A Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-
Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that a Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half of its gold reserves, and as a result fears were raised that other countries would do the same and inundate the market.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Modifiers + Pronouns + Grammatical Construction

• Semicolons and the “comma + conjunction” construction are used to link two independent clauses; commas are used to link an independent clause with a dependent one; comma cannot be used to join two independent clauses.
• "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.
• The introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “raising” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

A: This answer choice suffers from a pronoun error, as the pronoun "this" lacks a clear and logical referent. Further, Option A alters the meaning of this sentence through the phrase "fears of other countries"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that the Swiss government panel raised fears of other countries that sell half their gold reserves and inundate the market; the intended meaning is that the Swiss government panel raised fears about the possibility that other countries would sell half their gold reserves and inundate the market. Additionally, Option A incorrectly uses conjunction ("and" in this sentence) to join the independent clauses "A Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half of its gold reserves" and "this raised fears of other countries that do the same and inundate the market"; remember, semicolons and the “comma + conjunction” construction are used to link two independent clauses; commas are used to link an independent clause with a dependent one; comma cannot be used to join two independent clauses.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "which...raised fears of other countries"; the construction of this phrase and its use to modify "half of its gold reserves" incorrectly implies that half of the Swiss gold reserves raised fears of other countries that sell half their gold reserves and inundate the market; the intended meaning is that the Swiss government panel raised fears about the possibility that other countries would sell half their gold reserves and inundate the market; remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.

C: This answer choice suffers from a pronoun error, as the pronoun "they" lacks a clear and logical referent.

D: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "with fears raised"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that a Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half of its gold reserves because fears were raised that other countries would do the same and inundate the market; the intended meaning is that a Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half of its gold reserves, and as a result fears were raised that other countries would do the same and inundate the market.

E: Correct. This answer choice avoids the pronoun errors seen in Options A and C, as it uses no pronouns. Further, Option E uses the phrase "raising fears that other countries would"; the construction of this phrase conveys the intended meaning - that a Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half of its gold reserves, and as a result the panel raised fears about the possibility that other countries would do the same and inundate the market; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “raising” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship. Additionally, Option E correctly uses a comma to join the independent clause "A Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half of its gold reserves" and the dependent clause "raising fears that other countries would do the same and inundate the market".

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Comma Plus Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the use of punctuation on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~10 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Which, Who, Whose, and Where" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

E is missing a verb. I think would needs to be there after E...

Without verb WOULD E is incomplete...

okdongdong, please make sure the choice E is complete...

A Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half of its gold reserves and this raised fears of other countries that do the same and inundate the market.
A. reserves and this raised fears of other countries that
- this has no clear referent...
B. reserves, which, as a result, raised fears of other countries that
- wrong use of restrictive clause...
C. reserves, as a result, they feared that other countries would
- wrong THEY, it would be better...
D. reserves, with fears raised that other countries would
- with clause, not effectively joining the main clause...
E. reserves, raising fears that other countries
- incomplete without WOULD..

Hi Nevernevergiveup, GMATNinja,

Please your help. I don't get why ,with is wrong. Here is another question (I think its actually a gmatprep one) that uses the mentioned construction: https://gmatclub.com/forum/visitors-to- ... 51789.html

Besides that, is there a problem with "fears raised that". Besides the passive voice, is 'that' modifying 'raised' wrong? If it is, why?

Hello CristianJuarez,


I am not sure if you still have this doubt. Here is the explanation nonetheless.



The way the expression with fear raised has been used in Choice D, it fails to convey that the recommendation of the Swiss government panel has raised fears. This is the intended meaning that has been amply expressed in the original sentence although through incorrect grammar.


Choice D seems to suggest that the country sell half of its gold reserves with fear raised as if the country's fear should be raised. So clearly, use of the with phrase does not convey the intended meaning.



Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

A Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half of its gold reserves and this raised fears of other countries that do the same and inundate the market.

A. reserves and this raised fears of other countries that There are two issues with this option. Firstly, "this" has no clear antecedent, what raised fears? Secondly, fears "of" other countries is possessive form, referring to the other countries' fears, whereas the intent is to state that the fears are that other countries would follow suit. Eliminate.

B. reserves, which, as a result, raised fears of other countries that Same error of using "of" in the possessive form as in (A). Eliminate.

C. reserves, as a result, they feared that other countries would "They" has no clear antecedent. Eliminate.

D. reserves, with fears raised that other countries would "fears raised" is unnecessarily in passive voice form. Usage of "with" is also incorrect. Eliminate.

E. reserves, raising fears that other countries would Correct answer. No new errors and possessive "of" is corrected.

Hope this helps.

A Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half its gold reserves and this raised fears of other countries that do the same and inundate the market.

reserves, with fears raised that other countries would
reserves, raising fears that other countries would

I don't understand why d is wrong because with is a prepositional phrase and adverbial phrase modifying 'sell' here.
It makes sense to say sell with fears raised that other countries would ....
What did I get wrong about the concept or the meaning

A Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half its gold reserves and this raised fears of other countries that do the same and inundate the market.

egmat
GMATNinja

Hello viphaneev,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubt.

The issue with Option D is that the "with fears raised" does not convey the cause-effect relationship between the government panel recommending that the country sell about half of its gold reserves, and fears being raised regarding other countries doing the same. By contrast, Option E uses the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "raising" in this sentence)" construction, succinctly conveying the cause-effect relationship.

To understand the concept of "Comma + Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Consider another example when we use "with fear" to modify a verb.

Tim encouraged his kids to sell his wife's jewelry with fear.

"With fear" seems to be modifying the verb phrase "to sell," so it sounds as though Tim is encouraging his kids to be afraid when they sell the jewelry.

Now go back to (D):

Now it seems as though "with fears" is modifying "sell," so it sounds like the panel is recommending that the country be afraid when they sell their gold. But that doesn't make any sense. Why would a panel encourage a country to be frightened?

It would be far more logical for the sell-off of gold to trigger the fear. This is the meaning we get in (E).

I hope that helps!

Hi Experts

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma EducationAisle ChrisLele mikemcgarry AjiteshArun egmat sayantanc2k RonPurewal DmitryFarber MagooshExpert avigutman EMPOWERgmatVerbal MartyTargetTestPrep ExpertsGlobal5 IanStewart
other experts AnthonyRitz

I have my exam in 2 days and I am doing mistakes in sub 600 level questions

In option E , raising must make sense with the subject of the previous clause , but here the subject is country so why the option is not wrong?

Where as appositive phrase shows the result of the previous action so why D is wrong?

Am I thinking too much?

Actually, the subject is panel.

Posted from my mobile device

avigutman Thanks for replying
Panel is subject for the main clause and verbing is modifying the subordinate clause and not the main clause..Can you please answer my query?

So verb ing should make sense with the main subject of the main clause? Is it always true?

As for the dependent clause (starting after that) subject is country

Hi Vatsal7794, your query (especially your choice of words "always true") suggests that you are hoping for general, absolute grammar rules that can be applied automatically and blindly to any situation. That's a very reasonable and understandable thing to hope for, but it doesn't lead to success on GMAT SC. This is because language evolved over many centuries, and is full of inconsistencies and idiomatic constructions as a result. This is why it's so important to think about the author's intent and about the logical meaning of the sentence, in addition to the grammar.

On your test, which will have much newer problems than the ones that have been published by GMAC, I expect that you will find that grammar only helps you eliminate 2-3 answer choices on most SC problems. Reasoning will be required to narrow down the choices further.

Since your test is in 2 days time, I strongly advise you to stop studying immediately. You should be spending your time practicing mindfulness and getting physical exercise; studying at this point will do nothing but increase your anxiety.

That said, if you will be retaking the test, I suggest that you watch this video in which I demonstrate a focus on reasoning over grammar:


Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/QuantReasoning? ... irmation=1

You're not overthinking, but you're definitely turned around, and you're definitely misthinking.

The "Swiss government panel" is the subject of the sentence, and the "raising fears" is certainly attributable to this subject, so I don't see any problem here.

Anyway, the rule as I understand it and have cited it is that

(1) a participle phrase
(2) at the end of a sentence
(3) set off by a comma

...describes the preceding clause as a whole. This might be the relative clause, but that wouldn't make any sense. Logically it seems to describe the primary clause, so we'll go with that. The fact that "a Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half of its gold reserves" certainly is what raised the fears expressed in this sentence.

You want a rule that involves the word "always" here, and you won't get it. (You asked whether ""verb ing should make sense with the main subject of the main clause? Is it always true?") The answer is no. It's just "the preceding clause." Which preceding clause, if they're nested? Whichever one makes sense.

I just don't really see why we would strain to find a problem in this really, really well-written sentence, especially since every other answer is an absolute train wreck.

You mentioned D and said something about appositive phrases, but you mis-cited the rule for appositive phrases (which modify nouns or noun phrases) and misapplied it in this case to something that isn't even an appositive phrase at all. "with" is a preposition, and "with fears raised" is a prepositional phrase. But what, exactly, does it modify? What is the thing that is "with fears raised"? In what way is it "with" this?

The "that" is also a bit problematic. If it's a subordinating conjunction, then it should follow a subject and verb. But it doesn't. If it's a relative pronoun, I'd like it to be right next to "fears" -- "raised fears that." So it's probably a relative pronoun with an awkward word order, inside a prepositional phrase that doesn't seem to clearly or logically modify... anything. Gross.

And, on top of everything else, you lose the important cause and effect nature of what's happening here. The fears were raised because of the panel's recommendation. D doesn't capture that at all. It's an awful sentence.

TL;DR: You need to make sure you actually just get the rules right, because you're expressing some of them wrong. But you're misunderstanding rules in significant part because you're looking for them to be expressed with impossible levels of certainty, as "always" statements. You need to understand that there are exceptions and nuances and balances of considerations. Finally, you need to actually compare answers. The idea that we would cross off E -- even if we found this beautiful modifier to be somehow suspect -- in favor of a train wreck like D shows a real failure to prioritize and figure out what we can live with versus what we shouldn't tolerate.

I hope this helps!

MartyTargetTestPrep

Hey Marty! It will be highly appreciative if you could help with this one.

1. Regarding option D,

"with fears raised ..." can modify the noun, correct? (in this case i.e. A Swiss government panel)
(The sentence could mean "the Government panel, with fear raised, recommended to do X.")


2. Is E better because it is preferrable for modifier to try and modify the closest clause?
So, D would mean, Either
Government panel recommended that the country, with fear raised, do X
OR
Government panel recommended that the country do. with fear raised, X
Those would be understandably wrong. If this is the case, can we always (100% of the case) assume that the modifier is trying to modify the closest clause?

Hi DrWho.

A prepositional phrase that follows a clause modifies the verb of that clause, unless it modifies a noun right at the end of the clause.

So, in this case, "with fears raised" attempts to express how things were when the panel "recommended" or even how the panel "recommended."

Notice that the modifier "raising fears ..." in the (E) version does not modify what we could call "the closest clause," which is "that the country sell about half of its gold reserves." Rather, "raising fears ..." modifies the longer preceding clause "A Swiss government panel recommended ...."

The same goes for "with fears raised." It does not have to modify the verb in "the closest clause." It could modify the verb that it more logically modifies.

The issue with the use of "with fears raised ..." is that it doesn't logically modify anything in the sentence.

"A Swiss government panel recommended with fears raised" doesn't make sense, and "A Swiss government panel recommended that the country do X with fears raised" doesn't make sense either.

A Swiss government panel recommended that the country sell about half of its gold reserves and this raised fears of other countries that do the same and inundate the market.

A. reserves and this raised fears of other countries that
B. reserves, which, as a result, raised fears of other countries that
C. reserves, as a result, they feared that other countries would
D. reserves, with fears raised that other countries would
E. reserves, raising fears that other countries would[/quote]
->Correct. "Raising fears that.." acts as a V-ing modifier describe the action

A very important point which I believe most of the folks would miss out on under pressure is the usage of that is choice A and B.

Whenever that is used as a pronoun, it is always singular and must refer to a singular noun.
Choices A and B are wrong because that is used to refer to plural noun countries.

Choice C is wrong because the author tries to connect to independent clauses (notice the semi colon).
Additionally, there is no antecedent for the pronoun they in choice C.
The usage of they distorts the intended meaning as well.
Overall, a horrible choice.

Choice D distorts the intended meaning. Usage of with suggests that the fears were already raised when the panel recommended the sell off.