SC creature

This topic has expert replies
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:51 am

SC creature

by crack30 » Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:46 pm
a SC from prep

dy 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


I see it in another post, But I just post a new question
QUOTE RON--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.---quote]

en,.
en, ron say, what comma+prepositional phrase / no comma+ prepositional phrase modify depends on context, but if I can judge the meaning and I find out the clause/ noun that it modify, how can I justify whether it is correct or not? I mean I read it and know what it modify and then I can not judge ?

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:34 am
Thanked: 38 times
Followed by:1 members

by sl750 » Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:23 pm
B

that vs missing pronoun

from vs because

C is wrong, as it is suggesting that the creatures suffered because of food supplies, which is illogical. Unless there was something to modify the noun food supplies, i.e if it said, contaminated food supplies

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:51 am

by crack30 » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:37 am
en, en
I think you mean
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
compared with B, C is not clear about food supplies even though " which were dwingling..." modify food supplies, right?

Legendary Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Chennai, India
Thanked: 206 times
Followed by:43 members
GMAT Score:640

by GmatKiss » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:31 pm
What is OA?

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:52 pm
Thanked: 6 times

by sungoal » Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:45 pm
What is the difference between options A and B?

Isn't modifier "possibly resulting from" modifying "food supplies were dwindling"?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:48 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:6 members

by gunjan1208 » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:51 pm
IMO B

A shows as if food supply is the reason of disease not the scarcity.


Gunjan

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:51 am

by crack30 » Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:14 pm
yes thanks everyone, oa=B
help a lot.