Oil Leak

[schumi_gmat]

in January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico, leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of the city's beaches.

A. leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of
B. with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted
C. and its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, polluting
D. while it leaked its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean and caused the pollution
of
E. so that its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, and they were polluting.

OA-C

What is wrong with A? Can anyone throw some light on "while"?

[Domnu]

Generally, the use of "while" indicates simultaneous events... here it's not really that likely that the beaches were being polluted at the same time that the oil was being spilled; this is more of a long-term result.

[Kenen750]

Its "C". A is wrong because "oil barge RAN aground" and "leaking its cargo" are not parallel in tense. It should be "leaked" and not "leaking". "C" supports this parallelism.

[rahulsaroha]

hey...
cargo was not leaked intentionally.."a" gives us that kinda meaning...
"c" is correct..

[schumi_gmat]

Thanks Guys

[hk]

I eliminated A because of the last word. "Pollution of the beaches" is ungrammatical. Polluting the beaches is a desired construction.

@ Kenen750: I dont think your assessment is correct. Leaking is a modifying phrase and is correct in its usage.

The ship wrecked at the coast of Florida, leaking its cargo into the bay - is a correct sentence. Try substituting Leaked in this place and you'll realize your mistake.

[dumb.doofus]

Replying as I was PMed.

Just to make it sound simpler first, let's put the sentence in layman terms..

Oil Barge = Ship that carries oil
Ran Aground = got stranded on ground.. or beach..

ok now the sentence dissects into..

A ship got stranded off the coast ---- (a)
Its cargo leaked into the ocean ---- (b)
(b) caused pollution of city's beaches ---- (c)

A is incorrect because of the use of "while". While is used to show contrast and not cause.

B is incorrect too.. as it uses the participle "leaking" instead of the past tense "leaked".. remember this incidence happened in 1994.. Its a past thing..

C is perfect. Why? well, it follows how we have dissected the sentence above. First event (ship got stranded) + second event (its cargo leaked) + effect of second event (polluting city's beaches)

D Can't use "while".. as described above.

E Non-sensically means that the ship intentionally got stranded so that it could leak its cargo.. this sentence fails to show the two separate events and the cause and effect relationship as option C shows. Also, use of "they" is inappropriate.

[nsrikanthshetty]

basic active voice n passive voice knocks off.

[goelmohit2002]

A is incorrect because of the use of "while". While is used to show contrast and not cause.

Hi DD,

IMO while is used for two purposes:

1. Contrast...e.g.
Sensex fell yesterday, while Nifty rose yesterday.

2. simultaneous action....e.g.
While going to office yesterday, Mohan met his mother.

Why can't it be case of simultaneous action here ? i.e. #2......

Probably as Domnu pointed out above...shouldn't it be good enough reason ?

Here C is correct, as although it is present participle it is used to show the result....

[lunarpower]

Why can't it be case of simultaneous action here ?

not simultaneous action. one of these is the CONSEQUENCE of the other; they are not two separate events happening at the same time.

if you say "X-ing while Y-ing", then you must be describing two separate but simultaneous actions.


--

incidentally, this is an absolutely textbook-perfect case of a situation in which you should use COMMA + -ING.

for more or that particular construction, see here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/which-usage- ... tml#183920

[goelmohit2002]

Why can't it be case of simultaneous action here ?

not simultaneous action. one of these is the CONSEQUENCE of the other; they are not two separate events happening at the same time.

if you say "X-ing while Y-ing", then you must be describing two separate but simultaneous actions.


--

incidentally, this is an absolutely textbook-perfect case of a situation in which you should use COMMA + -ING.

for more or that particular construction, see here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/which-usage- ... tml#183920

Thanks Ron !!

Would it have been correct to say i.e. removing "while" from A ?

"leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, causing the pollution of"

[lunarpower]

Would it have been correct to say i.e. removing "while" from A ?

"leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, causing the pollution of"

no. you can't use two comma+ing modifiers in a row.

you could make that choice reasonable with a little further editing, i.e., "leaking its cargo of 750,000 gallons into the ocean and thus causing..."

[hariharakarthi]

B. with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted

in January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico, with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted
the city's beaches.

Is it a pronoun error?
Can you explain what is wrong with B?

Regards,
hhk

[lunarpower]

B. with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted

in January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico, with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted
the city's beaches.

Is it a pronoun error?
Can you explain what is wrong with B?

Regards,
hhk

if you write "...with X VERBing", the implication is that this is happening at the same time as the verb in the main clause.

analogy:
roy ran down the hallway, with his arms flapping frantically.
the implication is that roy's arms are flapping frantically AS he runs down the hallway.

by the same reasoning, the above choice (b) asserts that the oil was already leaking in the ocean AS the barge ran aground. this clearly isn't the case; the two events actually occurred in sequence, and the one was the consequence of the other.

--

the other problem with that choice is "...and it polluted..."

you don't use "and" in this sense unless the two items you're describing are essentially independent of each other.
for instance, if i said the following:
there was lots of traffic on the freeway and i was late to work.
...then i'm implying, strangely enough, that the traffic had nothing to do with my being late. (perhaps i'm just listing two reasons why it was A Bad Day.)

on the other hand, you could salvage the construction with a connector word that implies causation, such as "so" or "thus". for instance, either of the following would convey the intended meaning accurately in the aforementioned case:
there was lots of traffic on the freeway and i was thus late to work.
there was lots of traffic on the freeway and so i was late to work.
these are both ok.
however, choice (b) doesn't use such a word; it merely uses "and" by itself, which, for the reasons mentioned above, is wrong.

[goelmohit2002]

B. with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted

in January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico, with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted
the city's beaches.

Is it a pronoun error?
Can you explain what is wrong with B?

Regards,
hhk

if you write "...with X VERBing", the implication is that this is happening at the same time as the verb in the main clause.

analogy:
roy ran down the hallway, with his arms flapping frantically.
the implication is that roy's arms are flapping frantically AS he runs down the hallway.

by the same reasoning, the above choice (b) asserts that the oil was already leaking in the ocean AS the barge ran aground. this clearly isn't the case; the two events actually occurred in sequence, and the one was the consequence of the other.

--

the other problem with that choice is "...and it polluted..."

you don't use "and" in this sense unless the two items you're describing are essentially independent of each other.
for instance, if i said the following:
there was lots of traffic on the freeway and i was late to work.
...then i'm implying, strangely enough, that the traffic had nothing to do with my being late. (perhaps i'm just listing two reasons why it was A Bad Day.)

on the other hand, you could salvage the construction with a connector word that implies causation, such as "so" or "thus". for instance, either of the following would convey the intended meaning accurately in the aforementioned case:
there was lots of traffic on the freeway and i was thus late to work.
there was lots of traffic on the freeway and so i was late to work.
these are both ok.
however, choice (b) doesn't use such a word; it merely uses "and" by itself, which, for the reasons mentioned above, is wrong.

Thanks Ron !!!

Moreover I guess.....there is no referent for "it" in B...

Kindly tell if there is flaw in my reasoning....