pratyoosh wrote:Hello,

Can anyone explain the resolution to the below SC problem:

Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper crops, sugar beet and walnut in the region, but in the 1880s, more
effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.

A. Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper crops, sugar beet and walnut in the region, but in the 1880s, more
effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.
B. Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region, but in the 1880s, more
effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.
C. Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region, but more effective pestcontrol
methods that were introduced in the 1880s saved the citrus industry.
D. In the 1880s, pests destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region and more
effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.
E. In the 1880s, more effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry from what was destroying grape,
celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region.

First, in the list of Crops the word "crops" should follow at the End of the List.
Thus, Discard A.

Second, Crops destroyed by pests is an older event to the crops being saved.
Past event to another past event should be in Past Participle Form (Usage of HAD).
Thus, Discard D and E.

Between B and C, B is more concise.

As per meaning B says crops were saved in 1880 and C says crops are saved by the methods introduced in 1880. So C actually changes the intended meaning.
(intended meaning is :"When the crops were saved as earlier events says about their destruction referring to a previous time to 1880") .
C changes the same by saying that methods for the savior introduced in 1880 but there is vague idea about the time when the crops were saved.

IMO B

I choose B.

Here's why:

A) There is a long list of crops,so my first reaction was to check whether that list is ||. Unfortunately it is not.

Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper crops, sugar beet and walnut in the region is wrong.

grape, celery, chili pepper crops , sugar beet and walnut are all names of crops.You can either use the word crop with all the items in the list or you can distribute the word crops to all of them.

In other words you either say X crop, Y crop, and Z crop or say X,Y, and Z crops.

Another mistake is S-V agreement.You can't use plural crops with singular (chili pepper).

B) It follows the rules of || is correctly, correctly places the time 1880's, and conveys the actual meaning of the sentence.

C) It corrects all the mistakes made in A but changes the meaning.

In A it is certain that the more effective methods that were introduced in the industry saved the crops in the 1880's. Also, A does not mention when the methods were introduced.It simply states when the citrus industry was saved.

C says (by using the that relative pronoun and modifying methods) that the methods were introduced in 1880's, but it does not say when the citrus industry was saved. It could have been saved in 1880's 1900's or 2000's.hence incorrect.

D) D completely changes the meaning of the sentence. It says,unlike A, that the grapes,....,crops were destroyed by pests in 1880's. A says that the crops,prior to 1880's, used to be destroyed by pests.But D says that were destroyed by pests only in 1880's and not prior to that.

Another,more subtle mistake,made by D is joining of 2 IC's with and rather than ,and. As a result, D breaks the rule of || ism too. You can't make a verb and a noun ||. Here there is an attempt at making the verb (destroyed) || to the noun pest-control methods.

E) It makes the mistake of using the demonstrative pronoun "what" in place of a relative pronoun ( such as who,whom,whose,that,and which).What cannot have any antecedent.Even if it did,what does "what" refer to? pests are not mentioned in the sentence.

This sentence tests these following concepts:

modifier placement ( includes meaning)
parallelism
pronouns
sentence structure.

Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper crops, sugar beet and walnut in the region, but in the 1880s, more
effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.

A. Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper crops, sugar beet and walnut in the region, but in the 1880s, more effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.

B. Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region, but in the 1880s, more effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.

C. Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region, but more effective pest control methods that were introduced in the 1880s saved the citrus industry.

D. In the 1880s, pests destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region and more
effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.

E. In the 1880s, more effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry from what was destroying grape,
celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region.

The logic:

Skeleton of the sentence:

Pests had destroyed X, Y crops, Z, M and N, but in the 1880s, more effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.

--> If X, Y, Z, M, and N are all crops, we should use "X, Y, Z, M, and N crops"

Therefore, the only problem in the original sentence is the use of "crops".

=> The original sentence never mentioned when more effective methods have been introduced; therefore, introduction of new concept in the sentence will change the intended meaning of the sentence.
-> This kills C. Besides, "methods that were introduced" can be replaced by more concisely "methods introduced".

Option D is a run on sentence. COMMA has not been used before "AND".

E is wrong because it changes the meaning of the sentence. It means that the industry destroyed the crops.

Answer is B.