We are using and after a , - is that a correct approach?

If you're asking whether you can eliminate (A), (B), and (C) based on a tense issue, the answer is not really.

Those options all use the participle "costing," which is functioning here as an adjective. VERB-ing words, when used as adjectives, don't have a tense. I can write, "The man running with scissors stabbed himself in the face," or I can write, "The man running with scissors will stab himself in the face. "Running" describes the man. It doesn't tell me when he injures himself. (Much more on "-ing" words in this article.)

Also, "ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960," is an independent clause, so it's true that "since" dictates the verb tense for this clause, but it wouldn't necessarily do so for another one.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi,

Can someone please explain what does 'DID' refer to in options C and D? Clearly, there is no costed used anywhere in the sentence so how can the use of DID be justified?

Thanks in advance.
_________________

Hello, jayarora. The verb cost is one of those weird ones in English that is the same, under certain circumstances, in both the present and past tense, so you would not be looking for costed anywhere. Here is a sample sentence that could discuss either a present or past situation:

The kiwis cost $3.50 per half dozen.

You would have to rely on contextual information to confirm whether these fruits had been purchased or you were being informed as to what they would cost if someone were to purchase them. In the sentences at hand, we can replace did in the following manner:

(C) Because 70 percent of the people of India use wood as their sole fuel, ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960, resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than it had cost in 1960.

The meaning of the sentence is askew, as GMATNinja pointed out earlier, among others. Looking at the other sentence,

(D) Because 70 percent of the people of India use wood as their sole fuel, ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960, and as a result wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as it had cost in 1960.

Make what you will of (D)--I see some disagreement above--but did itself is not an issue. I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________

A, C and D are out because they use wrong idiom As much Y than X. B & D use correct idiom as much X as Y.
In B, there is a verb-ing modifier which should be modifying the whole preceding clause.
ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960, resulting in . Whenever there is such usage of verb-ing modifier then the subject of proceeding clause should have done this action as well. As in, Ten million acres of forest cannot result in woods being costlier. The subject should've been the deforestation. Hence (D) is a better choice over (B)

egmat, can someone please verify whether my thought process is correct.

GMATNinja
Hi GMAT Ninja,

Two questions
1. In an example above, you refer to C as wrong because of resulting in wood. Any reason you are not considering the entire phrase 'resulting in wood now costing eight times more to collect and distribute' because then 'resulting in' makes perfect logical sense. Also, the phrase 'wood now costing eight times more to collect and distribute' has no verb so resulting in can modify the entire phrase right?
2. Considering wrong usage of 'resulting in wood' in C is why D is the right answer, what if Ans D was written ' as a result wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as in 1960'. Would this be considered correct comparison?
I think the comparison is now incorrect because 'wood now costs' is now a clause and needs another clause after the second 'as' to be parallel. Also 'as in 1960' will incorrectly compare costs vs costs and not the clause 'wood costs eight times as to collect and distribute'

Please provide your advice.

Thanks

GMATNinja

If Option D were : "(D) and as a result wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as" ie, if the helping verb at the end of option D were omitted, would it still be the correct choice?
Can we argue that ellipsis would take care of the verb to modify? (Or NOT ?, because the shift in verb tense - costs now v/s costed in 1960 - doesn't allow the ellipsis in the first place)

Thanks in advance!
Debo

Good question! It's certainly fair to consider the entire noun phrase, but the noun phrase is, in essence, about a certain kind of wood, one that happens to have the characteristic of "costing eight times as much..."

So we have to ask ourselves which is clearer: (1) that the result of the lost forest acres is expensive wood, or (2) that the result of the lost acres is that something happened -- specifically, that wood became more expensive.

At first glance, it might seem like there's no real difference between the two, but the problem with interpretation (1) is that it has two potential meanings: if something results in expensive wood, does it mean that the wood became more expensive or that expensive wood just suddenly appeared? Sure, if you read (C) a few times, you can figure out what the author likely meant, but it simply isn't as clear or direct as (D), which has only one reasonable interpretation (wood became more expensive).

And if you want an easier, more concrete error in (C), "as much...than" is clearly wrong.


It's true that your hypothetical is problematic, but I'd be careful about making comparison generalizations. It's certainly possible for a clause to be implied. For example, saying "The Warriors won fewer games in 2019 than in 2017" is fine, because "in 2017" seems to function the same way that "in 2019" functions: both phrases modify when the Warriors won games.

The difference between this example and yours is that it's not as clear what "in 1960" is doing, because there's no other prepositional phrase to give us a clue. So I wouldn't say this sentence would be wrong because it violates a rule. The problem is that the sentence is really confusing.

The takeaway: don't try to make universal rules about something as complicated as comparisons! You have to consider how context informs the clarity and logic of every option. (And if you want more on comparisons, check out this video and this sequel.)

I hope this helps!
_________________

We have, "wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as {blank}." If we fill that blank with "it did in 1960", it's clear that we are comparing how much wood costs to collect/distribute NOW and how much wood cost to collect/distribute IN 1960."

If we fill that blank with "in 1960", the comparison becomes less clear: wood costs eight times as much to collect/distribute as what in 1960? Sure, we can logically fill in the blank with something that makes sense, but with (D) we aren't forced to do that.

Does that make your version wrong? Maybe. As I've said before, it's rarely a good idea to waste brain cells on tweaked versions of answer choices. If you understand why (D) is the best choice out of the five options here, then you've done your job!

Looking at a single sentence in a bubble and trying to determine whether it's "correct" or "incorrect" is an entirely different job -- one that you'll never actually have to do on the GMAT.

I hope that helps!
_________________

egmat, could you please explain why the comma+verbing modifier , resulting in is wrong here?

Posted from my mobile device

Explained in detail here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/because-70-p ... l#p2404243.
_________________

This question is not very hard to understand.
Both resulting and as a result are correct usage.
The problem lies as much as not As much than.
The usage of wood now costing is not correct, it implies at this moment the price is 8 times higher than previously. Since it is a fact, we need simple presence.
That boils down to option D.

Posted from my mobile device

Hey GMATNinja, thank you for the excellent explanation as always.

I have a follow-up query. Isn't costing available as an action (even though it isn't a verb) for "in 1960" to modify?

I think that in this question, the problem is in COSTING.
_________________

Since 70% of the people of India use wood as their only fuel, a lot of forest land has been lost. As a result of this loss, wood costs 8 times as much now as it cost in 1960.
There are two problems in the given sentence:

1. “As much...than” is idiomatically incorrect.

2. “Resulting in wood” gives a non-sense meaning that the result of the loss of forest land is wood!!



A. resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than
Incorrect. For the reasons mentioned above.

B. resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute as
Incorrect. Has the second error of the original sentence.

C. resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than it did
Incorrect. For the following reasons:

1. The first error of the original sentence
2. The second error of the original sentence
3. The than-part “it did” is not parallel to anything

D. and as a result wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as it did
Correct. “Wood costs” is a clause here and thus communicates a logical meaning that as a result of the preceding info, wood is much more expensive now than it was in 1960.

E. as much community centers as they were purely religious edifices, structures representing a city’s commitment to a public realm, opposite of a private one
Incorrect. For the following reasons:

1. The placement of “as a result” is not preferred. For example:

a. As a result, wood costs much more to collect than it did in 1960.
b. Wood costs much more as a result to collect than it did in 1960.
The first sentence is a better construction than the second one.
2. The second ‘as’ of “as much as” is missing. The other “as” in the option belongs to “as a result”.
3. The first error of the original sentence

_________________

Because 70 percent of the people of India use wood as their sole fuel, ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960, resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than in 1960.

1. ten million acres of forest have been lost...., resulting in wood

=> Meaning Error: The sentence incorrectly conveys that ten million acres of forest result in wood. Actually, the lost of huge forests results in increased cost of wood now.
Eliminate options A,B and C

2. As much..as vs A much..than vs As much as..than

=> As much as or As much..as is a correct idiom
Eliminate options A,C and E

3. We are comparing the cost of wood at present with the cost of wood in 1960. There are two time lines. Need to shift tense from present to past to show the difference.

In option D, Wood costs now vs wood cost in 1960 ( Shift of tense is maintained here)

Answer:D
_________________

Hi daagh,

since it comma plus verb-ing modifier, should not we be checking whether it makes sense with the subject(Ten million acres of forest)?
and since it doesn't make sense to associate with it, the sentence is wrong?

You are right, we have to check for doer of -ing modifer.

Hi daagh AndrewN experts

Using this example, is it correct to say that passive voice clause can never be followed by commna + verb-ing modifier, if the does is not specified?