As xenophobia reached new highs right before the start of American inv

Question

As xenophobia reached new highs right before the start of American involvement in World War I, the Immigration Act of 1917 halted immigration from most Asian countries into the United  States, formally the exclusion was ended by  the McCarran-Walter Act in 1954.

A. States, formally the exclusion was ended by
 
B. States, formally ending the exclusion by

C. States, the exclusion formally ended by

D. States by ending the exclusion formally using

E. States and the exclusion was formally being ended by

arvind910619 · Answer

Though question as always from egamt.

Lets us delve deeper into this question.

Structure of the sentence

As xenophobia reached new highs right before the start of American involvement in World War I.   This clause is a modifier modifying  the Immigration Act of 1917 halted immigration from most Asian countries into the United .

Another clause  formally the exclusion was ended by the McCarran-Walter Act in 1954.

Error in original sentence. 
The way the underlined clause is attached to the remaining sentence raises doubt. Is it absolute phrase. On a casual look it does seem to look like an absolute phrase but upon reading carefully we can see that this is a full Independent clause and it is incorrectly joint to the another independent clause by comma. So we have comma splice error. The two sentences should have been joined by semicolon.

Now let us evaluate each choice.

A incorrect per above reasoning.

B This is interesting we now do not have independent clause rather we have a verb-ing modifier. We now have meaning error and a modifier error. Verb-ing modifier is now modifying previous clause  the Immigration Act of 1917 halted immigration from most Asian countries into the United . 
The meaning thus derived form this is that  the Immigration Act of 1917 halted immigration from most Asian countries into the United  led to McCarran-Walter Act in 1954. The meaning here is not good leave B.

C Correct. Absolute phrase is correct we have a noun + noun modifier.

D Meaning here is nonsensical. Per this they halted immigration by having immigration by McCarran-Walter Act in 1954.

E There is no need to use past progressive. Being is wrong. Per this sentence the exclusion was ended over a lengthy period of time by the Act. Not correct. A law is in place the moment it is enacted.

gandharvm · Answer

arvind910619  in (C), doesn't the part after the comma result in an independent clause being joined incorrectly?
 "the exclusion formally ended by the McCarran-Walter Act in 1954." seems like a complete sentence. Why doesn't it warrant the use of FANBOYS conjunction or a semicolon?

strepanier · Answer

While I agree that the sentence should be properly punctuated with a semi-colon or a comma + conjunction per the FANBOYS conjunction or a semicolon rule. However, is improper punctuation enough of a reason to reject an answer?

I am thinking the best two answers are A or C. However, I am not sold that the punctuation error in A is enough to discount it.

I am thinking the best two answers are A or C. However, I am not sold that the punctuation error in A is enough to discount it.

gandharvm · Answer

strepanier  thanks for your reply. However, I feel (D) is the best answer:
As xenophobia reached new highs right before the start of American involvement in World War I, the Immigration Act of 1917 halted immigration from most Asian countries into the United  States by ending the exclusion formally using  the McCarran-Walter Act in 1954.

My reasons:
1. No run on sentence
2. The meaning is correctly conveyed. Immigration Act of 1917 halted immigration; how? by ending the exclusion formally; how did it end the exclusion formally? using the McCarran-Walter Act in 1954. Do note the years. In 1917 Immigration Act caused exclusion. In 1954 the McCarran-Walter Act stopped exclusion.

Why I am against OA (C)
-leads to a run on sentence; joins two independent clauses, incorrectly, using a comma.

Happy to hear your views.

strepanier · Answer

@gandharvm-

If we look at the sentence with D plugged in we run in to several issues- Let's start with the meaning, which is distorted here.

"As xenophobia reached new highs right before the start of American involvement in World War I, the Immigration Act of 1917 halted immigration from most Asian countries into the United States by ending the exclusion formally using the McCarran-Walter Act in 1954."

1. As xenophobia reached new highs right before the start of American involvement in World War I,
2. the Immigration Act of 1917 halted immigration from most Asian countries into the United States

How did they halt immigration? the author clearly states with the immigration act of 1917 but if we use choice D it states "by ending the exclusion formally using the McCarran-Walter Act in 1954." - this is illogical- and distorts the author's intended meaning- which is that the the 1954 McCarran-Walter Act ended the exclusion.

I am also wondering where you are seeing two independent clauses? For there to be two independent clauses we would need two subjects, right? In this sentence we only have one subject which is the immigration act. Therefore the comma and semi colon are not a necessity per grammar rules, and the ;lack of them is not a reason to rule out a choice.

More food for thought

gandharvm · Answer

Dear  strepanier ,

In OA (C), the two independent clauses are:
1) As xenophobia reached new highs right before the start of American involvement in World War I, the Immigration Act of 1917 halted immigration from most Asian countries into the United States ----The subject is  The Immigration Act 
2)the exclusion formally ended by the McCarran-Walter Act in 1954. ---The subject is  The exclusion

This is why I feel option C results in a run on sentence as the two independent clauses aren't joined by a semicolon/ , + FANBOYS

..

For option (D), wanted to understand what is the meaning being conveyed in (D) that makes it incorrect/illogical?

strepanier · Answer

gandharvm 
 answer choice d=States by ending the exclusion formally using

so here the whole sentence reads:

"As xenophobia reached new highs right before the start of American involvement in World War I, the Immigration Act of 1917 halted immigration from most Asian countries into the United States by ending the exclusion formally using the McCarran-Walter Act in 1954."

The meaning here is not logical. Per this they halted immigration by having immigration by McCarran-Walter Act in 1954.

Using pause points to get to the meaning we can interpret:

As xenophobia reached new highs right before the start of American involvement in World War I =  this independent clause tells us that Xenophobia hit an all time high prior to WWI

the Immigration Act of 1917 halted immigration from most Asian countries into the United State s=  this independent clause tells us that the Immigration act of 1917 stopped immigration from most Asian countries.

by ending the exclusion formally  =  a prepositional phrase, which as we know, prepositional phrases serve as an adjective modifying a noun, as an adverb modifying a verb, or as a nominal when used in conjunction with the verb form to be. We can rule out the use of the nominal since there is no conjunction. S owe are left with either adjective or adverb. So what is by ending the exclusion formally modifying? Either immigration act or halted? But that does not make sense.

using the McCarran-Walter Act in 1954 =  what used the the McCarran Warren Act? this verb phrase can only modify the Immigration act of 1917, which is illogical.

Hope this break down helps to clarify the meaning choice D brings.

Kritisood · Answer

experts, could you please help with the diff between B and C?

vipulgoel · Answer

"the exclusion" is noun and "formally ended" is noun modifier ,( which makes the underlined segment in said option a noun phrase, not an independent clause) if it would have verb as "was" in option A , then it would have called Independent clause and we would have needed either fanboys or semicolon

junii · Answer

egmat  pls explaon why B is incorrect and C is correct?

ninad8 · Answer

junii

Option B begins "formally ending the exclusion by" which means that the Immigration Act of 1917 itself was responsible for formally ending the exclusion which is not true.

Option C says "the exclusion formally ended by" which means that the McCarran-Walter Act ended the exclusion, which is the correct meaning.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

As xenophobia reached new highs right before the start of American inv

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

As xenophobia reached new highs right before the start of American inv

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards