Sentence Correction

2001 proved to be the automaker's first losing year since 1992, when the company had lost $7.4 billion, which was primarily because of almost $7 billion in accounting charges.

(A) when the company had lost $7.4 billion, which was primarily because of

(B) when the company had lost $7.4 billion, primarily resulting from

(C) when the company lost $7.4 billion, primarily because of

(D) which is when the company lost $7.4 billion, and that was primarily because of

(E) which is when the company lost $7.4 billion, primarily resulting from

{A} - "which" issue; IGNORE
{B} - we dont need past perfect tense; IGNORE
{C}
{D} - "which is when" is awkward; IGNORE
{E} - "which is when" is awkward; IGNOrE

{C}?

Is the answer C?

What is the OA?

Option A and B can be eliminated because of the use of 'had'
option D can be eliminated because the conjunction 'and' suggests that these are two independent ideas.

I am struck between E and C. But in E which modifies 1992. I think the sentence is referring to the loss made in 2001 and not 1992 because if it is referring to the loss made in 1992 then usage of 'had' is right but this is not the case. So i go with C.

Another way to actually check the modifier is invert and read the sentence ' when the company lost $7.4 billion, primarily resulting from almost $7billion in accounting charges, 2001 proved to be the automaker's first losing year since 1992' . I feel this sentence makes sense. I think I am thinking too much. Can you share the OA and the explanation.

Thanks

IMO C

Had lost is the eliminator for A and B, because for had to be present in the sentence, two actions must happen in the past.
Which is redundant whereas when refers to the time point which in turn for the company. So, D and E are eliminated

abhasjha wrote:2001 proved to be the automaker's first losing year since 1992, when the company had lost $7.4 billion, which was primarily because of almost $7 billion in accounting charges.

(A) when the company had lost $7.4 billion, which was primarily because of

(B) when the company had lost $7.4 billion, primarily resulting from

(C) when the company lost $7.4 billion, primarily because of

(D) which is when the company lost $7.4 billion, and that was primarily because of

(E) which is when the company lost $7.4 billion, primarily resulting from

In A, which seems to refer to $7.4 billion, conveying the following nonsensical meaning:
$7.4 billion was primarily because of almost $7 billion in accounting charges.
Eliminate A.

A COMMA + VERBing modifier should refer to the nearest preceding subject.
In B and E, resulting seems to refer to the company (the nearest preceding subject), implying that the COMPANY was primarily resulting from almost $7 billion in accounting charges.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate B and E.

In D, that lacks a clear referent.
Eliminate D.

The correct answer is C.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

abhasjha wrote:2001 proved to be the automaker's first losing year since 1992, when the company had lost $7.4 billion, which was primarily because of almost $7 billion in accounting charges.

(A) when the company had lost $7.4 billion, which was primarily because of

(B) when the company had lost $7.4 billion, primarily resulting from

(C) when the company lost $7.4 billion, primarily because of

(D) which is when the company lost $7.4 billion, and that was primarily because of

(E) which is when the company lost $7.4 billion, primarily resulting from

In A, which seems to refer to $7.4 billion, conveying the following nonsensical meaning:
$7.4 billion was primarily because of almost $7 billion in accounting charges.
Eliminate A.

A COMMA + VERBing modifier should refer to the nearest preceding subject.
In B and E, resulting seems to refer to the company (the nearest preceding subject), implying that the COMPANY was primarily resulting from almost $7 billion in accounting charges.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate B and E.

In D, that lacks a clear referent.
Eliminate D.

The correct answer is C.

Hi Mitch,

Thanks for the great answer.

I remember that in one of your posts you had expemplfied past perfect. The example was 'An age, when ice sheets had existed' , this means that first there were ice sheets and then there was an age. Can I use the same logic for A and B? A and B imply that first the company had lost some amount and then there was 1992. This doesn't make sense.We want to imply that at 1992, the company lost X amount. This is how I eliminated A and B.

Is my line of thinking correct?

Thanks in advance.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

abhasjha wrote:2001 proved to be the automaker's first losing year since 1992, when the company had lost $7.4 billion, which was primarily because of almost $7 billion in accounting charges.

(A) when the company had lost $7.4 billion, which was primarily because of

(B) when the company had lost $7.4 billion, primarily resulting from

(C) when the company lost $7.4 billion, primarily because of

(D) which is when the company lost $7.4 billion, and that was primarily because of

(E) which is when the company lost $7.4 billion, primarily resulting from

In A, which seems to refer to $7.4 billion, conveying the following nonsensical meaning:
$7.4 billion was primarily because of almost $7 billion in accounting charges.
Eliminate A.

A COMMA + VERBing modifier should refer to the nearest preceding subject.
In B and E, resulting seems to refer to the company (the nearest preceding subject), implying that the COMPANY was primarily resulting from almost $7 billion in accounting charges.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate B and E.

In D, that lacks a clear referent.
Eliminate D.

The correct answer is C.

Hi Mitch,

Thanks for the great answer.

I remember that in one of your posts you had expemplfied past perfect. The example was 'An age, when ice sheets had existed' , this means that first there were ice sheets and then there was an age. Can I use the same logic for A and B? A and B imply that first the company had lost some amount and then there was 1992. This doesn't make sense.We want to imply that at 1992, the company lost X amount. This is how I eliminated A and B.

Is my line of thinking correct?

Thanks in advance.

Alchemist14 wrote: Hi Mitch,

Thanks for the great answer.

I remember that in one of your posts you had expemplfied past perfect. The example was 'An age, when ice sheets had existed' , this means that first there were ice sheets and then there was an age. Can I use the same logic for A and B? A and B imply that first the company had lost some amount and then there was 1992. This doesn't make sense.We want to imply that at 1992, the company lost X amount. This is how I eliminated A and B.

Is my line of thinking correct?

Thanks in advance.

This line of reasoning is valid.