Sentence Correction

In January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico, leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of the city's beaches.
A) leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of
B) with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted
C) and its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, polluting
D) while it leaked its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean and caused the pollution of
E) so that its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, and they were polluting


I tried a lot but couldn't understood this one properly.


Need help!

Instructors Please help!

vishalwin wrote:In January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico, leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of the city's beaches.

A) leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of
B) with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted
C) and its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, polluting
D) while it leaked its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean and caused the pollution of
E) so that its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, and they were polluting

A VERBing modifier implies CONCURRENT ACTION: an action happening AT THE SAME TIME as the main verb.
A: An oil barge ran aground, leaking its cargo.
B: An oil barge ran aground, with its cargo...leaking into the ocean.
In these options, the usage of leaking implies that the cargo was LEAKING at the same time as the barge RAN AGROUND.
Not the intended sequence.
The intended sequence is as follows:
The barge ran aground FIRST.
AFTER the barge ran aground, its cargo leaked into the ocean.
Eliminate A and B.

D: An oil barge ran aground, while it leaked its cargo.
Here, the usage of while implies that the barge LEAKED its cargo at the same time as it RAN AGROUND.
Not the intended sequence.
The intended sequence is as follows:
The barge ran aground FIRST.
AFTER the barge ran aground, its cargo leaked into the ocean.
Eliminate D.

Generally, so that serves to express the PURPOSE of a preceding action.
E: An oil barge ran aground...so that its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked.
Here, the usage of so that implies that the barge PURPOSEFULLY ran aground SO THAT the cargo leaked.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate E.

The correct answer is C.

Hello Mitch,

Why can't we say that the barge ran aground and simultaneously leaked ?
I mean I understand there are Concurrent Actions but it leaked itself while it ran aground -I mean that can also be possible?

Thank you.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

vishalwin wrote:In January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico, leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of the city's beaches.

A) leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of
B) with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted
C) and its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, polluting
D) while it leaked its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean and caused the pollution of
E) so that its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, and they were polluting

A VERBing modifier implies CONCURRENT ACTION: an action happening AT THE SAME TIME as the main verb.
A: An oil barge ran aground, leaking its cargo.
B: An oil barge ran aground, with its cargo...leaking into the ocean.
In these options, the usage of leaking implies that the cargo was LEAKING at the same time as the barge RAN AGROUND.
Not the intended sequence.
The intended sequence is as follows:
The barge ran aground FIRST.
AFTER the barge ran aground, its cargo leaked into the ocean.
Eliminate A and B.

D: An oil barge ran aground, while it leaked its cargo.
Here, the usage of while implies that the barge LEAKED its cargo at the same time as it RAN AGROUND.
Not the intended sequence.
The intended sequence is as follows:
The barge ran aground FIRST.
AFTER the barge ran aground, its cargo leaked into the ocean.
Eliminate D.

Generally, so that serves to express the PURPOSE of a preceding action.
E: An oil barge ran aground...so that its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked.
Here, the usage of so that implies that the barge PURPOSEFULLY ran aground SO THAT the cargo leaked.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate E.

The correct answer is C.

Neilsheth2 wrote:Why can't we say that the barge ran aground and simultaneously leaked ?
I mean I understand there are Concurrent Actions but it leaked itself while it ran aground -I mean that can also be possible?

A COMMA + VERBing action must be a COMPONENT of the preceding action.
Here, an oil barge ran aground means that the barge BECAME STUCK on a piece of ground under the water.
The leaking of oil is not a component of becoming stuck.
Rather, the leaking of oil is a SEPARATE action that happens moments LATER -- when the ground under the water creates a HOLE in the ship, allowing the oil to leak.

A useful distinction:

A PHYSICAL VERB refers to a specific physical movement:
Mary HIT the ball.
John PUSHED the button.
The driver TURNED the key.

An ABSTRACT VERB does NOT refer to a specific physical movement:
Mary LEARNED a new song.
John IMPROVED every day.
The driver CONSIDERED several options.

On the GMAT, a correctly used COMMA + VERBing modifier typically involves the VERBing form of an ABSTRACT VERB.
Official examples:

Animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, PROTECTING warriors against enemy arrows and spears.
Five fledging left their nests in western Scotland this summer, BRINGING to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975.
The recent surge in the number of airplane flights has clogged the nation's air-traffic control system, LEADING to a 55-percent increase in delays at airports.
Union members are less likely than non-union members to be enrolled in lower end insurance plans that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, SPENDING less time with each.

In every case, the COMMA + VERBing modifier involves the VERBing form of an ABSTRACT verb.

Answer choice A in the SC above:
An oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean.
Here, COMMA + leaking expresses a PHYSICAL action -- a valid reason to eliminate A.

Thank you Mitch that was a great detailed analysis.

So would this also be one of the reasons to eliminate B?-Leaking in B also implies a physical action.

GMATGuruNY wrote:A useful distinction:

A PHYSICAL VERB refers to a specific physical movement:
Mary HIT the ball.
John PUSHED the button.
The driver TURNED the key.

An ABSTRACT VERB does NOT refer to a specific physical movement:
Mary LEARNED a new song.
John IMPROVED every day.
The driver CONSIDERED several options.

On the GMAT, a correctly used COMMA + VERBing modifier typically involves the VERBing form of an ABSTRACT VERB.
Official examples:

Animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, PROTECTING warriors against enemy arrows and spears.
Five fledging left their nests in western Scotland this summer, BRINGING to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975.
The recent surge in the number of airplane flights has clogged the nation's air-traffic control system, LEADING to a 55-percent increase in delays at airports.
Union members are less likely than non-union members to be enrolled in lower end insurance plans imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, SPENDING less time with each.

In every case, the COMMA + VERBing modifier involves the VERBing form of an ABSTRACT verb.

Answer choice A in the SC above:
An oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean.
Here, COMMA + leaking expresses a PHYSICAL action -- a valid reason to eliminate A.

Neilsheth2 wrote:Thank you Mitch that was a great detailed analysis.

So would this also be one of the reasons to eliminate B?-Leaking in B also implies a physical action.

No.
Leaking in B does not come under physical action whereas verb polluted does.

In option A,

In January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico, leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of the city's beaches.

Here in the given sentence, barge seems to leak cargo and cause pollution simultaneously while this is no true.

whereas in B

GMATGuruNY wrote:the usage of leaking implies that the cargo was LEAKING at the same time as the barge RAN AGROUND.
Not the intended sequence.
The intended sequence is as follows:
The barge ran aground FIRST.
AFTER the barge ran aground, its cargo leaked into the ocean.

Also as the leakage of cargo caused/resulted in pollution of beach.
both are not different but are causal in nature.

substituting B, the complete sentence is as follows

In January 1994 an oil barge

• ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico, with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and
  it polluted the city's beaches.

Here it infers that Barge ran across the ground leaking its cargo and then polluted the beach as a separate action.

Also it spoils the parallelism and implies a wrong meaning that barge polluted the beaches(sounds intentional).

I hope this helps.

In January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico, leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of the city's beaches.

A) leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of
B) with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted
C) and its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, polluting
D) while it leaked its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean and caused the pollution of
E) so that its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, and they were polluting

I would like to add some reasons why A is incorrect. In choice A, the subject, an oil barge is causing the pollution of the city's beaches. This doesn't seem logical.

As per choice A, the oil barge does 3 things: it ran aground, leaked its cargo, and simultaneously caused pollution of the city's beaches.

Whereas, C says that the oil barge ran aground and its cargo leaked into the ocean and the action of the leakage polluted the city's beaches.

I think C makes much more sense than A.


One more prob in A is the chronology, it says: An oil barge ran aground and simultaneously caused pollution.
Whereas, C implies: The cargo leaked and as a result caused pollution.

C is obviously more logical than A.

Thanks.

GMATGuruNY wrote:A useful distinction:

A PHYSICAL VERB refers to a specific physical movement:
Mary HIT the ball.
John PUSHED the button.
The driver TURNED the key.

An ABSTRACT VERB does NOT refer to a specific physical movement:
Mary LEARNED a new song.
John IMPROVED every day.
The driver CONSIDERED several options.

On the GMAT, a correctly used COMMA + VERBing modifier typically involves the VERBing form of an ABSTRACT VERB.
Official examples:

Animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, PROTECTING warriors against enemy arrows and spears.
Five fledging left their nests in western Scotland this summer, BRINGING to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975.
The recent surge in the number of airplane flights has clogged the nation's air-traffic control system, LEADING to a 55-percent increase in delays at airports.
Union members are less likely than non-union members to be enrolled in lower end insurance plans that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, SPENDING less time with each.

In every case, the COMMA + VERBing modifier involves the VERBing form of an ABSTRACT verb.

Answer choice A in the SC above:
An oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean.
Here, COMMA + leaking expresses a PHYSICAL action -- a valid reason to eliminate A.

Hello Mitch

Your posts are really wonderful. Thanks for everything! I have a few questions related to this question in this post.

is that distinction of physical verbs from abstract verbs a grammatically thing with respect to verbing modifiers or is it just specific to gmat sentences?

How can we tell that the intended meaning of the original sentence was to express the idea of running aground first and leaking the oil second? it might have been the case that running aground and leaking was happening simultaneously or that the running aground of the ship might have led to the leakage?

Can you please clarify this stuff?

Also, can you please give links to some of your posts on the concept of parallelism.?

Thanks

Hello Mitch

Your posts are really wonderful. Thanks for everything! I have a few questions related to this question in this post.

is that distinction of physical verbs from abstract verbs a grammatically thing with respect to verbing modifiers or is it just specific to gmat sentences?

Our concern here is the GMAT.
As the examples in my post above illustrate, a COMMA + VERBing modifier on the GMAT generally serves to express an ABSTRACT action that is a component of the preceding action.
Outside the GMAT, this rule might not apply.

How can we tell that the intended meaning of the original sentence was to express the idea of running aground first and leaking the oil second? it might have been the case that running aground and leaking was happening simultaneously or that the running aground of the ship might have led to the leakage?

Common sense tells us that the act of running aground led to the leakage.
But the act of leaking is not an abstract action and thus cannot be expressed in the form of a COMMA + VERBing modifier.

Also, can you please give links to some of your posts on the concept of parallelism.?

For a list of relevant posts, enter "parallel forms" and "gmatguruny" into the BTG search bar.