A natural response of communities devastated by earthquake or flood is

As explained in the post (link below) that COMMA + VERB 'ING' modifies the nearest preceding ACTION (say action no. 1):
Can we eliminate the option in case it fails to do so?

OR,
We must further roll our eyes back to see if the ACTION preceding (say action no. 2) to the nearest ACTION, action no. 1, can be the logical referent, and if the action no. 2 makes sense, then action no. 2 is RIGHTFULLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY the correct referent for COMMA+VERB 'ING'?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-natural-re ... l#p2434132

MartyTargetTestPrep AjiteshArun
sir why usage of overlooking(Verb-ing) incorrect in option A,B &C
can't we say To rebuild communities (ARE) overlooking......

Hello saby1410,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the use of "overlooking" in A, B, and C forms the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "overlooking" in this sentence)" construction; if this construction modifies a clause, it conveys that the subject of the clause performs the action that the participle refers to.

In this case, that subject is "A natural response", so the use of "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "overlooking" in this sentence)" illogically implies that the natural response overlooks the possibility that the forces that caused the disaster could be repeated.

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

MartyTargetTestPrep AjiteshArun
sir why usage of overlooking(Verb-ing) incorrect in option A,B &C
can't we say To rebuild communities (ARE) overlooking......

But it's not always the case there are some instances where subject doesn't makes sense with verbing but still correct and modifies the clause

Posted from my mobile device

On re-examining the question, I could understand a solid reason (which I missed in my previous post) that option E is the best answer.

Comma + present participle modifier should refer to the subject of the previous clause or the effect of the entire clause. Here "Overlooking .... " wrongly suggests that "A natural response" (subject of the previous clause) overlooks, not the "communities". Hence option A, B And C can be eliminated.

The intended meaning is that the disaster, not the forces, would be repeated. Hence option A, B AND D can be eliminated.

Option E is the correct answer.

usaidmandvia Previously I missed the modifier problem as mentioned above in this post - why C is incorrect is explained above.

sayantanc2k - I was also confused between c & e, but chose c because of the phrase "cause another such disaster" in e. Isn't such/other/another meaning the same and using 2 of them together creates redundancy? I have seen other examples in official questions where such & other don't work together.

I was also confused between c & e, but chose c because of the phrase "cause another such disaster" in e. Isn't such/other/another meaning the same and using 2 of them together creates redundancy? I have seen other examples in official questions where such & other don't work together.

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

Dear daagh,

(Sorry for such a long post. I tried to be as much precise as I can so that beginners could benefit from it.)

Today I’ve had enough time to reflect on this question. And, with your permission, I’d like to share with you some findings.

A. I think we need to modify too widespread but not always correct notion: “comma + verbing must modify the subject and the action of that subject in the preceding clause”.

Let’s use more precise description from GMATGuruNY and RonPurewal: “COMMA + VERBing serves to refer to the nearest preceding action and the performer of that action.” This precision is indeed important because the performer of the action is NOT always the subject of the preceding clause. Below are two examples:

B. Mitch Hunt gives a good explanation of how comma+verbing works here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/?href=-map-e ... 84515.html

- Geologists use a network of seismometers to chart seismic waves that originate in the earth's crust and ricochet around its interior, travelling most rapidly through cold, dense regions and more slowly through hotter rocks.

Here, the subject of the main sentence is “geologists”, and the action of this subject is “use”. So, according to widespread notion, comma+travelling should refer to “geologist” and “use”. But that’s incorrect because geologists are not travelling through hotter rocks. Actually, comma + travelling here refers to the nearest preceding action “ricochet” and its performer “seismic waves”. And it’s perfectly logical to say that seismic waves ricochet while travelling through certain regions of earth’s crust. We can also note that “waves” is not the subject of the sentence, and “ricochet” is not the main verb. That’s why we need a more precise description.

C. Another good example comes from Ron. He says: Note that i've been careful to say that these modifiers describe "actions". i.e., I’m careful NOT to say "verbs". For example:

- I peeked into the workshop and saw the master watchmaker leaning over the table, squinting at the tiny parts of an old Rolex.

Ron: here, comma + "squinting..." describes the action of "leaning over the table".
"leaning" isn't technically a verb, but it still represents an action (and is ultimately derived from a verb).

Once again, comma + squinting is not referring to the subject of the sentence “I” and its action “peeked” or “saw”, but referring to the nearest action “squinting” and its performer “the master watchmaker”.

Small conclusion: COMMA + VERBing serves to refer to the nearest preceding action and the performer of that action. And that performer is not always the subject of the sentence.

Considering all the above, we can finally dissect our original question:

- A natural response of communities devastated by earthquake or flood is to rebuild on the same site, without considering that the forces that caused the disaster could also cause another such disaster.

Here, “without considering” refers to “to rebuild” because “to rebuild” is the nearest preceding action. And it’s logical to say that someone fails to consider a danger while rebuilding the communities. So “without considering” makes sense with “to rebuild”. However, “without considering” doesn’t necessarily have to make sense with the subject of the sentence “a response of communities” - because “a response of communities” is not the performer of the action “to rebuild”. The performer of “rebuild” is implied but not clearly shown here.

Let me, please, try to be a bit more precise so that I can explain what I mean. the construction “a natural response is to rebuild” is similar to “A is B” in which both A and B are nouns. “to rebuild” is a noun here, and “to rebuild” is equal to “a natural response”. So, “a response” is not the performer of “to rebuild”, and hence “without considering” doesn’t have to modify “a response”.

There is a similar example:

- The main rule of bungee jumping is to jump with wide open arms, without looking down.

Here, neither “main rule” nor “bungee jumping” performs the action “jump”. The actual performer (people) is implied but not explicitly shown. “without looking down" makes sense with “to jump” and its implied performer (people), but doesn’t necessarily have to make sense with the subject of the sentence “main rule”. The same is true for the original sentence.

Main conclusion: “without considering” does make sense with the nearest action “to rebuild” and its implied performer (people), but doesn’t necessarily have to make sense with the subject of the sentence “a natural response”.

There is a similar official example here, with GMATGuruNY 's detailed explanation: https://gmatclub.com/forum/?href=.html#831859

Thank you for your patience. Your comments are welcome.