The Environmental Protection Agencys proposal to place

Both X & Y : X & Y should be in parallel form. C & D use this idiom in incorrect form. Both on X and Y (Here on is missing for Y)

Option B: Changes the meaning a little bit and here only engine is mentioned instead of diesel engines. Better to stay with original one. Moreover pronoun "they" dont have any referent.

Option A: use ing-modifier which tends to modify the preceding clause. So the meaning is not clear here.

Option C is correct: which refers to industry and meaning is clear. The proposal has sparked a counter attack by oil industry and the industry says that the move will exacerbate ........problems.

If you put the two phrases back to back it may be easier to tell the difference. "....restrictions on both ..." or "....restrictions both on ..." Does one sound more favorable than the other. In all honestly, I could see myself saying both but I went with A. Out of curiosity I looked up the usage of the word "both" and this is what I found.

Position of both

When both refers to the subject of a clause, it can go with the verb. It is put after auxiliary verbs and before other verbs. When there are two auxiliary verbs, both usually goes after the first.

They are both good.
We both want to go.
We have both been invited.
They have both gone home.

Note that these meanings can also be expressed by using the structure both (of) + noun/pronoun.

Both of them are good.
Both of us want to go.
Both of us have been invited.
Both of them have gone home.

Both … and … ------ The same kind of words or expressions usually follow both and and.

She is both beautiful and clever. (adjectives)
She both sings and dances. (verbs)

https://www.perfectyourenglish.com/usage/both.htm

I think the last concept describes what's going on in this question. We have the "both ... and.." construction. In the "both diesel fuel and diesel engines". Based on this, I think the "on both" is preferable to the "both on". When you have a prepositional phrase and the use of "both", you would say, "Bob went inside (on) both the airplane and helicopter" as opposed to "Bob went both inside (on) the airplane and helicopter."

Hope that helps.

msand,

, saying that.... is a present participle or ing modifier after comma

Rule: present participle or ing modifier after comma will always modify both the subject & verb of the preceding clause. So A has incorrect meaning..It seems as if proposal is saying......

Here Saying is modifying the proposal and it seems that the proposal is saying, which of course is incorrect
Which says correctly points to the Oil Industry, hence the correct option.

Does that clarify?

@sanjeebpanda - Please follow the forum rules before posting any questions. You need to underline the sentence correctly for sentence correction questions to avoid any confusion.
Explanation:
"The proposal has sparked" and not "The proposal have sparked". Hence option B and E are out.
Option D - "has sparked the oil industry to a counterattack, saying" Modifier issue + wordiness. Hence incorrect.
Option A - Modifier issue. It seems that the proposal itself saying that move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply. Hence incorrect.
Option C - corrects all the issue. Hence correct.
Hope that helps.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to place restrictions on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems.

A. on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying saying is a verbing modifier and it attaches to the subject of the previous clause. The result of the meaning is EPA itself is saying that move will cause problems to its proposal -> ridiculous

B. on both diesel fuel and engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and they say -> proposal -> singular noun and singular verb -> has

C. on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, which says -> Correct

D. both on diesel fuel and engines has sparked the oil industry to a counterattack, saying -> same issues as A) and BOTH X and Y so "on diesel engines" should be used

E. both on diesel fuel and diesel engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and it says -> SV agreement issue.

Here in the above sentence "The environment Protection Agency's proposal" is singular, So this singular subject will take singular verb.
So,B and E is not possible

A is wrong because of wrong modifier usage
As we know comma+ Ving modifies previous clause, if placed after the clause but here as per the meaning of the sentence we need to modify industry
Hence A is out

D is wrong because of two reason
1st is parallelism
both on diesel fuel and on engines is correct not both on diesel fuel and engines
2nd is modifier issue. saying is wrongly modifying previous clause

Now C remains, Which after comma is clearly modifying industry
Hence C is correcr

Hi Experts GMATNinja mikemcgarry GMATNinjaTwo sayantanc2k
for option C why does which not refer to proposal and refers to oil industry. How can oil industry say x, it is proposal that says x. Am I correct?

adkikani The oil industry is saying that "the move" will exacerbate our problems. What move? The proposal by the EPA. So it's definitely the industry, not the proposal, that is saying x.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to place restrictions on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems.
A. on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying - Verb-ing modifier saying does not make sense with the previous subject
B. on both diesel fuel and engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and they say - subject-verb agreement issue
C. on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, which says - Correct
D. both on diesel fuel and engines has sparked the oil industry to a counterattack, saying - Parallelism issue - Both X and Y
E. both on diesel fuel and diesel engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and it says - Parallelism issue ; subject-verb agreement issue

Answer C

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to place restrictions on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems.
A. on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying
Saying is a verb+ing modifier modifying the entire clause. This distorts the original meaning of the sentence by saying that it was the EPA proposal which was
saying that "the move will.... ". Instead this sentence should use relative modifier to clarify that it actually the oil industry saying that the move will exacerbate the
nation's fuel economy problems.
B. on both diesel fuel and engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and they say
Plural verb "have" does not agrees with singular subject "proposal".
C. on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, which says
This is the correct answer as it removes the ambiguity regarding who was saying what. It uses correct S-V pair and correct relative pronoun modifier to refer to
oil industry.
D. both on diesel fuel and engines has sparked the oil industry to a counterattack, saying
This option destroys parallelism by not putting a "on" after and to maintain // .
E. both on diesel fuel and diesel engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and it says
Same mistake as in option D in addition to S-V agreement issue.

Thank you egmat ! verb-ing modifier with a comma modifies subject of the preceding clause.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/usage-of-ver ... 35220.html

This question is based on Parallelism, Subject-Verb Agreement and Modifiers.

In Option A, the subject of the participle modifier “saying that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems” is not clear. The intended meaning of the sentence is that the oil industry said that the move will…..problems. However, the participle modifier makes the sentence ambiguous because it does not make it clear that it is the oil industry that said that. So, Option A can be ruled out.

In Option B, the plural verb ‘have’ does not agree with the singular subject ‘proposal’. The plural pronoun ‘they’ is supposed to refer to ‘the oil industry’ but this also causes a pronoun reference error as a plural pronoun cannot refer to a singular antecedent. So, Option B can also be ruled out.

In Option C, the singular verb ‘has’ agrees with ‘proposal’. The relative pronoun ‘which’ correctly refers to ‘the oil industry’. So, C is the best of all the options.

Option D contains the same error of modifier as A. Besides, there is a lack of parallelism as the correlative conjunction 'both’ is followed by the preposition ‘on’ and ‘and’ is followed by the noun ‘engines’. Parallelism is maintained only when both the conjunctions are followed by the same part of speech. So, Option D can be ruled out.

The same lack of parallelism is present in E too. Furthermore, the plural verb ‘have’ does not agree with ‘proposal’. So, Option E can also be ruled out.

Therefore, C is the most appropriate of all the options.

Jayanthi Kumar.

Three points helped me to reach the answer : Firstly, Parallelism around 'and', Secondly, SVA between proposal and has or have and finally knowing the difference between 'saying' and 'which says'. Answer would be C

Hi daagh ,
Although I understand the ambiguity in choice A due to the use of "saying", can you please help me understand the effect and correctness of using simple present tense in choice C.

I understand simple present tense is used for facts and for something that is always true. With that being said, if we use "which says", won't that mean the oil industry always says that? If so, that is definitely not the intended meaning right?

Posted from my mobile device

Hi CrackVerbal ,
Can you please help me understand the use of simple present tense in choice C. If we use SPT, won't that mean the oil industry always says that? If yes, then that is not the intended meaning right?

Posted from my mobile device

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to place restrictions on diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, and the oil industry says that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems.

Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Pronouns + Meaning + Modifiers + Idioms + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “saying” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
• “both A and B" or "A as well as B" are the correct usages; A and B must be parallel and comparable.

A: Trap.
1/ The sentence formed by this answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "saying that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "saying" in this sentence) incorrectly implies that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry because the Environmental Protection Agency says that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems; the intended meaning is that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, and as a separate action, the oil industry says the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “saying” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

B:
1/ This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "proposal" with the plural verb "have sparked".
2/ Option B incorrectly refers to the singular noun "the oil industry" with the plural pronoun "they".
3/ Option B uses the needlessly indirect phrase "sparked the oil industry to counterattack", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: Correct.
1/ This answer choice correctly refers to the singular noun "proposal" with the singular verb "has sparked".
2/ Option C avoids the pronoun error seen in Option B, as it refers to the singular noun "the oil industry" with the pronoun "which", which can be either singular or plural.
3/ The sentence formed by Option C correctly modifies the noun phrase "the oil industry" with the phrase "which says that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems", conveying the intended meaning - that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, and as a separate action, the oil industry says the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “saying” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
4/ Option C maintains parallelism and comparability between A ("diesel fuel") and B ("diesel engines") in the idiomatic construction "both A and B".
5/ Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.


D:
1/ The sentence formed by this answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "saying that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "saying" in this sentence) incorrectly implies that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry because the Environmental Protection Agency says that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems; the intended meaning is that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, and as a separate action, the oil industry says the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “saying” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
2/ Option D fails to maintain parallelism and comparability between A ("on diesel fuel") and B ("engines") in the idiomatic construction "both A and B"; remember, “both A and B" or "A as well as B" are the correct usages; A and B must be parallel and comparable.
3/ Option D uses the needlessly indirect phrase "sparked the oil industry to a counterattack", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

E:
1/ This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "proposal" with the plural verb "have sparked".
2/ Option E fails to maintain parallelism between A ("on diesel fuel") and B ("diesel engines") in the idiomatic construction "both A and B"; remember, “both A and B" or "A as well as B" are the correct usages; A and B must be parallel and comparable.
3/ Option E uses the needlessly indirect phrase "sparked the oil industry to counterattack", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Comma Plus Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team