Policy makers remain concerned about the prospect of inflation, althou

Hi Mike,

I agree that Still is redundant in option D and option E is grammatically correct. But don't you think that in option E there is a subtle change in meaning? The original sentence says there are few signs and option E says lack of signs? Because of this i chose D. Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Note that there is no "original meaning" vs "changed meaning" differentiation. Option (A) is just one of the 5 options and my probability, correct only 20% of the time. When we say that there are meaning issues, we mean "logical" vs "illogical meaning". I suggest you to check out our four part video for more on this: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/

Also, "few" and "dearth" imply pretty much the same thing - "hardly any"

I suggest you to check out this page for the "few", "a few" and "quite a few" distinction.
_________________

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The meaning of this sentence is that policy makers are concerned about inflation, even though there are no signs that current trends in energy prices have yet caused any actual inflation. To convey this message effectively, the sentence should modify "signs" with a construction that refers to the act of driving up costs, and other descriptive elements (such as "so far" or an equivalent expression) should be placed in a location where it is clear what they are modifying. Finally, the sentence must explicitly express the contrast between the policy makers' concerns and the stated lack of signs in the current economy.

(A) "Of increasing energy prices driving" is not a correct construction; a prepositional phrase cannot have a noun + verb-ing construction as its object. To express this kind of reference — in which the entire following idea is the intended description of "signs" — a clause should be used. (Interpreted in a grammatically proper way, this sentence suggests that "signs of higher energy prices" are the things that could potentially drive up the cost of goods.) In addition, the placement of "so far" creates ambiguity; it could mean that there are, thus far, few signs (the intended meaning), but it could also mean that the energy prices are driving up the cost of other goods by a great deal (driving them up so far).

(B) The combination of "still" and "remain" is redundant; only one of these words is necessary. The combination of "as yet" and "currently" is also redundant. Additionally, by connecting the two clauses with a semicolon, the sentence fails to indicate the contrast between the policy makers' concerns and the lack of actual signs to warrant those concerns. Finally, inflation is a single prospect, so the plural "prospects" is inappropriate.

(C) In this sentence, the subject of "are driving up the cost…" is "signs (of higher energy prices)" — illogically suggesting that indicators of high energy prices, rather than high energy prices themselves, can drive up the cost of other goods. The use of both "as yet" and "so far" is redundant; only one of these construction should be used. Finally, "prospect for" is unidiomatic; the correct idiom is "prospect of".

(D) The combination of "still" and "remain" is redundant; only one of these words is necessary. The substitution of "inflation" for "prospect of inflation" creates an unacceptable change in meaning; this choice suggests that inflation is actually happening in the economy, rather than the originally intended meaning (experts are concerned that it could happen). Finally, the present tense "drive up" is illogical. That tense suggests a general, permanently true fact about the economy; in other words, this wording means that there isn't much evidence that increasing energy prices drive up the cost of goods in general. The intended meaning is that the cost of goods is not being driven up at the current moment, so the present progressive "are driving" should be used instead.

(E) CORRECT. This choice uses a concise, non-redundant construction ("remain concerned") to express the analysts' state of mind. The sentence uses "despite" to express the contrast between that concern and the lack of explicit signs to warrant it. Finally, "thus far" is placed in a location where its meaning is clear — there are few signs thus far — and the clause "that … prices are driving…" is properly used to describe "signs".

The correct answer is E.
_________________

Hi avigutman - I eliminated D and E because I got the impression that the author (almost like in RC) was "doubting" IF it was even true to begin with THAT

"Energy prices DRIVE UP costs"

Almost like in a RC passage where an author introduces an idea -- Energy prices DRIVE UP costs ...Then the author counters in para 2 and says -- actually there are **FEW SIGNS** that show THAT this actually happens to be true to begin with (and gives exampes that maybe foreign policy has a larger impact on costs comparatively to Energy Prices..)

Do you see that playing out in D and E at all ?

I absolutely agree with the impression you got, but I fail to see why that would be a reason to eliminate D and E.
D has "even though" and E has "despite": these are appropriate given the author's intent.

OE:

The Meaning of this sentence is that policy makers are concerned about inflation, even though there are no signs that current trends in energy prices have yet caused any actual inflation. To convey this message effectively, the sentence should describe signs with a Modifier that refers to the act of driving up costs, and other descriptive elements (such as so far or an equivalent expression) should be placed in a location where it is clear what they are modifying. Finally, the sentence must explicitly express the contrast between the policy makers' concerns and the stated lack of signs in the current economy.

(A) Of increasing energy prices driving is not a correct construction; a prepositional phrase cannot have a noun + verb-ing construction as its object. To express this kind of reference, in which the entire following idea is the intended description of signs, a clause should be used. (Interpreted in a grammatically proper way, this sentence suggests that signs of higher energy prices are the things that could potentially drive up the cost of goods.) In addition, the placement of so far creates ambiguity; it could mean that there are, thus far, few signs (the intended meaning), but it could also mean that the energy prices are driving up the cost of other goods by a great deal (driving them up so far).

(B) The combination of still and remain is redundant; only one of these words is necessary. The combination of as yet and currently is also redundant. Additionally, by connecting the two clauses with a semicolon, the sentence fails to indicate the contrast between the policy makers' concerns and the lack of actual signs to warrant those concerns. Finally, inflation is a single prospect, so the plural prospects is inappropriate.

(C) In this sentence, the subject of are driving up the cost… is signs [of higher energy prices], Illogically suggesting that indicators of high energy prices, rather than high energy prices themselves, can drive up the cost of other goods. The use of both as yet and so far is redundant; only one of these construction should be used. Finally, prospect for is unidiomatic; the correct idiom is prospect of.

(D) The combination of still and remain is redundant; only one of these words is necessary. The substitution of inflation for prospect of inflation creates an unacceptable change in meaning; this choice suggests that inflation is actually happening in the economy, rather than the originally intended meaning (experts are concerned that it could happen). Finally, the present tense drive up is illogical. That tense suggests a general, permanently true fact about the economy; in other words, this wording means that there isn't much evidence that increasing energy prices drive up the cost of goods in general. The intended meaning is that the cost of goods is not being driven up at the current moment, so the present progressive are driving should be used instead.

(E) CORRECT. This choice uses a concise, non-redundant construction (remain concerned) to express the analysts' state of mind. The sentence uses despite to express the contrast between that concern and the lack of explicit signs to warrant it. Finally, thus far is placed in a location where its meaning is clear (there are few signs thus far) and the clause that … prices are driving… is properly used to describe signs.

avigutman isn't the usage of prep + gerund always correct? Here, isn't increasing acting as a gerund? If not, then what is it- i would probably think it is an adjective otherwise but then also it makes sense to say that increasing prices drive up the cost. Why is it wrong exactly ?

1. Is increasing a gerund or adjective here and why
2. In case of latter we still have prep + noun + ing which makes perfect sense - signs of (prep) increasing (adjective) prices (noun) + driving (ing). It makes sense and idk why KarishmaB has written that it is not making sense here as prep+ noun -" signs of increasing prices' and hence it is incorrect

Elite097 in the future please try to make it easier for us experts to help you. I had to go search the entire thread to find what you were referring to, and I believe it is this:

A gerund functions as a noun. Can "increasing" be a gerund? Sure: Increasing the difficulty level of a GMAT problem is a difficult task. Here, the subject is "increasing".
In the sentence we're dealing with, "increasing" is not a noun. It's an adjective, modifying the noun "energy prices."
You're asking why it's wrong to say that increasing prices drive up the cost. It's not wrong. In fact, that's exactly what the correct answer says.
So, then, what did KarishmaB say is wrong, exactly?
Well, ask yourself this, Elite097: What might policy makers be concerned about?
Signs of increasing energy prices driving up the cost of other goods.
Or
Signs that increasing energy prices are driving up the cost of other goods
Which version do you find easier to digest?

Yes this is the portion I was referring to. So she has written that prep + noun should make sense for it to be correct but as we can see 'signs of increasing energy prices' and that is correct. This is similar to the cat example where 'video of cat' makes sense too.

Also in the two options you sent i think former also sounds as good as the latter and if you are saying that the issue is with 'of' then that issue should also apply to the cat example because I do not just have a video of a cat but of the cat playing a piano so I am not sure how the prep + Noun + ing construction considered valid in that case.


Also , how can i quote two people in the same post as I am directed to a new posting window when I have to type in avigutman

When you say 'signs of increasing energy prices' is correct, what do you mean by that, Elite097?
I suspect that you're not analyzing the "correctness" of the phrase in the context of what the author is attempting to point out.
We're expecting to read about a phenomenon that should alleviate policy makers' concern about the prospect of inflation.
Does "few signs of increasing energy prices" fit the bill? Yes, it does. So, in that sense, you're right - it's correct.
But, when we look at the rest of the sentence, we should realize that it's not just the "few signs of increasing energy prices" that should alleviate the policy makers' concern about the prospect of inflation. Rather, it's that there are few signs that increasing energy prices are driving up the cost of other goods. So, in that context, "few signs of increasing energy prices" is not correct.

You can copy and paste quotes from another window in your browser, and put that quote in between appropriate markers (you can copy and paste the markers from your own reply, for example this: quote="Elite097" (with the square brackets around) and just change the name as appropriate).

avigutman then how is thsi considered valid in case of cat example? I have a video of cat vs i have a video of cat playing are evry different so how is that acceptable by your above logic? What's the catch?

"playing a piano" simply gives us more information about what the cat is doing in the video, but the video really is a video of a cat. Do you agree, Elite097?
Conversely, the few signs that the author is talking about are NOT signs of higher energy prices.