Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil

DOES need not always refer to a finite verb. DOES can refer to a ING-type modifier.

See these examples:

He wins tournaments by working harder than anyone else does.
- Here DOES refers to WORKING. The sentence is the same as this next one.
He wins tournaments by working harder than anyone else works.

The cheetah hunts by running faster than its prey does.
- Here DOES refers to RUNNING.

Posted from my mobile device

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does, as a result.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Modifiers + Comparisons

• Comparisons can only be made between similar things.
• The introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “producing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

A:
1/ This answer choice incorrectly compares the action "producing heat" to the noun "natural gas"; remember, comparisons can only be made between similar things.

B: Correct.
1/ This answer choice uses the phrase "producing heat more efficiently"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "producing in this case") conveys the intended meaning - that cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does, as a result of relying on magnetic resonance; remember, the introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “producing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
2/ Option B correctly compares the action "producing heat" with the action "natural gas does (produce heat)".

C:
1/ This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "which produce"; the use of the "which" phrase to modify "those that rely on magnetic resonance" incompletely implies that cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does; the intended meaning is that cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does, as a result of relying on magnetic resonance.
2/ Option C incorrectly compares the action "produce heat" to the noun "natural gas"; remember, comparisons can only be made between similar things.

D:
1/ This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "which produce"; the use of the "which" phrase to modify "those that rely on magnetic resonance" incompletely implies that cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does; the intended meaning is that cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does, as a result of relying on magnetic resonance.

E:
1/ This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "much more efficient..."; the use of this phrase to modify "those that rely on magnetic resonance" incompletely implies that cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does; the intended meaning is that cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does, as a result of relying on magnetic resonance.
2/ Option E incorrectly compares the action "producing heat" to the noun "natural gas"; remember, comparisons can only be made between similar things.

Hence, B is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Comma Plus Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

I don't think so. Here's what I said above, about answer B:



The idea would be that the comparison is between "magnetic resonance" and "natural gas."

It would be awesome if this question could compare ... if any answer gave us that option. Sadly, it's not to be. We have to make the best of the choices we're given.

In that vein, I also said this:

Let me disagree with B, IMO is D

There is no S-V agreement error in D. Produce is the verb for "Those that rely on magnetic resonance" Plural.

Plus, there is a meaning problem, as natural gas is a fossil fuel. Also the sentence intends to make a contrast between the age of conservation and the means people are using to cook. Stating that Magnetic resonance is more efficient emphasizes such contrast.

Experts, your input will be really appreciated in this one

Cheers

To clarify my doubts on "which," is it possible to read the sentence in the following way:

Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those [implicit: those cooking ranges] that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

A. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas
B. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does
C. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas
D. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does
E. much more efficient at producing heat than natural gas

Based on this, answer is D. "Which" refers to "Those cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance," not "magnetic resonance," and therefore "produce" agrees with the implies "cooking ranges" rather than mismatches with "magnetic resonance."

Basically, how far can into the previous clause can a which statement extend,

B. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does


Shouldn't verb "ing" form in option B modify the preceding clause? I was under assumption that "ing" form gives us either result set of preceding clause or additional information of preceding clause. So not sure how can this construction be correct?
However, other options do have some serious errors.

Please help egmat.
I have been reading this article of nouns that can replace far away nouns. In this example, can't which refer to cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance?
From the eaning, I think it makes sense to say the cooking ranges using magnetic resonance produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does.
Please help!

Thanks a lot but I think I am understanding this wrong.
(B) Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does.
Subject of the preceding clause is 'cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels'
So isn't this sentence supposed to mean because some cooking ranges consume fossil fuels, they produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does?

well i don't agree with your explanation. Clearly , it seems like producing is a present participle
that is referring to cooking ranges that use fossil fuel .However, here producing is modifying ""those""
and the best construction , which is ANSWER B, compares the heat produced by Magnetic resonance cooking ranges
to the heat produced by one of the fossil fuels , natural gas.
As you said we are comparing heat produced by fossil fuels to heat produced by natural gas is wrong according to me.
And that is why option b adds a verb after natural gas in b

daagh sir

I understand that “ producing heat....” refers to MR based cooking ranges .

However my doubt is that we are comparing cooking ranges to natural gas , I was thinking as below

“Producing heat more efficiently than those using natural gas do “

Am I thinking too literally ?

How to deal with such subtle questions ?

[quote="sachinrelan"]Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.


A. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas

B. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does

C. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas

D. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does

E. much more efficient at producing heat than natural gas


[spoiler=]What should be the correct answer to this question. ?

I feel it should be Option D.



AjiteshArun : This question is debatable I think. Please clear the air about the usage of comma + ing modifier in option B. What producing actually modifies here? Above mentioned threads say it is not modifying "cooking ranges."

Even in this age of conservation, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas.

A. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas
B. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does
C. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas
D. which produce heat more efficiently than natural gas does
E. much more efficient at producing heat than natural gas

I'm also confused between B and D.

As per my analysis, there are two comparisons:
1. Which is more common - Cooking ranges that consume fossil fuel (natural gas) and Cooking ranges that consume magnetic resonance
2. Which produces heat more efficiently - Natural gas (fossil fuel) or Magnetic Resonance

Problem with D is that which (MR) is singular subject and produce (plural verb) heat more efficiently than natural gas does - therefore S-V disagreement

With B - I'm confused because ", + verb-ing" is result modifier modifying the doer - Cooking ranges that consume MR which is not correct comparison

GMATNinja , daagh Sir, please help

ss

IMO, both your assumptions are misplaced.

In B, the ‘+ verb-ing’" is the resultant modifier modifying the actual doer that is actually ‘those ‘ that rely on MR., because you see that is the immediate previous clause.
In the case of D, ‘which’ stands for the plural word ’those’ meaning ‘those coking ranges’ and hence S- V pair is okay.
Any doubts?

Here we are clear that Ram doesn't wash Shyam. So the meaning is clear that we are comparing number of times of car wash by Ram with number of times of car wash by Shyam

Similarly , why it is necessary to add does in below as it is clear Fossil fuels produces heat but won't produce natural gas

A. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas
B. producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does

please suggest.
AjiteshArun daagh

Dear AjiteshArun, dear egmat, dear Dh4035, dear pratyush86, dear community

I struggle with this a lot! (I was able to eliminate all options except A&B). The only difference is the "does" between the option A&B. My problem is that I have a really hard time to spot whether there is any ambiguity or not (in a timely manner). The reason for this is that the 2nd interpretation is usually very strange. It is obvious to me that the second interpretation, which says that cooking ranges that rely on magnetic resonance besides producing heat also produce less efficiently some kind of natural gas IS FALSE. I am no chemist, but it is so plainly obvious (even to me) that this could not be the intended meaning. How should an electric stove produce natural gas, when there is no natural gas involved and no electrolysis is occurring. Therefore, I wonder:

WHEN AN OPTION IS GRAMMATICALLY/TECHNALLY AMBIGUOUS BUT LOGICALLY IS VERY CLEAR CAN, WE THEN ELIMINATE THE VERB? To me logically there is no ambiguity and therefor the "does" in B is not required and "A" should be correct. How do you know when something is ambiguous and when is something clear; is there a method to distinguish when the verb is ambiguouse or not?

I am getting really confused, In this que why can we not consider that does in in ellipses in option E or consider it as
much more efficient at producing heat than natural gas(does)

Hello Experts,

I have a doubt in option B.

Even in this age, cooking ranges that consume fossil fuels are far more common than those that rely on magnetic resonance, producing heat more efficiently than natural gas does

I read in some other question a rule pertaining to usage of DOES (it was one of the HOT competition questions : https://gmatclub.com/forum/hot-competit ... 33213.html ).
My takeaway from that question was that over there option E was incorrect because "containing" didn't make sense with the subject of previous clause and because of the presence of DOES, usage of CONTAINING was wrong as we required a verb (to which DOES CAN REFER).

Similarly, here DOES must refer to a verb and in our case the bold part doesn't have a verb as PRODUCING is a modifier.
Also, a modifier isn't supposed to have a verb in it, I guess.

Besides, I do know that we absolutely need DOES to remove the ambiguity. That's the reason I preferred D over A as D contains that verb.

Can some expert clear my doubt. Have my gmat in a week

I appreciate some help!


AjiteshArun , GMATNinja GMATNinjatwo generis