Fears, initially widespread in the general public

Question

Fears, initially widespread in the general public,  which genetic engineering of new biological products should produce an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism has   proved unfounded.

A. which genetic engineering of new biological products should produce an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism- has 
B. that genetic engineering of new biological products should produce an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism- have been 
C. of genetic engineering of new biological products producing an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism- have
D. that genetic engineering of new biological products would produce an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism- have 
E. for genetic engineering of new biological products to produce an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism- has
 
 Source: Self Made from an Official CR Premise. 
 Added - to the options

paathik · Answer

In this question, a dash is needed after 'organism'. The phrase 'some uncontrollable new organism' should be bracketed by dashes. As constructed, the question and all the options have only one dash, not a pair.

ktzsikka · Answer

Fears - Have (SV agreement) - Options A and E out
"of genetic engineering of new biological products" - restrictive pronoun THAT makes the construction more clear. - Option C out
us of have been /perfect continuous is not warranted - Option B out

IMO option D

sritamasia · Answer

Fears, initially widespread in the general public,  which genetic engineering of new biological products should produce an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism has  proved unfounded.

A. which genetic engineering of new biological products  should produce  an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism  has 
Subject -  Fears , Verb- " has " Wrong. 
"  Fears, which  " does not make sense. 
" Should " on the GMAT implies obligation.

B.  that  genetic engineering of new biological products  should produce  an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism  have been 
" Should " on the GMAT implies obligation. As if, we meant for genetic engineering to produce an ecological disaster.

C.  of  genetic engineering of new biological products  producing  an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism  have 
" producing " implies action is continuing. Illogical.  Fears have unfounded.  
 
 D.   that  genetic engineering of new biological products  would produce  an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism  have 
Perfect as it is. " would " implies  FUTURE with respect to PAST-initially widespread.

E.  for  genetic engineering of new biological products  to produce  an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism  has 
Subject -  Fears , Verb- " has " Wrong

AndrewN · Answer

Yes, as  paathik  has noted above (for a first post after 14 years!), there should be a second dash  in all answer choices  for any of them to even be considered. That said, I assessed the answer choices with that punctuation inserted.

Choice (A) fails  for a few reasons. First, the relative clause marker  which  is improperly used, although I would let that one slide, since the OG states that "which" versus "that" is no longer explicitly tested. Later in the sentence, though,  should  does not correctly express what people feared. People can have feared that something  would  happen, but not  should .  Would  is the past tense of  will , while  should  is the past tense of  shall . Modern diction rules out sentences such as "I fear that aliens shall descend upon us"; in modern usage,  should  seems to convey a judgment of some sort. Finally, an easy-to-spot subject-verb agreement error awaits us at the end of the underlined portion: it makes no sense to say that fears  has —end of story.

Choice (B) fails  for preserving the same  should  as (A). You could make a case that  been  is not strictly necessary at the end of the underlined portion, but the presence of the word does not derail the sentence altogether. Someone or some group could have set out to disprove the logical basis for holding the fears in question. But now we seem to be grasping at straws.

Choice (C) fails  for the unidiomatic construct  fears of  followed by a string of prepositional phrases and a gerund. It is quite difficult to figure out what the sentence is aiming to convey. There should be a cleaner alternative somewhere.

Choice (D) works  because  would  fits the context of the sentence and  have  agrees perfectly with  fears . The sentence, as long-winded as it is, says merely that fears proved unfounded.

Choice (E) fails  for the unidiomatic construct  fears for , as well as its ruptured subject-verb agreement in  fears has .

That should do it. This is a decent mimic of an official question. I hope my analysis may prove useful to others.

As always, good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

ShaikhMoice · Answer

Thanks for the solution.
I have one doubt in the correct option though.
Shouldn't  have  instead been  have been  as fear is not disproving anything.

AndrewN · Answer

Good question,  ShaikhMoice . How about we look at the shell of the sentence for reference?

Fears have proved unfounded.

This is a case in which idiomatic usage is at work. To a native English speaker (at least this one), the sentence has no issues, and there is no confusion about fears attempting to prove or disprove anything. Rather,  unfounded  is taken to comment on (or modify) the fears after the fact. They were, in the end,  unfounded fears . We typically encounter this usage in a sentence that starts with a subject or pronoun:

Their fears proved unfounded.

The sentence aims to convey that their fears did not come to be in reality. The present perfect  have proved  would serve in the same capacity, so we are really discussing  proved  itself. Now, if the sentence starts with  fears  as the subject and launches into a relative clause— fears that... —we understand that some unnamed person or group (and in the original sentence, we have the  public ) is the doer of any action: a person or group thinks or fears something. So, there is nothing incorrect with saying that fears   proved unfounded.

Note that if we inserted a  be  verb, as in,  fears have been proved unfounded , the idiomatic usage falls through, and the meaning has shifted. There is now some unnamed party that has disproved earlier fears (somehow), and that does not make sense. No one can disprove an emotion that was expressed in the past.

Perhaps the issue makes a little more sense now. I dislike relying on idiomatic usage to discuss an issue, but that is just the way the language has been passed down to us.

- Andrew

ShaikhMoice · Answer

Thank you very much for the clarification.
That was really helpful.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Fears, initially widespread in the general public

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Fears, initially widespread in the general public

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards