Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 13:37 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 13:37
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
laxieqv
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Last visit: 24 Jun 2011
Posts: 831
Own Kudos:
1,525
 [247]
Posts: 831
Kudos: 1,525
 [247]
20
Kudos
Add Kudos
227
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,887
 [2]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,887
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Prashant10692
Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Last visit: 22 May 2018
Posts: 97
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 275
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q48 V20
WE:Other (Computer Software)
Products:
GMAT 1: 560 Q48 V20
Posts: 97
Kudos: 144
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
MagooshExpert
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Last visit: 15 Jan 2020
Posts: 231
Own Kudos:
436
 [1]
Given Kudos: 20
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 231
Kudos: 436
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Prashant10692
Hi?

Please correct my reasoning abt A.

Is it wrong because a verbing should be able to make sense with the subject of the clause i.e Creature of seabed.
And according to it the creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, and this possibly resulting from increasing sea temp.
so it would be wrong as it doesn't make sense.

Hi Prashant10692!

I'm happy to jump in for Mike :-) Yes, that's definitely a way that we could think about this! That is correct :-) If we are referring to the entire clause (rather than only the subject of the clause), then we want to use something like "a fact which resulted from", or "as a result of", which choice B correctly uses.

-Carolyn
User avatar
dabaobao
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Last visit: 20 Jun 2022
Posts: 570
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 143
GMAT 1: 670 Q46 V36
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V38
GMAT 3: 690 Q48 V37
GMAT 4: 710 Q49 V38 (Online)
GMAT 4: 710 Q49 V38 (Online)
Posts: 570
Kudos: 1,639
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
laxieqv
A study of food resources in the North Pacific between 1989 and 1996 revealed that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly resulting from increasing sea surface temperatures during the same period.



(A) that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly resulting from increasing - Meaning: Food supplies does not cause suffering.

(B) that creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, possibly as a result of an increase in

(C) that creatures of the seabed were suffering because of food supplies, which were dwindling possibly as a result of increasing - Meaning: Food supplies does not cause suffering.

(D) creatures of the seabed that were suffering from food supplies that were dwindling, possibly resulting from an increase in - Meaning issue. "that" should come before "creatures of the seabed".

(E) creatures of the seabed that were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, which possibly resulted from increasing - Meaning issue. "that" should come before "creatures of the seabed".
avatar
as03691
Joined: 10 May 2018
Last visit: 30 Jun 2019
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V42
Products:
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V42
Posts: 30
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
laxieqv
A study of food resources in the North Pacific between 1989 and 1996 revealed that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly resulting from increasing sea surface temperatures during the same period.


(A) that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly resulting from increasing

(B) that creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, possibly as a result of an increase in

(C) that creatures of the seabed were suffering because of food supplies, which were dwindling possibly as a result of increasing

(D) creatures of the seabed that were suffering from food supplies that were dwindling, possibly resulting from an increase in

(E) creatures of the seabed that were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, which possibly resulted from increasing


Verbal Question of The Day: Day 34: Sentence Correction


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here

Show Spoilernytimes article
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/01/science/the-diverse-creatures-of-the-deep-may-be-starving.html

Hordes of creatures living in the hidden depths of the deep sea are in danger of starving to death, scientists report. This remote part of the planet is believed to harbor millions of undiscovered species, an unknown number of which may be in crisis.

A study of food supply and demand miles down in the North Pacific between 1989 and 1996 found that creatures of the seabed suffered from growing food shortages. A likely culprit, scientists say, is a documented increase in sea surface temperatures during the same period.

''If the food deficit continues, it is going to change the configuration of the deep-sea communities,'' said Kenneth L. Smith Jr., a biologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a co-author of the report, which was published recently in Science. ''Some species will die out while those that can survive on a very low food supply will still be able to maintain themselves.''


A, C, and D are wrong because they imply that the creatures are suffering from the food supplies, not the fact that they were dwindling. E is awkwardly phrased, so B is the best option.
User avatar
thangvietnam
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Last visit: 09 Mar 2023
Posts: 768
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2,198
Posts: 768
Kudos: 418
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
[quote="laxieqv"]A study of food resources in the North Pacific between 1989 and 1996 revealed that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly resulting from increasing sea surface temperatures during the same period.


(A) that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly resulting from increasing

(B) that creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, possibly as a result of an increase in

(C) that creatures of the seabed were suffering because of food supplies, which were dwindling possibly as a result of increasing

(D) creatures of the seabed that were suffering from food supplies that were dwindling, possibly resulting from an increase in

(E) creatures of the seabed that were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, which possibly resulted from increasing

if gmat test us meaning, this means we have to solve meaning problem more than realize the grammatical sentence pattern. this means we will face 2 patterns of sentence which are both grammatical but only one of them is logic.

both "reveal +noun" and 'reveal +that clause" exist in english grammat. So, both "reveal the creatures" and "reveal that creatures suffer" are grammatical. but the point is which pattern is logic in the context of sentence.

when the object of a verb is changed from an idea prepresented by "that-clause" to a concrete phisical thing or animal presented by a concreted noun, the meaning is changed and can be illogic. i do not say that this change alway makes an illogic meaning. i will give an example latter.

it is not logic to say " a study reveal creature that were suffering" but it is logic to say " a study reveal that creatures were suffering". similarly, it is not logic to say that " creatures were suffering because of food suply" . it is logic to say " creatures were suffering because food supply is dwindling"

it is also logic to say

creatures were suffering because of the bad weather

notice that we use a noun "bad weather", not a "that clause" to complement sentence. I want to say that both noun and "that clause" as object can be correct , depending on logic.

the point of this problem is the change of object from an "that clause" to a noun which makes an illogic meaning.
User avatar
thaya
Joined: 04 Aug 2018
Last visit: 26 Sep 2019
Posts: 10
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 77
Posts: 10
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
is the use of verb-ing (resulting) modifier in option A correct ?

As far as i know when a verb-ing modifier is used for modifying action, the modifier and the action should have the same doer. should this concept be applicable for all the verb-ing modifiers which are used to modify actions?
please correct me.
thanks,
User avatar
thaya
Joined: 04 Aug 2018
Last visit: 26 Sep 2019
Posts: 10
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 77
Posts: 10
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
blueseas
Dhairya275
A study of food resources in the North Pacific between 1986 and 1996 revealed that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly resulting from increasing sea surface temperatures during the same period.

A. that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly resulting from increasing
B. that creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, possibly as a result of an increase in
C. that creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies, which were dwindling possibly as a result of increasing
D. creatures of the seabed that were suffering from food supplies that were dwindling, possibly resulting from an increase in
E. creatures of the seabed that were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, which possibly resulted from increasing

IMO B
SOME THEORIES:
-verb-ing =>when followed by a (clause+comma) either modify -whole clause or -show result .
-which =>this can never refer to whole clause it either refers to noun or noun phrase.

A. that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly resulting from increasing
WRONG.
-Dwindling food supplies =>it seems that food supplies were dwindling by itself.=>illigical.
-wrong usage of verb-ing after (clause+comma)=>neither showing result of previous clause nor describing previous clause.

B. that creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, possibly as a result of an increase in
RIGHT.

C. that creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies, which were dwindling possibly as a result of increasing
WRONG.
-The part starting from WHICH WERE..{...}is acting as a modifier..now if you remove this modifier you can easily see that sentence is incomplete hence a fragment.

D. creatures of the seabed that were suffering from food supplies that were dwindling, possibly resulting from an increase in
WRONG.
-Lack of THAT after revealed..(revealed that ...)
-again same as C its a fragment.

E. creatures of the seabed that were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, which possibly resulted from increasing
WRONG.
-use of which is wrong....as we know which cant refer to a CLAUSE hence it is either refering to FOOD SUPPLIES or DWINDLING(not a noun)..in both cases sentence doesnt makes sense.

hence B

Hi,
i am having a small doubt about the use of Verb-ing modifier. as far as i i know it can used to modify the nouns or the action in the preceding clause.
when a verb-ing modifier is used to modify action of a preceding clause
1. The doer (subject) should be same for the action and the modifier but when a verb-ing modifier is used to provide result is it necessary that the modifier should have the same subject(doer)?

thanks,
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,787
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,787
 [2]
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
thaya

Hi,
i am having a small doubt about the use of Verb-ing modifier. as far as i i know it can used to modify the nouns or the action in the preceding clause.
when a verb-ing modifier is used to modify action of a preceding clause
1. The doer (subject) should be same for the action and the modifier but when a verb-ing modifier is used to provide result is it necessary that the modifier should have the same subject(doer)?

thanks,
Important distinction here: when verb-ing follows a comma and a clause, it generally modifies the entire previous clause, providing either a consequence of the previous action, or additional context for that action. Now, you'd probably keep the subject of that action in mind when evaluating the verb-ing modifier, but it isn't strictly correct to claim that verb-ing is modifying the subject directly. For example:

    "While Tim was giving a speech about the importance of eye contact, he began bleeding out of his left cornea, terrifying all the children in the kindergarten class."

This usage is fine, but it's not fully correct to say that Tim terrified the children - he didn't show up to this school dressed as a ghost. It's more precise to claim that the fact that his cornea started bleeding, the action, led to the children being terrified.

The takeaway: when you see "comma + verb-ing" don't ask yourself if it makes sense for verb-ing to directly modify the previous subject. Ask yourself if it's logical for verb-ing to offer a consequence or context for the action that the subject is performing.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
dcummins
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 1,064
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 368
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Products:
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D and E are incorrect because the relative clause restricts the impact of food resources to only those who creatures "THAT were suffering" when it is actually the entire population

C is incorrect - how can something suffer from the supply of food? The meaning is misconstrued

Next, A is incorrect - the creatures were themselves suffering, but A makes as if dwindling food supplies is some disease

B more clearly communicates that the creatures were suffering because of this issue they have- dwindling food supplies-- B is correct
User avatar
lakshya14
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Last visit: 27 Jul 2022
Posts: 360
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 529
Posts: 360
Kudos: 45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
Quote:
A: that creatures of the seabed were suffering from dwindling food supplies, possibly a result from increasing
I don't love the “a result from increasing” at the end of the sentence. “A result of” is the correct idiom. But if you don’t feel certain about that idiom… well, read this article about idioms, maybe. And then look for other stuff.

The more important thing: logically, the first part of the underlined sentence doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The creatures weren’t suffering from “dwindling food supplies.” Sure, they were suffering because the supplies were dwindling, but they weren’t suffering from the supplies themselves. Food supplies don’t make you suffer. Eliminate (A).

Quote:
B: that creatures of the seabed were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, possibly as a result of an increase in
Nice, this seems to fix exactly the problems described in (A). Let’s keep (B).

Quote:
C: that creatures of the seabed were suffering because of food supplies, which were dwindling possibly as a result of increasing
Same problem as (A): creatures weren’t suffering because of the food supplies. Food supplies are awesome, and don’t cause suffering. :banana:

Quote:
D: creatures of the seabed that were suffering from food supplies that were dwindling, possibly resulting from an increase in
We actually need the word “that” at the beginning of the underlined portion in this case. Without it, the sentence says that the study “revealed creatures of the seabed…” – and that makes no sense, unless you think that the study involved peeling away layers of sand from the ocean floor to reveal creatures. We also still have the same meaning issue as in (A) and (C): (D) also seems to be saying that the creatures suffered from food supplies. Eliminate (D).


Quote:
E: creatures of the seabed that were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, which possibly resulted from increasing
(E) is easier to eliminate. Sure, there’s the same meaning issue as in (D) (“revealed creatures of the seabed”), but the modifier beginning with “which” can’t logically modify “dwindling.”

So (E) is gone, and (B) is the winner.

But the participle adjective "dwindling" in (A) is correctly modifying food supplies, so why its exactly wrong from (B)?
User avatar
DanTe02
Joined: 06 Apr 2020
Last visit: 09 Dec 2024
Posts: 121
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
Schools: Wharton '23
WE:Engineering (Energy)
Products:
Schools: Wharton '23
Posts: 121
Kudos: 65
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
egmat and other experts can you please help me with this I'd like to know that here as is not followed by a clause and its not playing a role(Emy takes care of the babies as a mother) What function does as play here
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Deeptanshu02
egmat and other experts can you please help me with this I'd like to know that here as is not followed by a clause and its not playing a role(Emy takes care of the babies as a mother) What function does as play here
Hi Deeptanshu02,

We need to look at the whole phrase as a result of here. That phrase means "because of".
avatar
ricardorr04
avatar
Current Student
Joined: 05 Nov 2020
Last visit: 29 May 2021
Posts: 75
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 57
Location: Dominican Republic
GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40
GPA: 3.91
GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40
Posts: 75
Kudos: 11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Got to B in 53 seconds.

The key here for me was identifying the idiom "reveal that X" and then understanding what the right meaning of the sentence should be
avatar
pk6969
Joined: 25 May 2020
Last visit: 02 Jan 2022
Posts: 136
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.2
Posts: 136
Kudos: 14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
HI! have some doubt with possibly! it is an adverb so would need some verb or adjective. here does it refer to suffering? if yes, I think it too far away from the adverb. Need help.
User avatar
jabhatta2
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi ReedArnoldMPREP avigutman - wanted to focus on the core of the sentences between (A) and (B)

Highlighted BOTH the cores in (A) and in (B) in yellow

Why is core of (B) BETTER than the core of (A) ?

Between (A) and (B) -- I see people are eliminating (A) because of the core itself.

Is the core of (A) really saying -- creatures were suffering because of food supplies ?

When i read the core of (A) - i thought one COULD NOT JUST DROP the adjective dwindling .

Why are people dropping the adjective "dwindling" completely -- when discussing the Core of (A)
Attachments

pic 2.JPG
pic 2.JPG [ 75.19 KiB | Viewed 2101 times ]

User avatar
jabhatta2
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
^^ I think i may have figured it out

avigutman ReedArnoldMPREP

Creatures are suferring from dwindling food supplies

Interpretation # 1 - there are two kinds of food supplies. Dwindling food supplies and NON-dwindling food supplies. Creatures are ONLY sufferring from the former type of food supplies whereas Creatures are NOT suffering from the latter type of food supplies.

Interpretation # 2 - creatures are suffering because of the REDUCTION specifically of food supplies.

The core of (B) refers to interepratation # 2 whereas core of (A) could be referring to interpretation # 1 or interpretation #2
User avatar
avigutman
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,931
 [2]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,931
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2

Between (A) and (B) -- I see people are eliminating (A) because of the core itself.

Is the core of (A) really saying -- creatures were suffering because of food supplies ?

When i read the core of (A) - i thought one COULD NOT JUST DROP the adjective dwindling .

Why are people dropping the adjective "dwindling" completely -- when discussing the Core of (A)
People shouldn't drop the adjective, jabhatta2. Doing so makes it difficult to pinpoint the error. It has to do with the meaning of the word "suffer." Here's an example in which the same structure does work - I found this in a scientific article, using the same structure:
While women and those with a family history of anxiety are most at risk, anyone can suffer from deteriorating mental health.
So, what's the difference? Why is that okay here but not in answer choice (A)?
We must think about the meaning of the word "suffer."
We can suffer from something that afflicts us directly, but if it's some outside factor then we don't suffer from it - we suffer because of it.
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
jabhatta2

Between (A) and (B) -- I see people are eliminating (A) because of the core itself.

Is the core of (A) really saying -- creatures were suffering because of food supplies ?

When i read the core of (A) - i thought one COULD NOT JUST DROP the adjective dwindling .

Why are people dropping the adjective "dwindling" completely -- when discussing the Core of (A)
People shouldn't drop the adjective, jabhatta2. Doing so makes it difficult to pinpoint the error. It has to do with the meaning of the word "suffer." Here's an example in which the same structure does work - I found this in a scientific article, using the same structure:
While women and those with a family history of anxiety are most at risk, anyone can suffer from deteriorating mental health.
So, what's the difference? Why is that okay here but not in answer choice (A)?
We must think about the meaning of the word "suffer."
We can suffer from something that afflicts us directly, but if it's some outside factor then we don't suffer from it - we suffer because of it.

Yeah I agree with Avi. You suffer FROM a headache. I suffer FROM an old sports injury.

I don't suffer FROM my boss over-working me. I suffer BECAUSE my boss overworks me. This is borderline idiomatic, but it does seem accurate.

There's also a problem with A's 'possibly resulting' from modifier. It's a little subtle, but in A, 'possibly resulting from an increase in temperatures' modifies "They were suffering from dwindling food supplies." Now that's very close, but the meaning isn't quite clear. Does the increase in temperature CAUSE the dwindling food supplies? Or, does it cause the sea creatures to be too hot to find the dwindling food supplies (for example)? Like, maybe if the temperature hadn't increased, there could have been a dwindling food supply, but it wouldn't have caused the creatures to suffer because of it.

I know what the answer is, but the link is just *slightly* broken in A's structure. The increase in temperature caused them to suffer from dwindling food supplies, but what I know I want to say is that the increase in temperature may have caused the food supplies to dwindle, which have caused the creatures to suffer.

B clears that up:

"The creatures were suffering because food supplies were dwindling, possibly as a result of increasing temperatures."

The nearest clause for the 'possibly as a result' modifier to describe is: "food supplies were dwindling."
User avatar
himanshu0123
Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Last visit: 20 Mar 2023
Posts: 190
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 101
Posts: 190
Kudos: 5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
in option B]

'possibly'' an adverb modifying noun ' a result' . Is it acceptable?
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
189 posts