An international collaborative research project analyzing the noise

Eliminate B because the antecedent of 'its' can only be the project and that is illogical.
Eliminate C because noise can't possibly have an effect on the water flow.
Eliminate D because 'have' leads to SV error.
Eliminate E because 1. the third part in the list in not parallel with the other two, 2. animal collision with what?, 3. its unnecessarily wordy.

A is correct as it is.

An international collaborative research project analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems reported no evidence of any harmful impact.

A) analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems Correct

B) that analyzed the noise generated by tidal energy systems, its effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with it Incorrect

tidal energy systems plural, its singular

C) analyzing the noise that tidal energy systems generate and the effect this has on water flow and on animal collisions Incorrect

this singular, tidal energy systems plural

D) that has analyzed the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow and on the occurrence of animal collisions have Incorrect

An international collaborative research project singular, have plural

E) analyzing tidal energy systems in terms of how much noise is generated by them, what is their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions Incorrect

this choice is awkward, no parallelism - ....how ........, what .......and the occurrence

My answer is (A). It took me 01:50.

(B) "its effect" should be "their effect", and "collisions with it" should be "collisions with them".
With "it", the only reasonable interpretation is "noise", which does not make sense, esp. in "the occurrence of animal collisions with it".

(C) Similarly, "this" can only be interpreted to refer to "the noise", but its resultant meaning is nonsensical.

(D) Because the sentence's subject is singular ("An international collaborative research project"), its main verb cannot be "have".

(E) "what is their effect on water flow" is a complete sentence; we need a fragment / subordinate clause here. It should be: what their effect on water flow is.
There exist other issues in (E). For example, "in terms of" is awkward and wordy.

Hi @generis,

My approach for this question:

An international collaborative research project analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems reported no evidence of any harmful impact.

Breaking down the sentence:
An international collaborative research project
1) analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems,
2) their effect on water flow,
3) and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems
reported no evidence of any harmful impact.
Note that reported is the main verb of the sentence.

An international collaborative research project analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems reported no evidence of any harmful impact.
"Their" correctly refers to "tidal energy systems".
So, the original sentence looks fine and has no issues/grammatical errors.

A) analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems
As discussed above, the original sentence looks fine and has no issues/grammatical errors.
Keep this option A for now.


B) that analyzed the noise generated by tidal energy systems, its effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with it
"its" and "it" are wrong pronouns for "tidal energy systems", which is plural (Subject-Verb agreement issue).

Eliminate Option B

C) analyzing the noise that tidal energy systems generate and the effect this has on water flow and on animal collisions

Breaking down the sentence further:
the effect this has on water flow
and
(the effect this has) on animal collisions

"this" has wrong precedent, which refers to the "noise". The sentence is trying to say that this noise has effect on water flow. It doesn't make sense.
Further, the sentence is trying to say that this noise has effect on animal collisions. This is completely illogical, how the noise can effect on animal collisions.

Note that it has changed the meaning of the sentence as well.
The original sentence meant that the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems

Eliminate Option C


D) that has analyzed the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow and on the occurrence of animal collisions have

Verbs: has analyzed and collisions have
Both of them have distorted the meaning of sentence and the main verb reported.

Breaking down the sentence further:
their effect on water flow and
(their effect) on the occurrence of animal collisions have
Further, the sentence is trying to say that their effect on animal collisions. This is completely illogical, how they can effect on animal collisions.
Note that it has changed the meaning of the sentence as well.
The original sentence meant that the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems

Eliminate Option D

E) analyzing tidal energy systems in terms of how much noise is generated by them, what is their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions[/quote]

and the occurrence of animal collisions
The sentence is trying to say that the occurrence of animal collisions but no link with the "tidal energy systems". This (how tidal energy systems effect the occurrence of animal collisions) doesn't make sense.
Also, this sentence is more wordier and weirder than Option A.

Eliminate Option E

Hence, Option A is the correct answer.


Regards,
Ravish.

An international collaborative research project analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems reported no evidence of any harmful impact.

A) analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems
Sentence is good -no error observed

B) that analyzed the noise generated by tidal energy systems, its effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with it

Pronoun error "its" logically can refer to noise which makes the sentence wrong

C) analyzing the noise that tidal energy systems generate and the effect this has on water flow and on animal collisions

use of "this" is wrong also collision is considered with systems not with the effects of system- meaning wise also wrong
D) that has analyzed the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow and on the occurrence of animal collisions have
Meaning is changed
E) analyzing tidal energy systems in terms of how much noise is generated by them, what is their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions
Meaning changed

A is the correct answer

An international collaborative research project analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems reported no evidence of any harmful impact.

A) analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems -> analyzing (-ing) modifier talks about "research project", which makes sense. Further, their refers to tidal energy systems. And in last, "water flow" and "the occurrence of animal collisions" are parallel too. Let's keep it.

B) that analyzed the noise generated by tidal energy systems, its effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with it -> Its refer to whom, noise. Let's re-read it, "noise's effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with noise". This doesn't make sense. Incorrect.

C) analyzing the noise that tidal energy systems generate and the effect this has on water flow and on animal collisions -> "this" is incorrect to use.

D) that has analyzed the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow and on the occurrence of animal collisions have -> "have" is incorrect to use. We have "has analyzed". Incorrect.

E) analyzing tidal energy systems in terms of how much noise is generated by them, what is their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions -> "how much", "what is" and "the occurrence " are not parallel. Further, this option impacts on the meaning as well. Incorrect.

So, I think A.

An international collaborative research project analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems reported no evidence of any harmful impact.

Pre-thinking: Original sentence seems correct the way it is. SVA seems correct in original sentence using 'their effect' to refer to 'tidal energy systems'

A) analyzing the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with such systems
Option A seems correct. Parallelism in correct in 'their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions' SVA seems correct in original sentence using 'their effect' to refer to 'tidal energy systems'.

B) that analyzed the noise generated by tidal energy systems, its effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions with it
'its' refers to the wrong precedent 'noise generated' which is incorrect. The 'tidal energy systems' have an effect on the 'water flow' and not the 'noise generated'.

C) analyzing the noise that tidal energy systems generate and the effect this has on water flow and on animal collisions
'this' refers to the wrong precedent 'noise generated' which is incorrect. The 'tidal energy systems' have an effect on the 'water flow' and not the 'noise generated'.

D) that has analyzed the noise generated by tidal energy systems, their effect on water flow and on the occurrence of animal collisions have
The 'have' used after 'animal collisions' is incorrect. It changes the meaning of the sentence such that it seems 'the occurrence of animal collisions' have 'reported no evidence', whereas the correct meaning should be that 'the research project' has 'reported no evidence'.

E) analyzing tidal energy systems in terms of how much noise is generated by them, what is their effect on water flow, and the occurrence of animal collisions
'and the occurrence of animal collisions' is disconnected from 'tidal energy systems' which should not be the cases.

IMO answer should be Option A.

can it refer to noise generated and not just noise?