Dear Friends,
Here is a detailed explanation to this question-
msand wrote:
The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to place restrictions on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems.
A. on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, saying
B. on both diesel fuel and engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and they say
C. on both diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, which says
D. both on diesel fuel and engines has sparked the oil industry to a counterattack, saying
E. both on diesel fuel and diesel engines have sparked the oil industry to counterattack, and it says
Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to place restrictions on diesel fuel and diesel engines has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, and the oil industry says that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems.
Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Pronouns + Meaning + Modifiers + Idioms + Awkwardness/Redundancy• The introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “saying” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
• “both A and B" or "A as well as B" are the correct usages; A and B must be parallel and comparable.
A: Trap.
1/ The sentence formed by this answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "saying that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "saying" in this sentence) incorrectly implies that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry
because the Environmental Protection Agency says that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems; the intended meaning is that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, and
as a separate action, the oil industry says the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “saying” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
B:1/ This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "proposal" with the plural verb "have sparked".
2/ Option B incorrectly refers to the singular noun "the oil industry" with the plural pronoun "they".
3/ Option B uses the needlessly indirect phrase "sparked the oil industry to counterattack", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.
C: Correct.1/ This answer choice correctly refers to the singular noun "proposal" with the singular verb "has sparked".
2/ Option C avoids the pronoun error seen in Option B, as it refers to the singular noun "the oil industry" with the pronoun "which", which can be either singular or plural.
3/ The sentence formed by Option C correctly modifies the noun phrase "the oil industry" with the phrase "which says that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems", conveying the intended meaning - that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, and
as a separate action, the oil industry says the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “saying” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
4/ Option C maintains parallelism and comparability between A ("diesel fuel") and B ("diesel engines") in the idiomatic construction "both A and B".
5/ Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.
D:1/ The sentence formed by this answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "saying that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "saying" in this sentence) incorrectly implies that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry
because the Environmental Protection Agency says that the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems; the intended meaning is that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal has sparked a counterattack by the oil industry, and
as a separate action, the oil industry says the move will exacerbate the nation’s fuel supply problems; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “saying” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
2/ Option D fails to maintain parallelism and comparability between A ("on diesel fuel") and B ("engines") in the idiomatic construction "both A and B"; remember, “both A and B" or "A as well as B" are the correct usages; A and B must be parallel and comparable.
3/ Option D uses the needlessly indirect phrase "sparked the oil industry to a counterattack", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.
E:1/ This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "proposal" with the plural verb "have sparked".
2/ Option E fails to maintain parallelism between A ("on diesel fuel") and B ("diesel engines") in the idiomatic construction "both A and B"; remember, “both A and B" or "A as well as B" are the correct usages; A and B must be parallel and comparable.
3/ Option E uses the needlessly indirect phrase "sparked the oil industry to counterattack", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.
Hence, C is the best answer choice.To understand the concept of "Comma Plus Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):
All the best!
Experts' Global Team