Because mounting evidence of erosion of the coastline occurring

viv007 Be careful about using "changes the meaning" as an elimination criterion. We can only eliminate answers for meaning reasons if the meaning is clearly incorrect or not what the author intended, and we can only determine intent by examining all five choices. In this case, the usage in A doesn't work (we need a verb for "Mounting evidence"), we are forced to say things another way. B is just fine.

Now, is D really wrong? I imagine the writer of this question doesn't like the neutrality of "because there is evidence." "Because of evidence" makes it clear that the experts are reacting to evidence, while "because there is evidence" makes it seem like the experts are acting more on the existence of evidence rather than the evidence itself. However, this is a pretty subtle difference for the right answer to hinge on. I think we need more for this to feel like a real GMAT SC question.

DmitryFarber can we say that option D uses present perfect tense, and considering the statement is a fact, simple present tense suits better. Hence, B

That's another really subtle difference that depends on what we want to convey. In B, we're realizing that this erosion happens continuously, so we're getting more cautious. In D, we're emphasizing that it has been happening all along. This implies that significant erosion may already have occurred. It seems that this must be true. If erosion really happens continuously, then it must have been happening for some period of time. It's hard to say that that's wrong.

Sir

In option D
Does "has occurred" not indicate that the "process once occured in near past (say, for some specific time) and is no more valid now. Would it not be a criterion to reject the answer choice.
Also, would the answer be correct,if it had "has been occuring"?

Thanks

gauravjec What you're looking at is the difference between present perfect ("has occurred") and present perfect continuous ("has been occurring"). The difference is basically one of emphasis. The latter would work, but since we already have the word "continuously," the continuous nature of the action is already fairly clear. If we had the straight past tense ("occurred"), we might figure that erosion occurred continuously for some time, but now does not. Also, if we had present perfect (without "continuously") and we were clearly describing a one-time action, then we might think it were over. For instance, if I say "I have been to France," I'm not saying I'm there now. I'm just saying it's something I've done. However, if I say "erosion has occurred continuously," I am making it pretty clear that this is an ongoing situation. True, I'm placing more emphasis on the idea that it HAS HAPPENED than on the idea that it is STILL HAPPENING, but there's nothing wrong with that. The sentence doesn't rely on the erosion happening right now, unless we think it will never happen again, in which case the proposed policy would be hard to understand.

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.