Evidence of some shifts in the character of violence on television is

Evidence of some shifts in the character of violence on television is emerging from a new study of 500 television programs by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit research center in Washington D.C., a study that is underwritten by a number of educational institutions.


(A) programs by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit research center in Washington D.C., a study that is underwritten by a number of educational institutions

(B) programs by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit research center in Washington D.C., and it is underwritten by a number of educational institutions.

(C) programs underwritten by a number of educational institutions and conducted by the Centre for Media and Public Affairs, non-profit research center based in Washington D.C.

(D) programs, a study underwritten by a number of educational institutions and conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit research center in Washington D.C.

(E) programs, a study conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit research center based in Washington D.C., and it is underwritten by a number of educational institutions.

SC37561.01

Official Explanation

Logical predication; Rhetorical construction

The sentence gives three pieces of information: that a new study suggests the nature of violence on television is changing; that it was funded by educational institutions; and that it was conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit research center.

Our task is to order this information logically and grammatically. The most obvious defect in the given sentence is that the long phrase a study . . . institutions describing how the study was funded is placed too far from the first mention of the study (a new study), with too much distracting information in between.

A. This choice is incorrect for the reasons stated above.

B. In this choice, it is ambiguous: it could, for example, refer to the evidence or the new study.

C. In this choice, the modifying phrases underwritten by . . . and conducted by . . . appear to modify programs.

D. Correct. This choice clearly organizes the information in the sentence, with no ambiguity.

E. The pronoun it is ambiguous: it could refer to the new study or the evidence.

The correct answer is D.

Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow down our options quickly so we know how to answer questions like this when they pop up on the GMAT! To begin, let's take a quick look at the question and highlight any major differences between the options in orange:

Evidence of some shifts in the character of violence on television is emerging from a new study of 500 television programs by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit research center in Washington D.C., a study that is underwritten by a number of educational institutions.

(A) programs by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit research center in Washington D.C., a study that is underwritten by a number of educational institutions
(B) programs by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit research center in Washington D.C., and it is underwritten by a number of educational institutions.
(C) programs underwritten by a number of educational institutions and conducted by the Centre for Media and Public Affairs, non-profit research center based in Washington D.C.
(D) programs, a study underwritten by a number of educational institutions and conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit research center in Washington D.C.
(E) programs, a study conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit research center based in Washington D.C., and it is underwritten by a number of educational institutions.

After a quick scan over the options, one thing becomes pretty clear: there are too many differences between the options to identify a quick "either/or" split. When this happens, it's best to look for bigger issues like meaning and clarity.

Let's look at each option and see if we can find any potential problems. To make problems easier to spot, let's also add in the non-underlined portion:

(A) Evidence of some shifts in the character of violence on television is emerging from a new study of 500 television programs by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit research center in Washington D.C., a study that is underwritten by a number of educational institutions.

This is INCORRECT because, if we take out the parenthetical phrase "a nonprofit research center in Washington D.C.," it doesn't work as a complete thought. Even if you were to put a comma after "Affairs," it creates a modifier-antecedent issue. This sentence is saying that "a study that is underwritten..." is the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which isn't true - the study of television programs is the study that's underwritten! If you leave the phrase in, there's still a problem - the phrase "a study" is trying to modify "Washington D.C.," which is a city, not a study.


(B) Evidence of some shifts in the character of violence on television is emerging from a new study of 500 television programs by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit research center in Washington D.C., and it is underwritten by a number of educational institutions.

This option is INCORRECT because there's a vague pronoun! If you take out the parenthetical phrase, it's even clearer that the pronoun "it" is referring to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which is wrong. The pronoun needs to refer back to the study. Since the pronoun is so far away from what it's referring to, it's not clear enough for readers to know what "it" is really talking about.\

(C) Evidence of some shifts in the character of violence on television is emerging from a new study of 500 television programs underwritten by a number of educational institutions and conducted by the Centre for Media and Public Affairs, non-profit research center based in Washington D.C.

While this doesn't have the modifier problems we saw in options A & B, there is a meaning problem. We know that the STUDY was underwritten and conducted, but the way this sentence is structured makes it look like the TELEVISION PROGRAMS were underwritten and conducted?? That's not the meaning we're going for, so let's consider this one INCORRECT.

(D) Evidence of some shifts in the character of violence on television is emerging from a new study of 500 television programs, a study underwritten by a number of educational institutions and conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit research center in Washington D.C.

This seems like our best bet so far! The two modifier phrases are both located directly next to their antecedents (...a new study of 500 television programs, a study underwritten... / ...the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit research center...). (Spoiler alert: this is CORRECT)

(E) Evidence of some shifts in the character of violence on television is emerging from a new study of 500 television programs, a study conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit research center based in Washington D.C., and it is underwritten by a number of educational institutions.

This is INCORRECT because it has the same vague pronoun problem as option B! The pronoun "it" is located next to "Washington D.C.," which is incorrect.


There you have it - option D is the best choice! It's the only one that doesn't have issues with meaning, modifier-antecedent agreement, or vague pronouns! This was an incredibly tough question to tackle, but if you focus on looking for big grammar issues, you'll crack the code!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

My choice was "C"
After reading the explanation it is clear why option "C" is incorrect. But not convinced with answer choice D. "a study underwritten by...." which is a separate part of the sentence without the "BE Verb". the sentence is written in passive voice so the sentence shall be "a study which was underwritten by...."

Please correct me in my misconception.

Sure! Let's break these down one by one:



The modifier "a study" seems to be describing Washington D.C. That's no good. (A) is out.


Typically, if a sentence has two full clauses and the 2nd clause starts with a pronoun, that pronoun will generally refer back to the subject of the first clause. So in this case, the antecedent for "it" seems to refer to "evidence." "Evidence is emerging... and evidence is underwritten?" Nah, that doesn't make any sense -- the study was underwritten, not the evidence.

And even if you're not convinced that "it" HAS to refer back to the subject of the first clause ("evidence"), the alternatives aren't great: "a non-profit research center" is the nearest singular noun, and that doesn't make sense, either, since the center isn't underwritten by the educational institutions -- "a new study" is, and the phrase "a new study" is buried in the middle of the clause. So it's really hard to make sense of that pronoun.

That's enough for us to get rid of (B).


Programs underwritten and conducted? Again, it makes more sense to write that the study was conducted. We can ditch (C).


This looks pretty good. The study was underwritten by educational institutions and conducted by this center, which also happens to be a nonprofit. The modifiers are logical. Let's hold on to (D).


Same problem as (B). The antecedent for "it" seems to refer to "evidence" or maaaaaybe "a non-profit research center", but neither of those make sense. Give (E) his ball and send him home.

This leaves us with (D), which is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

I have gone through all the explanations. But still not able to understand why A is wrong?? One explanation said that the reason choice A is wrong is that the prepositional phrase "by" is modifying "programs". According to me preposition phrase "by" is modifying "Television programs" and not just "programs".

Did I miss something? I agree D is correct. But A is as equally correct as D. GMATNinja can you please post your explanation

Sure! Let's break these down one by one:



The modifier "a study" seems to be describing Washington D.C. That's no good. (A) is out.


Typically, if a sentence has two full clauses and the 2nd clause starts with a pronoun, that pronoun will generally refer back to the subject of the first clause. So in this case, the antecedent for "it" seems to refer to "evidence." "Evidence is emerging... and evidence is underwritten?" Nah, that doesn't make any sense -- the study was underwritten, not the evidence.

And even if you're not convinced that "it" HAS to refer back to the subject of the first clause ("evidence"), the alternatives aren't great: "a non-profit research center" is the nearest singular noun, and that doesn't make sense, either, since the center isn't underwritten by the educational institutions -- "a new study" is, and the phrase "a new study" is buried in the middle of the clause. So it's really hard to make sense of that pronoun.

That's enough for us to get rid of (B).


Programs underwritten and conducted? Again, it makes more sense to write that the study was conducted. We can ditch (C).


This looks pretty good. The study was underwritten by educational institutions and conducted by this center, which also happens to be a nonprofit. The modifiers are logical. Let's hold on to (D).


Same problem as (B). The antecedent for "it" seems to refer to "evidence" or maaaaaybe "a non-profit research center", but neither of those make sense. Give (E) his ball and send him home.

This leaves us with (D), which is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

Sure! Let's break these down one by one:



The modifier "a study" seems to be describing Washington D.C. That's no good. (A) is out.


Typically, if a sentence has two full clauses and the 2nd clause starts with a pronoun, that pronoun will generally refer back to the subject of the first clause. So in this case, the antecedent for "it" seems to refer to "evidence." "Evidence is emerging... and evidence is underwritten?" Nah, that doesn't make any sense -- the study was underwritten, not the evidence.

And even if you're not convinced that "it" HAS to refer back to the subject of the first clause ("evidence"), the alternatives aren't great: "a non-profit research center" is the nearest singular noun, and that doesn't make sense, either, since the center isn't underwritten by the educational institutions -- "a new study" is, and the phrase "a new study" is buried in the middle of the clause. So it's really hard to make sense of that pronoun.

That's enough for us to get rid of (B).


Programs underwritten and conducted? Again, it makes more sense to write that the study was conducted. We can ditch (C).


This looks pretty good. The study was underwritten by educational institutions and conducted by this center, which also happens to be a nonprofit. The modifiers are logical. Let's hold on to (D).


Same problem as (B). The antecedent for "it" seems to refer to "evidence" or maaaaaybe "a non-profit research center", but neither of those make sense. Give (E) his ball and send him home.

This leaves us with (D), which is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

Sure! Let's break these down one by one: