During the summer of 2002, the Outer Banks suffered a massive toad inf

A participial modifier phrase following a comma, normally modifies the essence of the entire previous clause. As per that tenet, we can surmise that the Outer Banks and its sufferance of the infestation of toads all put together discouraged the vacationers. A seems to have no error either logically or grammatically.

But choice C can not be faulted, because the only objection to it that it is fouling the touch rule, has been overruled by GMAT as illustrated in the quoted example. As per that reasoning , it is legitimate to claim that the massive infestation of toads discouraged vacationers.



As per OG explanation , option (B) is the correct answer, (wherein, the relative pronoun refers just not to abuse but to the effects of drug and alcohol abuse.)

So which one shall we take, A or C?

But does the question contain a choice using a participial modifier rather than the relative pronoun ‘which’? Had such a choice been there, would GMAT have still preferred the relative pronoun? I think no; at best the relative pronoun choice can be accepted as the best among the not so good ones in my opinion and still a participial modifier would have won if it had been there

I will convincingly prefer A
_________________

During the summer of 2002, the Outer Banks suffered a massive toad infestation, discouraging many vacationers from visiting the area.

(A) sufferend a massive toad infestation, discouraging
--> formed this way, "discourageing" is of "the Outer Banks" rather than of "toad infestation" --> wrong meaning. --> out

(B) suffered from a massive toad infestation and discouraged
---> same reason as in A ---> out

(C) suffered a massive infestation of toads, which discouraged
---> correct. The "which" clause modifies infestation of toads, which is the true cause of the discouragement.

(D) was suffering a massive infestation of toads and discouraging
---> why should we use a present continuous tense here? ..also "discouraging" is of "the Outer banks" rather than of "infestation" , while the latter is the true cause. --> out

(E) had suffered from a massive toad infestation and this discouraged
---> the use of past perfect tense doesn't make sense here. "This" doesn't refer to a specific antecedent --> out

One more vote for C.

Let analyze the answers:
(A) suffered a massive toad infestation, discouraging--- What is discouraging the vacationers to visit the area? "Discouraging" is modifying the precedent clause: "the Outer Banks [u]suffered a massive toad infestation". So that the Outer Banks suffered a massive infestation is discouraging visitors.. Lets see the other options to asure there is no one better.

(B) suffered from a massive toad infestation and discouraged--- Looks like the Outer Banks are discouraging the vacationers. Incorrect.

(C) suffered a massive infestation of toads, which discouraged--- Which is referring back to "massive infestation" not to toads, since it is a prepositional phrase referring to massive infestation. So massive infestation could discouraged vacationers? This could be right..
This answer choice says "infestation of toads" whereas is more correct "toad infestation". Even though I would say this is the correct option because which refers backs correctly to what is discouraging vacationers to visit the area.

(D) was suffering a massive infestation of toads and discouraging. This verbal time is used when one action is ongoing until another action happens. No need. Incorrect.

(E) had suffered from a massive toad infestation and this discouraged. This verbal time (past perfect) is unnecessary since there is no need of sequence several actions in the past. Incorrect.

(A) suffered a massive toad infestation, discouraging - Incorrect - massive toad infestation discouraged vacationers. The subject in the previous clause is outer banks. So this option seems to suggest that Outer banks suffered and this suffering discouraged vacationers. This is incorrect.

(B) suffered from a massive toad infestation and discouraged - Incorrect - Option suggests that Outerbanks suffered X and discouraged Y. This is not correct.

(C) suffered a massive infestation of toads, which discouraged - Correct - Here which refers to infestation of toads and this is what we are looking for.

(D) was suffering a massive infestation of toads and discouraging - Incorrect - Tense error + Awkward construction

(E) had suffered from a massive toad infestation and this discouraged - Incorrect - No need to use past perfect tense here.

IMO answer is C.

Well the question is a bit tricky, already under normal condition. During the exam pressure, the question could be very dangerous if you not analyze very very carefully.

As such, D and E are clearly wrong because we are in 2002 so the tense was suffering and had suffered are inappropriate.

A is a good option but as Vyshak pointed out it has two main problems : using discouraging we do not really know if it is due by the bank or the infestation. Moreover, massive infestation of toads is much better than the way around because in the second case is not crystal clear if massive refers to infestation or toads.

Hence, the answer is C.

Sent via Note 4
_________________

A should be the correct answer.
As MGMAT SC guide puts it "Use WHICH only to refer to the noun immediately preceding it—never to refer to an entire clause". It is not the toads that have discouraged the tourists. The massive infestation due to which banks have suffered discouraged tourist. We need to refer the entire clause and hence verb -ing is best available option.

The red part is also wrong.

Back to the question, we do not need at all to referring to the entire precedent clause. The bank suffered something and is THAT something that discouraged the vacationers, NOT the bank. Infact, at the end of the sentence is clearly stated that the ENTIRE area was not visited.

Moreover, if you use discouraging , it seems that the discouragement still persists over time, and this is not our intent to convey. I remember you that the sentence and the action related to it is completely in the past. As such, we need a past tense in the simple form.

Hope this helps
_________________

During the summer of 2002, the Outer Banks suffered a massive infestation of toads, discouraging many vacationers from visiting the area.
(A) suffered a massive infestation of toads, discouraging
I like better the option "suffered a massive infestation of toads, discouraging", but this one is the only one right anyway.
(B) suffered from a massive toad infestation and discouraged
"Discourage" is dependent on "suffered". These two verbs can not be parallel. Because suffered, thus discouraged
(C) suffered a massive infestation of toads, which discouraged
"Which" - we can use it as a modifier to a word not to a phrase like "the Outer Banks suffered a massive infestation of toads"
(D) was suffering a massive infestation of toads and discouraging
Same as in B - these two verbs can not be parallel
(E) had suffered from a massive toad infestation and this discouraged
No past perfect. And again - "this" to a whole phrase.

Hi AndrewN

Daagh above explains why he prefers A over C.

My reasoning is that A is wrong because it makes it seem as if the outer banks themselves discouraged tourists, since verb-ing modifiers take subject of the preceding clause, hence c is a better option?

and, also, which can modify nouns that are followed by an essential modifier, essentially making the touch-rule less rigid?

Posted from my mobile device

To be honest, Shikhar22, I think the question is flawed and either (A) or (C) can be defended. I would argue that the -ing phrase in (A) unambiguously refers to a place having experienced a detrimental infestation, [thereby] discouraging vacationers. We cannot conveniently ignore the verb and object of the main clause to make the case that the -ing phrase refers to the Outer Banks only. I suspect that confusion stems from the less familiar usage of the word suffered, but to say that a land suffered a blight, for instance, is perfectly acceptable. It means that a blight struck the land. On the other hand, suffered from a blight would not work, since the added preposition would now personify the land. This is just a quirk of English, and I doubt that such an arcane usage of a word would be tested on the modern GMAT™. As for (C), yes, a relative clause may leap over the object of the preposition when it makes sense to interpret the sentence that way. If I were to write a sentence, The committee on water safety that meets once a week does so on Tuesdays, there should be no doubt that a committee, rather than water safety, meets on Tuesdays. You just have to let logic guide your interpretation, not mechanical rules. (I wish sometimes that grammar worked like mathematics, but that is simply not the nature of language.)

Thank you for thinking to ask. I am not sure that I have provided a definitive answer, but I suppose talking points can be useful for practicing official questions, the only kind I recommend for Verbal preparation.

- Andrew


_________________