In January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Pu

I think causing and polluting appearing in the same sentence is redundancy.
Hence A and D are out.

B is wrong since it mentions" the ship ....ran aground with its cargo leaking" awkward Ship will always run aground with something either fuel or cargo, the original sentence is very lengthy.

E is wrong as the use of " so that " in the sentence call for an uncessary cause and effect..it means ship ran agroung so that...........it sounds weird.

Hence the best answers is D the qord POLLUTION is correctly used in participial form to describe the preceding event.

Why is the option A wrong here?

"leaking oil...... while polluting the coasts" flip the cause effect relationship right? Or is it that the verb tense itself is at fault?

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.

While expreses contrast, cannot be used in this case. "causing the pollution of the beaches" doesn't sound too good.
But if we focus on A vs C, it easier to see which is the best one:

oil barge ran
A)leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean, while causing the pollution of
C) and its cargo of its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, polluting

C mantais the past tense to express the actions that happened in January 1994, and uses "polluting = COMMA + ING" to express the consequences of the action.
This is clear and coinsice, C is a better option.

I would not say that A "flips the cause effect relationship ", the verbs of A [PAST & ING (for the facts of Jan), ING(for the consequences)] are at fault compared to those of C [ PAST & PAST (for the facts of Jan), ING (for the consequences) ]

Hope this helps

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 - cargo is not leaked by the barge itself -INCORRECT

B. with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted - improper placement of 'and' shifts focus from the leakage of gallons causing the pollution - Incorrect

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 - use of while incorrect
E. so that its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, and they were polluting. - use of 'so that' incorrect

Here is the notes that I got from Thrursday's with Ron session on March, 26 2015 The use of AND

See the video from 12:15 to 29:30 below


Analysis:
- 3 actions here ..
Action (1). oil barge ran aground
Action (2). leaking
Action (3). polluting
- Action (1) can happen without Action (2) i.e., leaking. But, Action(3) polluting is a instantaneous result of Action (2)

Option (A) is wrong for following reason ... Puerto Rico, leaking its cargo ...
- Use of ", leaking" is wrong in option (A) because Action(1) and Action (2) did not happen in same time frame.

Usage of ", _ING" Example's:
Correct: The pedestrian was struck by a runaway taxicab, dying instantly ... (Use of ,-ING is correct for immediate action)
Wrong: The pedestrian was struck by a runaway taxicab, dying twenty minutes later in the hospital ...(Use of ,-ING is wrong for delayed action)

- In option (C) use of ",polluting" is correct .. Action (2) and Action (3) happens instantly (in same time frame)


Answer: (C)

I think this question is hard though basic. so, it is beautiful. I dont know whether I can analyse this way in the test room

normally , a complex sentence present two actions. the meaning relation between the actions is made clear by subordinate conjucntion. we need to properly understand the meaning relation conveyed by these conjuctions.

while: is used to show two separate actions happening at the same time but two actions are separate
so that: is used to show an purpose of a preceding action
and : is used to show two separate actions which are independently regarding time
comma+ doing: this is a hard relation. this doing is used to show another aspect of the action in main clause. doing dose not show another action. in other words, two actions here are not separate but integrated.

"with+noun+noun modifier" when attached to the main clause, show many meaning relation with the action in the main clause , such as: effect of main clause, reason of main clause, and context of main clause. These relation can be shown by using " so that", because", "given that" respectively.

5 choices give us 5 meaning relations. which meaning relation is logic.
polluting is not separate from "run aground" and "leaked". polluting can be considered an aspect of two actions, "running aground" and "leaking". so, choice C is correct.

in E, Leak can not be purpose of running aground
in D, the ship can not run aground while it leak. not logic
in B, with+noun, here, leaking can not be an effect, cause, or context of running aground
in A, pullution and running aground can not be separate actions.

my god. I hope I am right.

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 --- running aground and leaking are separate independent actions. Leaking may not always be the result of running around. Therefore, the usage of the present participle 'leaking' is not a misplaced modifier but a misused modifier.

B. with its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean, and it polluted --- it has no referent

C. and its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, polluting -- the correct choice

D. while it leaked its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean and caused the pollution of -- the subject is oil barge and it is wrong to say that the barge caused the pollution but the leakage did it.

E. so that its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, and they were polluting. -- 'so that' indicates intention, which is not the case here.

I was so confused.. B sounds very right to me.
I was even 90% sure I am right..

pclawong
In B, what does the pronoun 'it' refer to? Is it the barge, cargo or ocean? It is the event of 'leaking' that polluted the beaches. But there is no leaking in the form of a noun or gerund. The leaking that there is only an adverbial prsent participle.

Option A uses the verb+ing construction (leaking). In order to correctly use this type of construction, we need to keep in mind the following:
1. The subject of the preceding (main) clause must be the subject of the verb+ing modifier. According to this answer choice, the oil barge intentionally leaked its cargo of 750000 gallons. This is not the intended meaning of the sentence.

2. The action taking place in the verb+ing modifier and the action in the main clause must happen in the same time frame. Option A says that action 1 (oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan) happened in the same time frame as action 2 (leaking its cargo of 750000 gallons into the ocean). This is not the intended meaning of the sentence. Imagine the oil barge start to leak and run aground off the coast at the same time. Non-sense.

3. While is used to show two separate actions happening at the same time but two actions are separate. The action of “leaking” and “causing pollution” are not separate.

Option B
'and' is used to show two separate actions which are independent regarding time. The action of “leaking” and “causing pollution” are not separate.
With + noun construction repeats the error 2 in Option A. “oil barge ran aground off the coast” and “its cargo of 750000 gallons leaking into the ocean” did not happen at the same time.
The pronoun “it” cannot be used to denote action.

Option C
The acting taking place in the verb+ing modifier and the action in the main clause must happen in the same time frame. “750000 gallons leaked into the ocean” and “polluting” happened in the same time frame. Correct usage.
'and' is used to show two separate actions which are independently regarding time. “ oil barge ran aground off the coast” and “its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean” are two separate actions. Correct usage.

Option D
While is used to show two separate actions happening at the same time but two actions are separate. Incorrect usage.
'and' is used to show two separate actions which are independently regarding time. Incorrect usage.

Option E
so that: is used to show an purpose of a preceding action. Incorrect usage. The oil barge did not run aground in order to leak its cargo
and is used to show two separate actions which are independently regarding time. Incorrect usage
“They “ is ambiguous.

Hi GMATNinja
If you can help me in this question. I just saw your parallelism video on GMATClub youtube channel. Learning from the video, I am trying to tackle this problem.
In option C - and its cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, polluting
Here, 'AND' is the trigger and I checked 'its' comes after 'AND'. But there is nothing parallel to this.
I am not able to apply the same rules (what I saw in the youtube video) in this question.

First of all, it's important to note that little modifiers (or possessive markers like "its") usually don't affect the parallelism. Here's an example to illustrate that point:

"I like to eat (1) pizza and (2) greasy French fries." - Here we have a parallel list of nouns: (1) "pizza" and (2) "French fries". The addition of the little modifier "greasy" doesn't affect the parallelism. (It also doesn't affect the fact that I want some French fries. )

In other words, just because we have a modifier before "french fries" in the example above does NOT mean we need a modifier before "pizza" in order to maintain parallelism. The same goes for "its" in choice (C) -- as long as the core items in the list are parallel, the parallelism is probably fine.

However, in choice (C), we don't HAVE a parallel list! Instead, we have two complete (independent) thoughts connected by a comma+conjunction. Stripping out some modifiers, choice (C) boils down to:

"An oil barge ran aground, and its cargo leaked into the ocean" - Here we have two independent clauses (the subject of each is underlined), so we need a ", and" (or a semicolon) to link the two.

So, when you see a ", and", you MIGHT have a parallel list on your hands. But you also MIGHT simply have two independent clauses connected by a comma+conjunction. In the latter case, you don't have to worry about parallelism.

I hope that helps!

Thank you GMATNinja
I have always faced problem to distinguish between parallelism and ', and' scenarios.

I know that 'and, but & or' are parallelism triggers. But sometimes, the ', and' triggers parallelism, other times, the phrase triggers 'new independent sentence'.

Can you please clarify, how can I recognize whether there is a parallelism required or a new independent sentence in these scenarios.

Example is this sentence - I thought parallelism is required, but an independent clause was starting.

First, a disclaimer: you want to avoid coming up with mechanical steps/tests for deciding whether a "comma+conjunction" signifies parallelism or two linked independent sentences. There's a lot of gray territory, so it's best not to blindly apply black and white rules or tests.

That said, when you encounter a comma+conjunction, it's good to ask yourself, "Do I have a complete sentence on either side of that conjunction?" If so, what happens when you replace the comma+conjunction with a period? Do you have two grammatical sentences? If so, then that comma+conjunction is probably not part of a parallel list.

We can try that with choice (C) here:

1) In January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
2) [The oil barge's] cargo of 750000 gallons leaked into the ocean, polluting the city's beaches.

Each of these two is a complete sentence, and the author could easily divide choice (C) into two separate sentences without running into any grammatical issues.

Again, you want to read every choice carefully and think hard about each unique sentence. Is there an independent clause on either side of the comma+conjunction? Is there a comma-separated list of items?

Choice (C) might LOOK like a parallel list at first glance, but what are we trying to list? Did the oil barge somehow run aground off multiple coasts?? Of course not. "San Juan, Puerto Rico" must be a single place (in this case a city, country).

I hope that helps!

In option C
'and' usage indicates that the actions took place in a sequence .i.e. first the oil barge ran and second its cargo leaked. But the two actions are simultaneous.
Can you please help me with this?

Using a ", and" to link two actions doesn't necessarily imply that the first action happened before the second. For example:

"Tim took a nap, and his children built a fire." -- We have no idea which came first, and it is certainly possible that these two actions occurred during the same period of time.

Back to this question: it seems illogical to assume that all 750,000 gallons were leaked into the ocean at the same exact moment in time that the ship ran aground. A more plausible scenario is that (1) the ship ran aground and (2) the ship started to leak as a result. The time between the first action and the beginning of the second action might be really really minimal, but the first presumably caused the second -- not the other way around.

Also, the ship ran aground at one specific moment in time. The leaking may have started at (or just after) that moment in time, but the leaking presumably continued for some time AFTER the ship ran aground. Regardless, I think choice (C) presents the two actions in the correct logical order -- or at least a perfectly plausible order.

I hope that helps!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.