The height of handle of the cricket bat is one-third the total length,

The height of handle of the cricket bat is one-third the total length, creating a sweet spot at the lower end of the bat, but now per the new design it is constructed such that the sweet spot spans across its entire length.
A.The height of handle of the cricket bat is one-third the total length, creating a sweet spot at the lower end of the bat, but now per the new design it is constructed - Unnecessary lengthy & fails to convey the meaning. Incorrect
B.Per the current design, the height of handle of the cricket bat is one-third the total length and it creates a sweet spot at the lower end of the bat, but now per the new design it is constructed - Lacks parallelism in the the 2nd highlighted portion as Design is followed by Bat in 2nd part but Height in the 1st part. Incorrect.
C.Previously designed such that the height of its handle was one-third its total length, was creating a sweet spot at its lower end, the cricket bat is now constructed - Use of WAS before a modifier creates a Run-on. Incorrect.
D.Previously designed such that the height of its handle was one-third its total length, creating a sweet spot at its lower end, the cricket bat is now constructed - Absolutely Correct
E.Previously designed such that the height of its handle was one-third its total length, creating a sweet spot at its lower end, the cricket bat now constructed - Initial modifier is absolutely correct but the Independent clause lacks Verb, creating a Fragment. Incorrect.

Hope the explanation will help many

Can you please help me with that how we can identify that 'it' in A doesn't have clear antecedent. I always get confused with that.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Countdown

The height of handle of the cricket bat is one-third the total length, creating a sweet spot at the lower end of the bat, but now per the new design it is constructed [/u]such that the sweet spot spans across its entire length.

There's a 3/2 split and once you've eliminated A and B, you have C,D and E which have minor differences between them which need to be focused upon -

A.The height of handle of the cricket bat is one-third the total length, creating a sweet spot at the lower end of the bat, but now per the new design it is constructed
"it" here may refer to handle or may refer to the cricket bat itself! So pronoun reference error!

B.Per the current design, the height of handle of the cricket bat is one-third the total length and it creates a sweet spot at the lower end of the bat, but now per the new design it is constructed

"Per the current design, the height of" the comma holds no significance and creates confusion. The clause "the height..... end of the bat" doesn't modify anything clearly. "It" again is not referencing any noun clearly.

C.Previously designed such that the height of its handle was one-third its total length, was creating a sweet spot at its lower end, the cricket bat is now constructed
"was creating is wrong and inconsistent with "the height of its handle".

D.Previously designed such that the height of its handle was one-third its total length, creating a sweet spot at its lower end, the cricket bat is now constructed
Perfect!

E.Previously designed such that the height of its handle was one-third its total length, creating a sweet spot at its lower end, the cricket bat now constructed
"the cricket bat now constructed" - there is a missing is

This is completely not true. (it's also misleading)

Even though the weight on the bench was heavy, it was lifted easily by the athlete.
"it" stands for "the weigh" not because "the weight" is the subject but because it's illogical to think that the athlete lifted the bench...

Marc called Paul, and he was on vacation.
Who is "he"? Impossible to say

The dealer sold the car to Marc, and he drove it back home.
"he" stands for Marc, even if the subject is the "dealer" => the context is clear: Marc drove the car, not the dealer who sold it

hi,
no offenses pls
thanks for pointing out.........
but these are not example........so sorry i cant accept your point, as these rules have helped me in many a situation
moreover you will not find this error in any of the OFFICIAL QUESTION...if there are such type of pronouns in official question ..they follow the same trend .
overall this is not suggested by me...but rather suggested by A EXPERT whom i know....and thought to share the same on the forum.
final call is yours you find it helpful are not.
but also will accept my fault ..if you can post any official question ...negating this rule..
thanks
hope it helps.

I made three example that respect your "structure":
1) clause1(sub1+verb), but clause 2
2)clause1(sub1+verb), and clause 2
3)although clause 1(sub1+verb), clause 2

If you think that they do not respect it, please tell me how...

You can see that this rule is not correct just because it says that a pornoun in the 2nd sentence can only act as replacement for the subject of the previous clause.

I do not have the OG at my disposal, but I do have an example from "Thursday with Ron":
Take the pizza out of the box (1st clause) and put it into the oven (2nd clause).

According to your rule "it" can only refer back to the subject of the preceding clause and not to the pizza... so this sentence should be incorrect...

i respect RON..and you both...
i am not saying in your example use of IT is wrong...
Actually you will never find such sentences in GMAT exam...the intention of sir RON was to make us understand the use pronoun which is quite a time debatable..as GMAC accepts as true sometimes and considers ambiguous sometimes...that is why he made such an easy example.

my intention was to convey that in example such as:
Marc called Paul, and he was on vacation.(this is your example) ==>in this type of example GMAC accepts HE has antecedent MARC...and not PAUL(in their explanation you will never find saying that it is ambiguous)
the two examples:
1>>the example given by RON and
2>>the previous example......
is for conveying few cases when GMAC accepts all this type of pronoun ambiguity...doesnt includes in the wrong category.
I will also add that if in correct option there is a choice such as:
Marc called Paul, and PAUL was on vacation.===>then in this case we should defenetely go for this choice as it is more clear.

Finally i can add more that if you want to prove me wrong provide me official question....dont put SIR RONs example or ...as he put that example just to make us understand in a easy a way .rather to make the situation complicated.

hope it helps

Gosh! I have visited the question almost three times and shake my head , thinking how good the question is.
I know I was split between A and D. I ended up picking D . Then went back to review why I should not have chosen A. Here is what I have to say:

The height of handle of the cricket bat is one-third the total length, creating a sweet spot at the lower end of the bat, but now per the new design it is constructed

If I follow the rules of the grammar that say if the there is a pronoun in the latter part of the parallel structure , then that must logically refer to the subject of the preceding clause. In the case above the subject is strictly the height. Other things such as 'of the handle of the cricket bat ' only describe height. All good so far.
But the 'it' now refers to height by that grammar rule. So the question is can height be constructed, I don't think prompt intends to that. The prompt probably refers 'it' to the handle of the cricket bat. And that is why the choice even though appears good to ears, is a bad choice when compared to D.

Dear Moderators, GMATNinja / generis / BillyZ / Abhi077,

Option D is in the following form: "Modifier 1, Modifier 2, the cricket bat". Per my understanding such construction is unidiomatic. It either has to be "Modifier 1 and Modifier 2, the cricket bat" or "Modifier 1, the cricket bat, Modifier 2"

Basis this thinking, I am having difficulty in choosing D as the answer. Can you help?

VIVA1060
The trick here is that these modifiers don't both apply to the main clause. Modifier 2 is actually an adverbial modifier that applies to Modifier 1, which is a noun modifier applying to the cricket bat, so we could just as well say it's one big modifier leading into the main clause.

Similarly, we can start with two noun modifiers if one applies to the other: Unlike the owl, which hunts by night, the peregrine falcon does its best hunting at dawn and dusk.

M1 applies to peregrine falcon, and M2 applies to the owl (in M1).

Option D is the best of the lot. But I have a doubt: Isn't this true that GMAT avoids keeping two participle modifiers in a back-to-back position? Please let me know the logic when it is acceptable and when it is not.

Thank You
Vighnesh

Hello VIGHNESHKAMATH,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, while such a construction is not common on GMAT, there is nothing inherently ungrammatical or unacceptable about it either.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

ExpertsGlobal5,

Are you legitimising option (D) here? I highly doubt whether this choice would stand per the current GMAC SC standards.

Hello PyjamaScientist,

We hope this finds you well.

To clarify, we agree that it is extremely unlikely for the GMAT to include such a construction in a correct answer choice today; Option D is simply less flawed than the other four options and thus the most acceptable.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team