[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.