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

I disregarded option D due to change in meaning, It felt like its saying the study was conducted by central media and public affairs

while the original sentence says the programs were conducted by media and public affairs

Though the second "study" is disgustingly far away from the first "study," it does not seem grammatically incorrect. Where am I going wrong here? Thanks!

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
SC37561.01

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

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

Hi GMATNinja, I am struggling here to identify when to safely ignore filler prepositional phrases - this sentence seems rife with classic GMAT examples of excessive "from"s, "of"s, "in"s, etcetera, which obscure meaning and confuse the proper placement of the second "study." I assumed that I could safely ignore the parenthetical about Washington DC, and use the second "study" to simply modify the first study. Though the second "study" is disgustingly far away from the first "study," it does not seem grammatically incorrect. Where am I going wrong here? Thanks!

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!

Thanks for the official explanation. Now I clearly see the issue between C & D

[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.
"Program" is modified by "underwritten"...
[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.
"a study" is modified appropriately by "underwritten"...

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!

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

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

Hello, Naptiste. The portion of (D) you have quoted above is nothing more than a lengthy phrase. Why? Because what appear to be verbs are nothing more than adjectival modifiers for the noun study.


You could spot them as modifiers more easily if they preceded the noun, perhaps, and if they were not stuck together and long-winded. Consider a truncated version of the same:

1) Underwritten by [institutions], a study...

2) Conducted by [a center], a study...

If we wanted to turn the phrase into a clause while preserving the passive construct, we would look to a helping verb:

3) A study was underwritten by... and conducted by...

So, in the absence of a verb, we cannot call the original line anything other than a phrase. Sometimes it can help to stick to the basics when the sentences get lengthy. We do not care, for instance, about anything other than institutions, in terms of who underwrote the study. The rest is just extra information about those institutions. (The phrase would make just as much sense if the institutions were non-educational in nature.)

I hope that helps with your query. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Hello, Sneha2021. Yes, an article of some sort (a, the) should appear after the comma. I suspected a transcription error as soon as I looked back over (C), so I checked the source material (through Google Books):


You can clearly see the missing article after the comma. Case closed. People should not be able to eliminate the answer choice based on such a "problem." (Bunuel, would you please correct the issue?)

Concerning your second question, I would argue that the context of the sentence allows us to infer that the appositive phrase refers to an entity based in a city, making the explicit mention unnecessary and arguably redundant. It is similar to the writing the following:

1) The Wall Street Journal, based in New York City, enjoys one of the largest circulation volumes of any newspaper in the world.

2) The Wall Street Journal, in New York City, enjoys one of the largest circulation volumes of any newspaper in the world.

It is not that the first sentence is not functional, but based is not strictly necessary; on the GMAT™, it is good practice to ask yourself whether extra words add something in the way of clarity to the vital meaning of the sentence. If not, and a more concise option exists, then the shorter version (barring any other key decision points) will win out.

Perhaps that helps resolve your concerns. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

KarishmaB GMATNinja
(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.

Why C is incorrect? Is there any other reason to reject C apart from "programs can't be underwritten".
Why programs can't be underwritten?

Thank you for you time

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