IMO it's B.

A is the OA.

isn't the idiom "to allow for something", not "to allow something"?

alexdallas wrote:A is the OA.

isn't the idiom "to allow for something", not "to allow something"?

The OA is unbelievable. What is the source?

A)2005 and then to stabilize at six billion cubic feet a day, which will allow such an extraction rate at least for

"Which" can't modify "a day". If you think about the meaning you will see it's wrong. "a day" can't allow extraction rate ...
Instead, the six billion cubic feet a day IS the extraction rate.

even i felt B as right..someone plz explain why A is better than B?

i dont think alex know the OA...i think he is guessing his ans ? isnt it Alex...?
OA means..original answer..pls dont post OA if u dont know


IMO it should be B....
Crack gmat : pls post the OA along ans and hide it
...this will not create any confusion

IMO B

A seems wrong, good explanation by Spring2009

guess rest options dont need an explanation:))

someone please post the OA

I dont have the OA, but I thinkB is correct - maintains parallelism (increase vs stabilize)

I just got this question on GMATPrep exam and I confirm, OA is B

crackgmat007 wrote:The yield of natural gas from Norway�s Troll gas field is expected to increase annually until the year 2005 and then to stabilize at six billion cubic feet a day , which will allow such an extraction rate at least for 50 years� production

A. 2005 and then to stabilize at six billion cubic feet a day, which will allow such an extraction rate at least for
B. 2005 and then to stabilize at six billion cubic feet a day, an extraction rate that will allow at least
C. 2005 and then stabilizing at six billion cubic feet a day, with such an extraction rate at the least allowing
D. 2005, then stabilizing at six billion cubic feet a day, allowing such an extraction rate for at least
E. 2005, then stabilizing at six billion cubic feet a day, which will allow such an extraction rate for at least

This question is from OG - 12 and here's how it is explained :

The sentence is about predictions that Troll gas field's yield would increase until it stabilized at a particular extraction rate in 2005. The term extraction rate refers to six billion cubic feet a day, so it is redundant and confusingly circular to rename six billion cubic feet with the relative pronoun which in the subject position and then reintroduce extraction rate as the object

A The relative phrase beginning with which is nonsensical, since the pronoun reference is inaccurate, and the phrase essentially says that the extraction rate enables the extraction rate.

B Correct. The infinitive to stabilize parallels to increase; information about the six billion cubic feet a day is expressed clearly and concisely in an appositive phrase containing a relative clause (an extraction rate that will allow ... ).

C The phrasing is awkward and unclear; stabilizing is an incorrect verb form; it should be an infinitive to parallel to increase.

D Stabilizing is an incorrect verb form; it should be an infinitive to parallel to increase the subsequent phrase is awkward and confusing because it is not clear what noun allowing is supposed to modify.

E Stabilizing violates the requirement of parallelism, and which introduces a nonsensical redundancy, effectively making the claim that the extraction rate (six billion cubic feet) enables the extraction rate.

to increase... to stabilize... parallelism...

an extraction rate... term is necessary to indicate previous sentence..


IMO (B)

from the OG12 analysis (posted by Komal and confirmed by me), "which" does NOT modify
the nearest noun "day". Can someone shed more light on the grammatical usage of the
relative pronoun "which" please.

Rather, "which" modifies "an extraction rate" as we can see in the OG12 explanations.