Dear Friends,
Here is a detailed explanation to this question-
fanatico wrote:
As sources of electrical power, windmills now account for only about 2,500 megawatts nationwide, but production is almost expected to double by the end of the year, which would provide enough electricity for 1.3 million households.
(A) almost expected to double by the end of the year, which would provide
(B) almost expected that it will double by the end of the year, thus providing
(C) expected that it will almost double by the end of the year to provide
(D) expected almost to double by the end of the year and thus to provide
(E) expected almost to double by the end of the year, which would thus be providing
Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended core meaning of this sentence is that it is expected that production will almost double by the end of the year and thus provide enough electricity for 1.3 million households.
Concepts tested here: Meaning + Modifiers + Pronouns + Awkwardness/Redundancy• "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.
• The introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “providing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
A: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "almost expected to double"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that it is
almost expected that production will
fully double by the end of the year; the intended meaning is that it is
fully expected that production will
almost double by the end of the year. Further, Option A incorrectly modifies "end of the year" with "which would provide", illogically implying that the end of the year would provide enough electricity for 1.3 million households; the intended meaning is that the "production (of energy from windmills)" would provide enough electricity for 1.3 million households; please remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.
B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "almost expected that it will double"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that it is
almost expected that production will
fully double by the end of the year; the intended meaning is that it is
fully expected that production will
almost double by the end of the year. Further, Option B suffers from pronoun ambiguity, as "it" lacks a clear referent. Additionally, Option B uses the passive voice construction "expected that it will double", leading to awkwardness and redundancy. Besides, Option B redundantly uses "thus" alongside the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "providing" in this sentence)" construction, leading to further awkwardness; this usage is redundant, as both terms imply a cause-effect relationship; please remember, the introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “providing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
C: This answer choice suffers from pronoun ambiguity, as "it" lacks a clear referent. Further, Option C uses the passive voice construction "expected that it will almost double", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.
D: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrase "expected almost to double", conveying the intended meaning - that it is
fully expected that production will
almost double by the end of the year. Further, Option D uses the phrase "and thus to provide", avoiding the modifier error seen in Options A and E and conveying the intended meaning - that the "production (of energy from windmills)" would provide enough electricity for 1.3 million households. Additionally, Option D avoids the pronoun error seen in Options B and C, as it uses no pronouns. Besides, Option D is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.
E: This answer choice incorrectly modifies "end of the year" with "which would thus be providing", illogically implying that the end of the year would provide enough electricity for 1.3 million households; the intended meaning is that the "production (of energy from windmills)" would provide enough electricity for 1.3 million households; please remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma. Further, Option E uses the passive voice construction "would...be providing", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.
Hence, D is the best answer choice.To understand the concept of "Comma + Present Participles for Cause-Effect Relationships" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________