Antarctica receives more solar radiation than does any other place on

Hello, everyone:

I'll take up the cause of "what does 'it' refer to in choice B" a little further. In B, not only does the pronoun "it" present a reference problem, but the phrase "were it to do so" also has no logical referent. Because we're already saying that "little polar ice melts", so "were it to do so" only confirms that, yes, it does melt...but we've already acknowledge that. Without a transition like "were MORE ice to melt", this phrase is illogical.

Interestingly, in Googling this question to see if I could find an official source for it, I've found an alternate version of choice B that begins:

were it NOT to do so

Even that seems dubious to me as that would also seem an illogical meaning (were little ice NOT to melt...), but the whole process makes me wonder a bit about the true wording of this question. B, as written, cannot be correct, but C doesn't look to be correct either (the "or else" is a bit of a run-on sentence). Does anyone have the original source on this one? Since there are a few versions of these answer choices out there, I wonder if the exact question is worded differently than we have it .

In my opinion, the part after the semicolon needs to be a contrast. Were it to do so here seems to stand for little melting of the polar ice, that is currently happening.

Were it to do so is hypothetical subjunctive and should represent something that isn't happening or may happen. 'Do so' should be replaced with 'not to do so'. It would then mean that a lot of ice is melting. This is what would lead to increase in the water level.

That is why i believe A is a better choicechoice as the other options defy parallelism.

Please share your thoughts.

I think the contrast is in - built in B; the use of the negative term ‘little’ is critical here. The choice means that very little or no ice melts in summer. If it were to melt, (to do so, means ‘to melt’ and not “not to melt”), then the water levels will rise.
Does it help?

In B, the portion of the sentence after the semicolon, frankly makes it quite a tough choice. I don't recollect seeing a similar structure on an official question (is it really GMATPrep?)


The meaning that A depicts is a bit strange because of the presence of so that, which basically means in order to (showing intent).

So, A would suggest that intentionally (by nature's design??) temperatures are so cold and the ice cap is reflective in order to limit the melting of polar ice during the summer.

I think there is another version of this question with the option B saying 'were it not to do so' rather than 'were it to do so' is that the correct version? I am really trying to make B make sense in my head but somehow I am still at lost at how 'were it to do so' fits here. If anyone could help!

Antarctica receives more solar radiation than does any other place on Earth, yet the temperatures are so cold and the ice cap is so reflective that little of the polar ice melts during the summer; were it to do so, the water levels of the oceans would rise 250 feet and engulf most of the world’s great cities.

I rejected B because "were it to do so" sounds like an independent clause itself while after comma " water levels ..... would rise..." sounds like another independent clause, isn't this a run on sentence error. Can someone please shed some light on this matter ?

Hi ashikaverma13 / MadaraU / AbhinavBankhwal ,

Let me help you guys.

I know this question is a bit weird but this is how it is.

"Were it to do so, the water levels would rise... " construction is very similar to If I were to change my childhood, I would have not become an Indian IT Male.

Do you see what I am trying to convey?

This construction shows hypothetical case and has been used correctly in option B.

Let me know in case of any concern. I am happy to help.

Antarctica receives more solar radiation than does any other place on Earth, yet the temperatures are so cold and the ice cap is reflective, so that little polar ice melts during the summer; otherwise, the water levels of the oceans would rise 250 feet and engulf most of the world’s great cities.

(A) is reflective, so that little polar ice melts during the summer; otherwise, so is req before reflective to maintain //

(B) is so reflective that little of the polar ice melts during the summer; were it to do so, Correct

(C) so reflective that little polar ice melts during the summer, or else are so cold// ___ so reflective 'is' missing

(D) reflective, so that little of the polar ice melts during the summer, or so is req before reflective to maintain //

(E) reflects so that little of the polar ice melts during the summer; if it did so is req before reflective to maintain //

chetan2u carcass

I did get the answer correct, OA seems a little ambiguous to me as in option B were it to do so is something which is a little vague to me.

Can you please help me understand how the ; is rightly used and were it to so is not out of the box?

hi..

It is perfectly fine....
IT refers to ICE and DO SO refers to melting...

were it to do so WOULD MEAN If it were to happen....

that little of the polar ice melts during the summer; were it to do so...
if little of the polar ice were to melt during the summer, the water levels of the oceans would rise 250 feet and engulf most of the world’s great cities.

chetan2u, abhimahna still didn't understand why is C incorrect

Hey prateek176 ,

C has the problem of parallelism. Remember a conjunction should always have X and Y parallel.

Consider the example:

My sister is so intelligent and my brother so stupid.

Do you see the difference?

1. My sister is so intelligent - Clause

AND - Conjunction(It MUST make X and Y parallel).

2. My brother so stupid. --> Not a Clause.

On a similar lines:

the temperatures are so cold

and

the ice cap so reflective.

It should be the ice cap is so reflective.

Does that make sense?

Hi tarek99,

Thank you for your question.

While you are technically correct about it being a run-on sentence, this is one of the few times when breaking the rule is actually best. Let's look at the part you're struggling with in answer B, and why it's okay to break the rule in this instance:

yet the temperatures are so cold and the ice is so reflective that little of the polar ice melts during the summer

The phrases "the temperatures are so cold" and "the ice is so reflective" BOTH apply to the rest of the phrase "that little of the polar ice melts during the summer. What the writer did here is condense two sentences into one:

Sentence 1: The temperatures are so cold that little of the polar ice melts during the summer.
Sentence 2: The ice is so reflective that little of the polar ice melts during the summer.

Combined: The temperatures are so cold and the ice is so reflective that little of the polar ice melts during the summer.

By combining both sentences, it saves us from reading the same phrase twice and makes the sentence easier to digest.

Remember that English is a 90/10 language: 90% of the time, the rule is the rule - but 10% of the time it's not.

I hope this helps clear things up!

Antarctica receives more solar radiation than does any other place on Earth, yet the temperatures are so cold and the ice cap is reflective, so that little polar ice melts during the summer; otherwise, the water levels of the oceans would rise 250 feet and engulf most of the world’s great cities.

(A) is reflective, so that little polar ice melts during the summer; otherwise,

(B) is so reflective that little of the polar ice melts during the summer; were it to do so, --> correct: "so ... that" construction & correct parallelism - "the temperatures are so cold" & "the ice cap is so reflective"

(C) so reflective that little polar ice melts during the summer, or else --> verb missing after "the ice cap"

(D) reflective, so that little of the polar ice melts during the summer, or

(E) reflects so that little of the polar ice melts during the summer; if it did

Please help me out:
I think that in "or else", "or" is a conjunction which can lead a clause with a simple comma.
Am I missing something?

I agree with you. The meaning of C is not acceptable, but the or in or else is enough to join those two parts of the sentence.

chetan2u , I think the intended meaning is "if the polar ice were to melt during the summer, the water levels of the oceans would rise 250 feet and engulf most of the world’s great cities."

You are incorrect when you said that the intended meaning is "if little of the polar ice were to melt during the summer, the water levels of the oceans would rise 250 feet and engulf most of the world’s great cities." "Little of the polar ice " melts means "Polar ice does not melt or melts very little".
Hypothetical has been used to show the opposite effect of what has been said by "..little of the polar ice melts during the summer".