A natural response of communities devastated by earthquake or flood is

B: "IT" is incorrect
C: "Another one" of what? Site? Disaster?
D: Forces getting repeated will not necessarily cause the disaster again.
E: Correct

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-



Choice A: In Option A, we see a pronoun ambiguity error; the pronoun "it" could refer to "site" or "earthquake or flood". Moreover, Option A also suffers from a modifier error; the modifying phrase "overlooking the possibility" incorrectly modifies "A natural response", rather than "communities". Additionally, this answer choice alters the intended meaning of the sentence; a close reading of Option A will show that it refers to the possibility of the forces being repeated, rather than the event the forces caused. Thus, Option A is incorrect.

Choice B: Option B repeats the meaning-related and modifier errors of Option A. Thus, Option B is incorrect.

Choice C: Option C also suffers from the modifier error found in Options A and B. Moreover, it suffers from ambiguity in the phrase "overlooking that" as "overlooking" can also mean to physically overlook something. Thus, Option C is incorrect

Choice D: Option D also suffers from the meaning-related errors found in Options A and B. Thus, Option D is incorrect.

Choice E: Option E suffers from no modifier errors and clearly conveys the intended meaning of the sentence. Thus, Option E is correct.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of “Avoiding Pronoun Ambiguity” on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

The problem with this question could also be solved by looking at the meaning and removing the useless parts in the answer choices (an approached highlighted by e-GMAT).

Take a look at
A) overlooking the possibility that the forces that caused it could be repeated. - forces could be repeated?? doesnt make sense
B) overlooking the possibility that the forces causing it could be repeated. - Again similar error as A
D) without considering that the forces causing the disaster could be repeated. - Again similar error as A

As for C, overlooking "that the" is wrong, one always overlooks something. Essentially "that" is not needed here.

Therefore. E is correct answer.

Hope this helps.

No, this is not a solid reason to eliminate C. That "something" you mentioned could as well be a "that" clause. I do not see any solid reason to eliminate C. (The pronoun "one" correctly refers to "disaster" by virtue of parallelism.)

This question does not seem to be from an authentic source.

Actually what i meant to say was that C sounds awkward. And even if this doesn't convince, then we should follow the above mentioned approach (removing the useless parts in the answer)

C) overlooking that the forces that caused the disaster could also cause another one - "one" over here is ambiguous.

Also this question is from the old paper format GMAT.

A Pronoun may refer to an antecedent which is within a modifier - removing the modifier and then reasoning that the pronoun does not have an antecedent is not logical.

Moreover, if a pronoun is a subject or an object of a clause, by virtue of parallelism it can refer to an antecedent which is a subject or an object of another clause in the sentence. Therefore "one" refers to "disasters" without ambiguity (Objects of two clauses).

It is true that we MUST align our reasoning with the reasoning of official questions, but there are a few (rare) old official questions which do not match with reasoning of the current ones. This is possibly such a question.

What's wrong with A sayantanc2k

Official Explanation

Rhetorical construction; Logical predication

Communities hit by an earthquake or a flood naturally desire to rebuild in the same place, yet sometimes fail to consider that the forces that caused the disaster could cause another, similar disaster.

A. In this choice, possibility is redundant with could. Furthermore, this statement incorrectly suggests that the forces . . . could be repeated rather than that the disaster itself could be repeated. Note also that the pronoun it has no clear referent.

B. This statement incorrectly suggests that the forces . . . could be repeated rather than that the disaster itself could be repeated.

C. This choice uses the idiomatically incorrect form overlooking that. This choice is confusing also because overlooking has a physical meaning that can apply, for example, to a site but does not fit with overlooking that.

D. This statement incorrectly suggests that the forces . . . could be repeated rather than that the disaster itself could be repeated.

E. Correct. This choice clearly conveys the meaning of the sentence and has none of the flaws mentioned above.

The correct answer is E.

1. Meaning Error - This answer makes it seem like the forces that caused the disaster could be repeated. Illogical! The intended meaning is that the forces that caused the disaster could cause a repeat disaster.

2. Pronoun Error - What does 'it' refer to? There is no crystal clear referent.



Exact same errors as in (A).

This answer choice just changes the past tense verb 'caused' to present tense 'causing'.



'overlooking that' is idiomatically incorrect.

This is the runner-up answer in my opinion. Probably not worth beating yourself up if you missed this question.



1. Meaning Error - This answer makes it seem like the forces that caused the disaster could be repeated. Illogical! The intended meaning is that the forces that caused the disaster could cause a repeat disaster.



(E) Clears up that meaning error in the previous answers. It's a long sentence, and usually we like brevity, but this is a difficult question.

Definition of the adverbial modifier: The adverbial modifier with the structure of comma plus verbing modifies the subject and the action of the previous clause.
If overlooking cannot modify the subject "the natural response" and the response's act "to rebuild", 'without considering' also cannot consider. All five choices suffer from the same misplaced modification. In E, yet again, the 'also' and 'another' are redundant.

Are GMAT Advanced questions really from GMAC or are they outsourced?

Cant seem to decipher why C is incorrect?
Moreover, the answers from other experts are favoring both C & E.

Here's the full sentence using choice (C):

"A natural response of communities devastated by earthquake or flood is to rebuild on the same site, (C) overlooking that the forces that caused the disaster could also cause another one."

Part of the problem is that, at first glance, "overlooking" seems to modify "site". This is a confusing, since we commonly use "site" and "overlooking" together, but in a totally different context: "The billionaire wants to build his next mansion on a site overlooking the Malibu coastline." But in this case, it doesn't make sense to say that the site itself is overlooking anything.

The other issue is idiomatic. "Overlooking" is generally followed by a noun. For example, "I blamed my failure on my boss, overlooking the possibility that it was my own fault."

Choice (E) avoids both of these issues, and that's why it's the correct answer.


Brother daagh, I wouldn't be surprised if you've already looked into this, but the GMAT Advanced Questions really are from the GMAT. The explanations in the book were definitely outsourced, though, and so was the categorization of the questions. So if, for example, an SC question in that book is labeled as "communication", that label didn't come directly from GMAC.

Strange, but apparently true.

Jon, do you mean that the participles (, overlooking) and (, without considering) modify the subject of the previous clause, (namely the response) rather than the subject and the action of the subject (namely the response and its action to rebuild)?

Then don't you think that it would be a misnomer to call them adverbial modifiers?

If one really meant to modifiers to modify the subject, then one would change the word order as ---

We need to be a bit nimble with these kind of iron clad rules and add the word generally.

For example, in the following correct sentence:

The colorization of black-and-white films by computers is defended by those who own the film rights, for the process can mean increased revenues for them; many others in the film industry, however, contend that the technique degrades major works of art, likening it to putting lipstick on a Greek statue.

likening is clearly not modifying techniques, the performer of the nearest action degrades; likening is modifying many others in the film industry.

Sure Ashish. Thank you very much for taking the time and pointing this out. Actually, I’ve been rewriting my above post, completely changing some of its key points. There is actually a good explanation to the example you have provided.

In some cases, a noun clause may come in between COMMA + VERBING and the action it modifies. In other words, an action is followed by two modifiers as below:

Action + modifier 1 (a noun clause) + modifier 2 (COMMA + VERBING)

Here, both modifiers refer to a single action and also make sense with the performer of that action. Generally, such actions are transitive verbs that demand an object. And here, that object is a noun clause (modifier 1). Such noun clauses are easy to spot because they usually start with such pronouns as that, what, whatever, when, where, and so on. For example:

- She didn't realize that the directions were wrong.
- He didn't know why the microwave wasn't working.

Here, “realize” and “know” are transitive verbs that don’t make sense without an object. So, we need to say “she didn’t realize something” or “he didn’t know something”. When we want to attach modifier 2 (COMMA + VERBING) to “realize” or “know”, it has to come second because those verbs don’t make sense without their objects (modifier 1 or noun clauses):

- She didn't realize that the directions were wrong, confusing the real streets with the ones on photo.
- He didn't know why the microwave wasn't working, pushing every button it had.

In order to realize what COMMA + VERING modifies, we can just replace noun clauses with “something”. In the example you have provided, that’s precisely why “likening” modifies a transitive verb contend, not “degrades”:

- Many others in the film industry contend that the technique degrades major works of art, likening it to putting lipstick on a Greek statue.
- Many others in the film industry contend something, likening it to putting lipstick on a Greek statue. (without something contend doesn’t make sense)

Another official example:

- Insurance companies in California were free to charge whatever rates the market would bear, needing no approval from regulators.
- Insurance companies in California were free to charge something, needing no approval from regulators.


Note that questions with such structure are quite rare. In most other cases, “nearest preceding action” rule holds true and can indeed rescue us when we are between two contenders. Below are A and B choices of 85% difficulty official question:

- (A) A herbaceous plant from Eurasia with milky sap that gives mouth sores to cattle, displacing grasses and other cattle food and rendering rangeland worthless.

- (B) A herbaceous plant from Eurasia, with milky sap, that gives mouth sores to cattle and displaces grasses and other cattle food, rendering rangeland worthless.

In A, it’s clear that “displacing” and “rendering” try to illogically modify “gives”. So, A is out. But when it comes to B, one may become confused, not knowing what “rendering” modifies – “gives” or “displaces”. If (s)he decides both are modified because of the parallelism maker “and” in between, then (s)he can wrongly cross off the correct answer choice. However, in B, “rendering” modifies only the nearest verb “displaces”, and there is a good explanation for this either.

“Any reader's natural instinct is to try to apply modifiers to nearby stuff. so, when there are two actions that a modifier could potentially modify, a well-written sentence will, if at all possible, place the modifier next to the thing it's describing” - RonPurewal

Hi JonShukhrat, OG drops us a clue that there might be yet another exception to this rule.

Following is an incorrect official answer choice:

Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying part of the rent to a purchase later.

What is specifically interesting, is the official explanation:

"applying" following a nonrestrictive clause suggests incorrectly that the "builders", not the "family", are applying the rent.

Dear Ashish,

Many thanks for bringing up another good official example that is perfectly in line with what I said earlier – the piece you have quoted. Initially, I was about to add this example to my earlier post, but refrained from making it any longer. So, better late than never:

- E. Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying part of the rent to a purchase later. (incorrect)

Question: what does “applying” modify here – “offer” or “to move” ?

As I’ve already said, in such cases, it seems to modify the closest action “to move”. In other words, it’s impossible for it to jump over “which clause” and modify “offer”. Hence, not house builders but a family is applying the rent. E is incorrect not for the reason provided by the official explanation, but because “to move” and “applying” happen in different timeframes. It’s a general rule that "comma + verbing" and the action it modifies be contemporaneous. Examples from Ron:

- Tyler was struck by a bus, dying instantly.
(correct because “was struck” and “dying” happens in the same timeframe)

- Tyler was struck by a bus, dying in the hospital a few hours later.
(incorrect because “dying” happens later. For more check the LINK 1)

- E: programs enable families to move into new housing, applying the rent later.
(incorrect because “applying” happens later)

Both RonPurewal and GMATGuruNY confirm that “applying” modifies the closest action “to move”, not “offer”. (check the LINK 2, LINK 3, and LINK 4). So, the exception you have provided actually isn’t an exception. What was exceptional in that post, though, is exceptionally misleading official explanation. It seems to be written by people even dumber than me. I didn’t know that such people existed :-D

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Explanation:

Actually, there is a good explanation of why “comma + verbing” can’t jump over “which clause”, and instead has to modify the closest action in that “which clause”. It’s customary, if possible, to put a modifier as close as possible to the thing it modifies. However, when there is more than one modifier, usually the essential one comes first. So:

Observation 1: An essential modifier can come before “comma + verbing”. In such cases, “comma + verb” can jump over and modify the action standing before the essential modifier. An example from Ron (LINK 5):

- I dropped a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives.

The whole phrase “containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks” is an essential modifier describing “a bag”. For this reason it precedes another modifier “breaking”. In such cases, “breaking” isn’t obliged to modify the closest action “enclosed”, but can jump over and modify “dropped”.

Observation 2: however, nothing keeps “comma + verbing” from modifying the closest action in a preceding essential modifier if the meaning requires this. An example from Ron (LINK 5 above):

- I dropped a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, supporting them with nutrients and heat.
(“supporting” modifies “enclosed”)

Observation 3: When “which clause” comes before “comma + verbing” – as in E above, the latter can’t jump over the former and modify the preceding action. That’s because “which clause” is NOT an essential modifier. Thus “comma + verbing” will have to modify the action in “which clause”, not the action before it. Example from Ron:

- The truck spilled a tank full of gasoline, some of which spilled into the river, killing a large number of fish.
(“killing” modifies closest action “spilled”, not "spilled" at the beginning. LINK 6)

- I lost my grip on the discus, which then flew backward out of my hand, almost smashing into a spectator's head.
(“smashing” modifies closest action “flew”, not "lost". LINK 7)

______________________________________________________________________________________


Here are two incorrect answer choices (from official question) similar to the incorrect answer choice E above:

- B. The electronics company has unveiled what it claims to be the smallest network digital camcorder in the world, which is as long as a handheld computer, weighing less than 11 ounces. (incorrect)

- E. The electronics company has unveiled what it claims is the world’s smallest network digital camcorder, the length of which is that of a handheld computer, weighing less than 11 ounces. (incorrect)

Question: What does “weighing” modify here – “is” or “to be” or “claims” or “unveiled”?

It’s the closest one - “is” in the “which clause”. We can’t just cross of “which clause” and attach “weighing” to the main clause here. Read explanations from Ron and Mitch: LINK 8, LINK 9, and LINK 10.

Conclusion: when we have main clause + which clause + comma verbing, we can’t just cross of “which clause” and append “verbing” to the main clause.

I am 98.13% sure that, in no correct answer choice “comma + verbing” jumps over “which clause”. And I would be happy to be proven wrong. It's always pleasure to learn something new. Your comments are very welcome.