New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 Model year included safer Air bag, which, unlike previous Air bags, eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated, and making an already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire.
A.inflated, and making
B.inflated, so that it could make
C.inflated and made
D.inflated and make
E.inflated to make
[spoiler]OA: Debated between D and E:[/spoiler]
I have thought in the following way:
eliminated the possibility [that a burst of smoke would appear (when the bag inflated )to make already terrified passenger think the car was on fire
Hence, in my opinion the answer is E.
What do the experts think?
please explain.
Thanks.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
A good SC, Need experts' help!
This topic has expert replies
-
gmat_perfect
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
- Thanked: 127 times
- Followed by:14 members
-
niksworth
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:44 am
- Thanked: 70 times
- Followed by:6 members
Going by your logic, the core of the sentence would be - Safer Air bags eliminated the possibility to make the passenger think something.
Here, possibility to is unidiomatic. Correct idiom is possibility of.
In that form, the correct sentence would be - Safer Air bags eliminated the possibility of making the passenger think something.
D is right. D says - Safer Air bags eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated and make already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.
Note the perfect parallelism in play here (in red).
Here, possibility to is unidiomatic. Correct idiom is possibility of.
In that form, the correct sentence would be - Safer Air bags eliminated the possibility of making the passenger think something.
D is right. D says - Safer Air bags eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated and make already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.
Note the perfect parallelism in play here (in red).
scio me nihil scire
-
FightWithGMAT
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:3 members
IMO E.gmat_perfect wrote:New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 Model year included safer Air bag, which, unlike previous Air bags, eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated, and making an already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire.
A.inflated, and making
B.inflated, so that it could make
C.inflated and made
D.inflated and make
E.inflated to make
[spoiler]OA: Debated between D and E:[/spoiler]
I have thought in the following way:
eliminated the possibility [that a burst of smoke would appear (when the bag inflated )to make already terrified passenger think the car was on fire
Hence, in my opinion the answer is E.
What do the experts think?
please explain.
Thanks.
Th e2 ideas are related. Terrifying of passenger is not a separate idea but is an affect of bursting of smoke.
-
gmat_perfect
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
- Thanked: 127 times
- Followed by:14 members
niksworth wrote:Going by your logic, the core of the sentence would be - Safer Air bags eliminated the possibility to make the passenger think something.
Here, possibility to is unidiomatic. Correct idiom is possibility of.
In that form, the correct sentence would be - Safer Air bags eliminated the possibility of making the passenger think something.
D is right. D says - Safer Air bags eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated and make already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.
Note the perfect parallelism in play here (in red).
====> Possibility to" is NOT wrong. I have seen such uses in New York Times.
Examples:
No, the gulf oil spill is not Obama's Katrina. It's his 9/11 - and it is disappointing to see him making the same mistake George W. Bush made with his 9/11. Sept. 11, 2001, was one of those rare seismic events that create the possibility to energize the country to do something really important and lasting that is too hard to do in normal times.
Then, as now, most of the region relied on Russia for its oil and gas. The pipelines built by the former Soviet Union during the 1960s and 1970s ran from east to west, tying the Soviet empire into a tight and seamless bind. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, energy supplies to Eastern Europe were reliable and heavily subsidized. There was neither the possibility to diversify nor the need to.
So Russia - here is a possibility to make something happen. Here is a possibility to finally do something to the utmost.
I know the following two are more often used:
==> Possibility THAT + Clause
==> Possibility of + NOUN
Thanks for the reply.
-
paes
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:1 members
IMO D
D is saying that : 2 possibilities are eliminated :
a burst of smoke
1) would appear when the bag inflated, AND
2) would make already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire.
E says :
eliminated the possibility that :
a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated to make already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire.
when you say : to make already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire. "
it seems that it was the purpose of the act, which doesn't make sense here.
D is saying that : 2 possibilities are eliminated :
a burst of smoke
1) would appear when the bag inflated, AND
2) would make already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire.
E says :
eliminated the possibility that :
a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated to make already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire.
when you say : to make already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire. "
it seems that it was the purpose of the act, which doesn't make sense here.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
e-GMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: US
- Thanked: 527 times
- Followed by:227 members
Original Sentence
...air bag, which eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated, and making an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.
The intended meaning of the original sentence is that the safer air bags eliminated a certain possibility. It further explains this possibility - a burst of smoke would appear when bag inflated. And this action would make an already terrified passenger to think that the car was on fire.
I will only concentrate on the meaning aspect of this sentence since you have doubts pertaining to the meaning.
D.inflated and make
E.inflated to make
Between choices D and E, clear D communicates the intended meaning. It states the correct sequence of events and connects the two verbs using "and". When the bag inflated, a burst of smoke would appear and make an already terrified...
Choice E is grammatically correct but it changes the intended meaning of the sentence. The sentence now implies that the purpose of smoke to appear was to make the passenger think that the car was on fire. The original sentence does not intend to establish this purpose or intent.
Thus, Choice D should be the correct answer since it communicates the intended meaning without introducing any grammatical errors.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Payal
...air bag, which eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated, and making an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.
The intended meaning of the original sentence is that the safer air bags eliminated a certain possibility. It further explains this possibility - a burst of smoke would appear when bag inflated. And this action would make an already terrified passenger to think that the car was on fire.
I will only concentrate on the meaning aspect of this sentence since you have doubts pertaining to the meaning.
D.inflated and make
E.inflated to make
Between choices D and E, clear D communicates the intended meaning. It states the correct sequence of events and connects the two verbs using "and". When the bag inflated, a burst of smoke would appear and make an already terrified...
Choice E is grammatically correct but it changes the intended meaning of the sentence. The sentence now implies that the purpose of smoke to appear was to make the passenger think that the car was on fire. The original sentence does not intend to establish this purpose or intent.
Thus, Choice D should be the correct answer since it communicates the intended meaning without introducing any grammatical errors.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Payal
Register for free live sessions
Sentence Correction: Get 4 free video lessons, 50 practice questions
Critical Reasoning workshop: Get 4 free video lessons, 40 practice questions
Reading Comprehension: Get 2 free video lessons and 2 free eBooks
Free Strategy Session: Key strategy to score 760
Success Stories
V27 to V42 | V28 to V48 | V25 to V38 | More Success Stories
Sentence Correction: Get 4 free video lessons, 50 practice questions
Critical Reasoning workshop: Get 4 free video lessons, 40 practice questions
Reading Comprehension: Get 2 free video lessons and 2 free eBooks
Free Strategy Session: Key strategy to score 760
Success Stories
V27 to V42 | V28 to V48 | V25 to V38 | More Success Stories
-
prepgmat09
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:06 am
- Thanked: 14 times
- Followed by:1 members
- GMAT Score:770
I agree with paes. infinitives are used to show the intention.
e.g.
1. Airline workers went on a strike to cause a major delay in air traffic.
This sentence means that workers in fact intended to cause an air traffic delay.
2. Airline workers went on a strike, causing a major delay in air traffic .
Here, the workers just went on strike. Traffic delay was a consequence that was not intended.
Coming to the sentence under discussion:
New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 Model year included safer Air bag, which, unlike previous Air bags, eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated, and making an already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire.
New items eliminated the following two possibilities:
1. a burst of smoke would appear
and subsequently this burst of smoke
2. would make an already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire
Neither the "smoke" nor the "bag" intends to "make an already terrified passenger think". So, infinitive construction is not correct.
D makes this clear by making the two verbs "appear" and "make" parallel and joining the two verbs using the conjuction "and". The common subject of these two verbs is "smoke", and this makes sense.
IMO D.
e.g.
1. Airline workers went on a strike to cause a major delay in air traffic.
This sentence means that workers in fact intended to cause an air traffic delay.
2. Airline workers went on a strike, causing a major delay in air traffic .
Here, the workers just went on strike. Traffic delay was a consequence that was not intended.
Coming to the sentence under discussion:
New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 Model year included safer Air bag, which, unlike previous Air bags, eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated, and making an already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire.
New items eliminated the following two possibilities:
1. a burst of smoke would appear
and subsequently this burst of smoke
2. would make an already terrified passenger think the car was on Fire
Neither the "smoke" nor the "bag" intends to "make an already terrified passenger think". So, infinitive construction is not correct.
D makes this clear by making the two verbs "appear" and "make" parallel and joining the two verbs using the conjuction "and". The common subject of these two verbs is "smoke", and this makes sense.
IMO D.
