vikram4689 wrote:Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

a. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas
b. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does
c. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas
d. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does
e. much more efficient at producing heat than natural gas

OA B but i think question is INCORRECT as B modifies whole clause and produces a nonsensical meaning

Cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

Main elements of the clause " cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common ..., producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

IMO PRODUCING...GAS modifies the clause "cooking ranges (that) consume fossil fuels AND therefore should be placed immediately after FULES (eg: consume fossil fuels, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas, are more common ...resonance). But it does not matter if we look slighly deeper:

If we just look at COOKING RANGES ARE FAR...COMMON than the modifier will appear incorrect. But just the COOKING RANGES is not the main subject, rather COOKING RANGES THAT CONSUME FOSSIL FUELS is. When we consider this as the main subject then the modifier will appear OK (not the best).

Please underline the question!

I went with A

Need experts help here.

The real doubt is between B & D.
But in D, magnetic resonance, which produce heat ... is incorrect. It should be Produces.
Hence go with B.

vikram4689 wrote:Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

a. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas
b. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does
c. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas
d. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does
e. much more efficient at producing heat than natural gas

OA B but i think question is INCORRECT as B modifies whole clause and produces a nonsensical meaning

patanjali.purpose wrote: Cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

Main elements of the clause " cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common ..., producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

IMO PRODUCING...GAS modifies the clause "cooking ranges (that) consume fossil fuels AND therefore should be placed immediately after FULES (eg: consume fossil fuels, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas, are more common ...resonance). But it does not matter if we look slighly deeper:

If we just look at COOKING RANGES ARE FAR...COMMON than the modifier will appear incorrect. But just the COOKING RANGES is not the main subject, rather COOKING RANGES THAT CONSUME FOSSIL FUELS is. When we consider this as the main subject then the modifier will appear OK (not the best).

Hi Patanjali,
There are 2 reasons why i think that this sentence is incorrect

First, "producing..." is an adverbial modifier and nonsensically states that producing heat more efficiently is the result of cooking gas(fossil fuel) being more common

Second, i think the intention of the sentence is to state that
a) fossil fuel cooking gas is more common that magnetic resonance cooking gas and that
b) magnetic resonance cooking gas (not fossil fuel cooking gas) produces heat more efficiently than cooking gas running on natural gas.

But this sentence is not able to convey this meaning in proper sense. If intention is to say that fossil fuel cooking gas produces heat more efficiently than cooking gas running on natural gas then that would highlight a +ve aspect of fossil fuel cooking gas BUT we want to show that fossil fuel cooking gas is bad in comparison to magnetic resonance cooking gas

This is my opinion, I may be wrong... open to discussion

vikram4689 wrote:

patanjali.purpose wrote: Cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

Main elements of the clause " cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common ..., producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

IMO PRODUCING...GAS modifies the clause "cooking ranges (that) consume fossil fuels AND therefore should be placed immediately after FULES (eg: consume fossil fuels, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas, are more common ...resonance). But it does not matter if we look slighly deeper:

If we just look at COOKING RANGES ARE FAR...COMMON than the modifier will appear incorrect. But just the COOKING RANGES is not the main subject, rather COOKING RANGES THAT CONSUME FOSSIL FUELS is. When we consider this as the main subject then the modifier will appear OK (not the best).

Hi Patanjali,
There are 2 reasons why i think that this sentence is incorrect

First, "producing..." is an adverbial modifier and nonsensically states that producing heat more efficiently is the result of cooking gas(fossil fuel) being more common

Second, i think the intention of the sentence is to state that
a) fossil fuel cooking gas is more common that magnetic resonance cooking gas and that
b) magnetic resonance cooking gas (not fossil fuel cooking gas) produces heat more efficiently than cooking gas running on natural gas.

But this sentence is not able to convey this meaning in proper sense. If intention is to say that fossil fuel cooking gas produces heat more efficiently than cooking gas running on natural gas then that would highlight a +ve aspect of fossil fuel cooking gas BUT we want to show that fossil fuel cooking gas is bad in comparison to magnetic resonance cooking gas

This is my opinion, I may be wrong... open to discussion

In order to explain, lets analyze the original sentence

Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

Note the sentence starts with "Even in this age of conservation". Why does the sentence uses this phrase. Its because when the entire world is talking about reducing green house gases and depletion of fossil fuels why are we still using fossil fuels.

Main clause is "COOKING RANGES (that consume fossil fuels) ARE MORE COMMON THAN COOKING RANGES (that reply on MAGNETIC RESONANCE).

The last modifiers (ADVERBIAL MODIFIER or COMMA VERBING MODIFIER) goes on to explain WHY "COOKING RANGES (that consume fossil fuels) ARE MORE COMMON" - that is WHEN EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT CONSERVATION WHY USE OF COOKING RANGES (that consume fossil fuels) ARE MORE COMMON!!! This modifier explains the reason - THEY ARE MORE COMMON BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE EFFICIENT.

Therefore,

vikram4689 wrote:First, "producing..." is an adverbial modifier and nonsensically states that producing heat more efficiently is the result of cooking gas(fossil fuel) being more common

AGREE

vikram4689 wrote: Second, i think the intention of the sentence is to state that
a) fossil fuel cooking gas is more common that magnetic resonance cooking gas and that

AGREE

vikram4689 wrote:b) magnetic resonance cooking gas (not fossil fuel cooking gas) produces heat more efficiently than cooking gas running on natural gas.

DISAGREE as I have tried to explain above.

Hope it helps

The last modifiers (ADVERBIAL MODIFIER or COMMA VERBING MODIFIER) goes on to explain WHY "COOKING RANGES (that consume fossil fuels) ARE MORE COMMON" - that is WHEN EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT CONSERVATION WHY USE OF COOKING RANGES (that consume fossil fuels) ARE MORE COMMON!!! This modifier explains the reason - THEY ARE MORE COMMON BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE EFFICIENT.

If this is the case shouldn't the last modifier be producing heat more efficiently than magnetic resonance because 2 entities that we are comparing are fossil fuel and magnetic resonance. If we have to give reason for increased efficiency then we will use one of the 2 entities that we compared earlier. Why do add another entity - natural gas- with whom we haven't compared earlier.
Moreover we can compare only entities at one time but with above meaning we are comparing 3 different entities saying A is more common than B because A is more efficient than C

b) magnetic resonance cooking gas (not fossil fuel cooking gas) produces heat more efficiently than cooking gas running on natural gas.
DISAGREE as I have tried to explain above

In fact, Natural gas itself is a fossil fuel. So wouldn't below sentence be somewhat awkward as fossil fuel includes natural gas as well.
cooking gas running on fossil fuel produces heat more efficiently than cooking gas running on natural gas

Open to discussion ...


Few points to discuss
1. cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels,producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does, are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance

I haven't seen any such construction in which a relative clause modifier is modifier by verb-ing modifier, so i feel it is awkward. Please share the question if you came across any such construction.

Even if above construction is correct, aren't we comparing wrong entities - cooking ranges consume vs natural gas does

my 2 cents:

(A) wrong comparison. The sentence is comparing heat produced by fossil fuel to natural gas (itself). The intended meaning is to compare 'heat' produced by fossil fuel to 'heat' produced by natural gas
(C) wrong placement of "which". It is not resonance that produce(s) heat more efficiently.
(D) same error as in C
(E) wrong comparison. Also, I am not sure if 'more efficient at' is the correct idiom.