volcanic activity that thrust ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds to the surface, putting gold literally within reach for
E. since erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds thrust to the surface by volcanic activity put gold literally within reach of
Answer: E
How do we justify the usage of Since in the correct option, should we not use "because" to justify the cause and effect relationship -- Prospecting for gold was an easy task because.... X..
Correct usage here should be "reach of" . Hence this rules out A and D. Usage of owing in C is incorrect. This leaves B and E.
Shouldn't erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and volcanic activity be parallel? I understand that usage of "and putting" in B is incorrect. But still have my doubts about usage of "Since" in E and the fact that "erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds thrust" in E are parallel does not make sense.
I know i am missing something obvious here...