Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th

Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one problem at a time, and narrow it down to the right choice! First, here is the original question, with the major difference between the options highlighted in orange:

Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.

(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated
(B) Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated
(C) Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating
(D) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, this has already stimulated
(E) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating

After glancing over the options quickly, there are 2 main things we can focus on:

1. How to handle the clause about maritime code provisions (Modifiers/Subordinate Clauses/Idioms)
2. How each option ends (Pronouns/Meaning)

Let's actually start with #2 on our list because it deals with a pretty easy concepts: Pronouns & Subordinate Clauses. Here are the two things we need to look for:

1. Do the pronouns agree with their antecedents?
2. Can we find the complete sentence/independent clause in the sentence?

Let's see how each option stacks up:

(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

We need to rule this out as INCORRECT because the pronoun "they" is vague! There are several plural nouns that we could pair this up with: provisions, islets, fisheries, and oil fields. Any time you have a pronoun that could apply to several nouns, get rid of it.

(B) Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated

This is OKAY for now because the pronoun "it" is clearly referring back to the singular "code." Everything else is plural, so it's not likely to refer any of those things. So let's keep this one for later.

(C) Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating

This is OKAY for now because we're not dealing with any pronouns, and there is a clear independent clause here. So let's leave it for later.

(D) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, this has already stimulated

This is INCORRECT because the word "this" is misleading. It's leading us to believe that the thing that has stimulated international disputes is THE ENTIRE PHRASE before the comma, not just the new maritime code provisions. The tiny islets didn't do it, nor did the fisheries or oil fields. So let's toss this one out.

(E) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating

This is INCORRECT because it's a sentence fragment! The clause before the comma is a subordinate clause, which cannot stand alone - it needs to be attached to a complete sentence to work. Unfortunately, what comes after the comma here is NOT a complete sentence - it's a modifier. While this is a very long fragment, it's still a fragment!

We can eliminate A, D, & E because they either include vague/misleading pronouns or aren't complete sentences.

Now that we have 2 options left, let's look more carefully at each one to see if we spot any other issues:

(B) Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated

This is CORRECT! It's clear that the maritime code is what is causing the international disputes. The subordinating clause also works because the clause that comes after the comma could stand alone as an independent clause.

(C) Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating

This is INCORRECT. It uses an -ing modifier, which modifies THE ENTIRE CLAUSE before the comma, not just the noun directly preceding it. Readers might be misled to thinking that the tiny islets stimulated international disputes, and not the code. We need a modifier that clearly only applies to the maritime code instead, or it needs to be rearranged (like it is in option B) to work.


There you have it - option B is the correct choice!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.