Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil

Absolutely correct.Modifiers and comparison issue.Kudos.

Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

A. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas
B. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does
C. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas
D. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does
E. much more efficient at producing heat than natural gas

Which always modifies the subject / noun immediately preceding it. We need to compare coking ranges which use fossil fuel to cooking ranges which use magnetic resonance.

D & E compares coking ranges which use fossil fuel to magnetic resonance. - wrong options.

A compares cooking ranges which use magnetic resonance to natural gas. - wrong option
E compares efficiency of cooking ranges which use magnetic resonance to natural gas. - wrong option
Correct option - B

Has to be B. While D is tempting, it screws up on produce.

It should be which produces not which produce. Hence B is most right.

Hi,

In option B, is the verb+ing modifier not modifying the cooking ranges, as ver+ing modifier after comma modifies the subject of the previous clause.

I believe for option B to be right, producing should follow magnetic resonance without comma.

Please clarify my doubt.

A clause without a comma before - producing -would be most ideal; but unfortunately the comma is there. But it is at least ok as far as comparison is concerned.
That is the reason I said B is the best among the lot. Others are having more serious errors.

Let me disagree with B, IMO is D

There is no S-V agreement error in D. Produce is the verb for "Those that rely on magnetic resonance" Plural.

Plus, there is a meaning problem, as natural gas is a fossil fuel. Also the sentence intends to make a contrast between the age of conservation and the means people are using to cook. Stating that Magnetic resonance is more efficient emphasizes such contrast.

Experts, your input will be really appreciated in this one

Cheers

1. Which refers to MR (singular); not those (ranges) that rely on MR. We cannot take it to refer to a noun that is not just in front. The touch rule of which is quite clear about it. So the plural produce is a wrong verb and D suffers from S-V mismatch.
2. If a contrast is sought to be made out between the age of conservation and the means of cooking, then, that is basically wrong. We must make a comparison and contrast between only parallel things. An age cannot be contrasted with a means. So D can never make it.

To clarify my doubts on "which," is it possible to read the sentence in the following way:

Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those [implicit: those cooking ranges] that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

A. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas
B. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does
C. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas
D. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does
E. much more efficient at producing heat than natural gas

Based on this, answer is D. "Which" refers to "Those cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance," not "magnetic resonance," and therefore "produce" agrees with the implies "cooking ranges" rather than mismatches with "magnetic resonance."

Basically, how far can into the previous clause can a which statement extend,

@banaorange

Can which in this case refer to ranges? There are two choices that use, ‘which ‘namely C and D. Let’s insert choice C and D in their relevant places and see.

C. Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those [implicit: those cooking ranges] that rely on magnetic resonance, which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas--- So by taking ‘which’ to refer to cooking ranges, the choice says that cooking ranges (kind of gadgets) produce heat more than natural gas (a planetary resource)

D. Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those [implicit: those cooking ranges] that rely on magnetic resonance, which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does --- same comparison error as in C

How far away can the relative pronoun,’which’ go deep into the preceding clause. Here is what I picked up from some forum writings.



Where to find this quote in MGMAT, I am not sure, since I do not have the MGMAT Guide

B. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does


Shouldn't verb "ing" form in option B modify the preceding clause? I was under assumption that "ing" form gives us either result set of preceding clause or additional information of preceding clause. So not sure how can this construction be correct?
However, other options do have some serious errors.

Yes, I have the same concern as yours. The modifier producing heat more efficiently than natural gas seems to refer to the subject of the preceding clause cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels or the preceding clause.... cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance... as a whole as you pointed out.

As Daagh has mentioned in a previous post, not using a comma before producing would have been appropriate since in that case the modifier would refer to those that rely on magnetic resonance.

Please help egmat.
I have been reading this article of nouns that can replace far away nouns. In this example, can't which refer to cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance?
From the eaning, I think it makes sense to say the cooking ranges using magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does.
Please help!

Hello sarathgopinath,


Thank you for the query.

I guess is that your query is regarding Choice D.

Yes, you are correct in saying that logically which can refer to the preceding noun phrase those that rely on magnetic resonance.

However, this modification will take away the cause-and-effect mentioned in the original sentence.

The original sentence says that because some cooking ranges rely on magnetic resonance, they produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does. The correct answer choice B retains this cause-and-effect.

But Choice D does not and hence is incorrect.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Thanks a lot but I think I am understanding this wrong.
(B) Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does.
Subject of the preceding clause is 'cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels'
So isn't this sentence supposed to mean because some cooking ranges consume fossil fuels, they produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does?

well i don't agree with your explanation. Clearly , it seems like producing is a present participle
that is referring to cooking ranges that use fossil fuel .However, here producing is modifying ""those""
and the best construction , which is ANSWER B, compares the heat produced by Magnetic resonance cooking ranges
to the heat produced by one of the fossil fuels , natural gas.
As you said we are comparing heat produced by fossil fuels to heat produced by natural gas is wrong according to me.
And that is why option b adds a verb after natural gas in b

Hello sarathgopinath,

Sincere apologies on getting back to this one so late. At times it becomes difficult to track the follow-up questions on this forum.

But as they say, better late than never.

(B) Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does.


So let's begin from the beginning by understanding the meaning. The sentence talks two kinds of cooking ranges:

i. cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels - please note that fossil fuels = natural gas
ii. cooking ranges that rely in magnetic resonance

The author presents comparison between these two types of cooking ranges? Why? Because the latter produces heat more efficiently than the former because it relies on magnetic resonance.

Hence, the comma + verb-ing modifier modifies the preceding clause that rely on magnetic resonance and presents the result of this action.

In the context of this sentence, it will absolutely be incorrect to say that the cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does because fossil fuels is natural gas.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hello Ravindra.here,

I agree to your analysis. Good observation points there.

The approach to solve this question is simple - focus on the intended comparison.

The sentences compares two kinds of cooking ranges. They have been compared because one produces heat more efficiently than the other.

However, Choices A, C, and E presents ambiguous comparison because in the absence of the helping verb does, we can infer two comparisons in these choices:

Comparison 1: Cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas produces. Entities compared: Cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance and natural gas.


Comparison 2: Cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas. Entities compared: heat and natural gas.

Per the context of the sentence, Comparison 2 does nit make any sense because fossil fuels are natural gas only.

Hence, we must repeat the helping verb does to make the comparison clear.

This analysis leaved us with Choice B and D.

Use of which is incorrect in Choice D as which refers to magnetic resonance. Per the context of the sentence, magnetic resonance is not the part of comparsion. Hence, Choice D is correct.

Choice B is the clear winner.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha