Difficult question! - Food resources

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:55 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Difficult question! - Food resources

by metallicafan » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:23 am
A study 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

OA is B.
In my opinion, A is wrong because "possibly resulting from increasing...period" is an adverbial phrase that is modifyfing a clause, which is "creatures of the seabed were suffering...supplies". In this sense, that modifier would be ilogical because the creatures of the seabed don't result from increasing sea temperatures.

However, reading some posts written by Ron Purewal, a master jedi in the GMAT, it seems that he and his team are not so sure that the error in that choice is the error that I commented above. They believe that error is that the comma shouldn't be after supplies. But after all the discussion, they don't really know :s

I believed that the rule was clear: A participial modifier (v-ing) after a clause and a comma modifies that clause. I don't understand why the confussion, or maybe I am not seeing something that I don't see.

Also, please confirm that the participial modifier is modifiying the clause "creatures of the seabed....", and not "A study of food resources....revealed that...".

Or, maybe I am becoming more expert than Ron Purewal :P

PS. Additional question: What is the difference between "increasing sea surface temperatures" and "an increase in sea surface temperatures"? In choice C, it seems that food supplies are increasing temperature. Possibly, the same case in A. Please confirm.

Source: GMAT Prep - Old version
Source: — Sentence Correction |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:03 pm
Location: New York, USA
Thanked: 34 times
Followed by:1 members

by kartikshah » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:04 pm
Hi,

1. The comma creates confusion. Without the comma it would be clear that:
seabed creatures are suffering BECAUSE food supplies are dwindling
and
food supplies were dwindling BECAUSE sea surface temperatures are rising.
The cause and effect structure or the logical predication is clearly established.

2. Yes, given the way comma is placed after supplies and no other 'break' (eg: that) is introduced after the word 'supplies', the modifier seems misplaced.

3. Increasing sea surface temperatures and an increase in sea surface temperatures 'mean' the same but answer choice D is incorrect.
Examples:
Increasing sea surface temperatures is worrying oceanologists. (Gerund)
OR
An increase in sea surface temperatures is worrying oceanologists. (Noun Phrase)

Aside, if you are not sure how to agree gerunds and verbs, (singular or plural) you may like this link:
https://www.grammar-quizzes.com/gerund1.html

• Page 1 of 1