Sentence Correction

An economic recession can result from a lowering of employment rates triggered by a
drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of
layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.
a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people
to cut consumer spending and start a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower
employment rates.
a lowering of employment rates triggered by dropping investment, which causes people
to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower
employment rates.
falling employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which cause cutbacks in
consumer spending, starting a cycle of layoffs that lead to even lower employment
rates.
falling employment rates that are triggered by a drop in investment, causing people to
cut consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs that lead back to even lower
employment rates.
falling employment rates that are triggered by a drop in investment, causing cutbacks
in consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs leading to even lower employment
rates.
[spoiler]OA: C;
Please explain how wrong choices can be eliminated[/spoiler]

Ooo tricky one, satishchandra.

Here's how we tackled it.

For this sentence, "a lowering" is not the right phrase because employment rates drop - nobody does that to them. In other words, something causes employment rates to fall, they do not act on their own. So that's how we eliminated the first two. We did not catch the error with "a lowering" until we read C though, which had the "falling" word instead - at that point, we knew that the first two were wrong.

Between the last three choices then, it came down to what was doing what to what. In other words, which thing was causing which other thing to happen? This is denoted by the use of commas, and what the "which" clause was modifying. This is a classic (if complicated) modifying phrase problem.

The accurate meaning is:

investment goes down -> employment rates fall -> consumers cut back their spending -> layoffs start -> employment rates go even lower


But Option D is saying:

investment goes down -> employment rates fall -> [consumers cut back spending AND layoffs start] -> "back"(??) to lower employment rates

The use of "and" in D screws up the cause-and-effect meaning; it ascribes the "layoffs start" as being caused by employment rates falling, which is illogical. And, the word "back" is screwy; it's not going "back" to the same employment rate, with this sequence of events, the employment rate would be lower in the end than it was in the beginning.


Option E is saying that the "cutbacks in consumer spending" are caused by the "drop in investment"; in this sentence, the "causing cutbacks" phrase is modifying the noun of "investment" which is incorrect.

So, C must be correct. And it is.

Phew! If you stayed with us for that, we're impressed.

EssaySnark

As essaysnark said. Employment rates should drop, its not tangible to lower by someone.

So, remove options having lowering A,B .

in D back is kind of awkward which says effect of falling employment rates is reason layoffs happening and causing more unemployment.

E means recession causing cutbacks in spending which is not meaningful because of CUTBACKS.

IMO C.