nisthagupta28 wrote:
(C) A researcher claims that, with a tornado of a given size and strength, it is likely to cause more death, both proportionately and in absolute numbers, in the southeastern rather than in the northeastern region of the United States.
A researcher (sub - s) claims (verb - s)
- that,
- with a tornado of a given size and strength, (prep phrase modifiers)
- it (there is no antecedent for the pronoun - error - 1) (it - singular subject) is (singular - verb) likely to cause more death,
- both proportionately and in absolute numbers,
- in the southeastern rather than in the northeastern region of the United States. (rather than - used for options and not comparison - incorrect
query? I don't know what the prep phrase is modifying. How can we identify it more precisely?
egmat GMATNinjaTypically, when a prepositional phrase comes before a clause, it'll modify the action of that clause. For example:
With great enthusiasm, Tim set numerous raccoon traps in his kids' bedrooms.
In this case, "with great enthusiasm" gives us info about Tim's attitude when he "set" the traps. Makes sense.
Another example:
"With his kids screaming in the backseat, Tim drove to the movies."
Now "with his kids screaming" gives us context for what was happening as Tim "drove." Tim was with his kids, who were losing their minds in the backseat. Again, perfectly logical. (Also a very common occurrence.)
Now take another look at the relevant portion of (C):
Quote:
with a tornado of a given size and strength, it [a tornado] is likely to cause more death,
I can't make any sense of this. Are we talking about two different tornados, one of a given size and strength, and another likely to cause death? And then the two are "with" each other the same way Tim was "with" his kids? If it's the same tornado, what is the "with" doing?
Wouldn't it be clearer to eliminate the prepositional phrase altogether, and just write, "A tornado of a given size and strength is likely to cause more deaths?" That's exactly what we get in (A), which is far more logical.
So the incoherence of the modifier is enough to kill (C).
I hope that helps!