Global warming is said to be responsible for extreme weather changes

The modifier touch rule has some exceptions. Some essential modifiers, especially prepositional modifiers, may come in between a modifier and the noun it refers to.

Here the relative clause modifier " which was also the cause ......" refers to "heat wave". Another essential prepositional modifier " in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States" has dropped in between the clause modifier and the noun it refers to. Such usage is acceptable if the meaning is not ambiguous.

Parallelism is alright. Have you already come across the twice in, once out rule?

Both the structures below are correct:

"in the" / "United States" within the parallel structure (twice in): (in the Northeastern Unite States) AND (in the Midwestern United States)... correct.

"in the" / "United States" outside the parallel structure (once out): in the (Northeastern) AND (Midwestern) United States.... correct.

After 'which', I am looking for the rest of the clause. It is missing.

Global warming is responsible for extreme weather changes, which cause a lot of damage to life and property. (for example)
which clause modifies 'extreme weather changes'.

To give examples, I cannot start with 'which'.
Normally we use 'such as' for examples but 'like' is gaining acceptability to give examples too so I wouldn't take a call based on that. If it were the only decision point in my sentence, then I would choose 'such as' to give examples.

'the rains that caused damage' - Here 'rains' is the noun and 'that caused damage...' is its essential modifier clause.

The parallelism is between "extreme weather changes" and "the heat wave".
Global warming is said to be responsible for 2 things:
1. extreme weather changes
AND
2. the heat wave

A participial phrase modifying the closest subject/doer is the most common case.


Curious to know which new rule did you learn from this sentence?

In D, we have causing without a comma in front, so it will modify the preceding noun ‘California’ but it does not make sense.
The modifier should be modifying the entire clause and so we require a COMMA in front of causing.

Brego7

Not quite. When you see "comma + -ing," you're typically looking at an adverbial modifier, not a noun modifier, so it doesn't modify any subject at all. Rather, "causing" is showing the result of the previous action. And that action is "led to flooding." In this case, since heavy rains did that action, we can say that the heavy rains caused the damage. However, we can't always reason that way. For instance, if I say "Kamala Harris was elected vice-president of the US, making her the first woman to hold the office," it's not quite right to say that VP Harris herself MADE herself the first woman (although she certainly worked for it). Rather, that result is simply the outcome of her election. The ", making" modifier is adverbial and does not apply to a noun.

1). The switch would certainly be better. The 'causing' modifier still seems a bit odd.

"Heavy rains that led to flooding causing damages" would be better as "Heavy rains that led to flooding that caused damages." Or, as in E, "Heavy rains that led to flooding, causing damages." Here the comma-ing structure means the 'causing' is modifying the action 'heavy rains that led to flooding.'


2). I think the answer to this question is 'It's nice but not necessary.' If two nouns are joined by a conjunction in parallel, and one is modified, it certainly is NICE for the second to have a similar type of modifier, but I don't believe it is strictly necessary.


3). Well, mostly my thought is "it's not underlined so don't worry about it." If a 'which' modifier *were* being tested, they would be very careful about how it was used.

But, in general, 'which' modifies the noun before--but language is imperfect. Since there's a long modifier for where the heat wave was, it feels like a lot of words, but it's still all one noun phrase. Really, there are only two options for the 'which' to modify--the 'U.S.' and the 'heat wave.' Since "in the Northeastern and Midwestern" is a long modifier, you can kind of condense its space as if it were one, single-word modifer:

"and the heat wave in the [modifier] United States, which was also the cause..."

I can't say, "And the heat wave, which was also the cause..., in the United States."

I think you may stumble if GMAT throws you similar examples in which the same rule will be valid in multiple options. Sometimes an exception may come up or you need to find which rule, according to you , is not right . The key message is : Rules are tools but these rules are handy only when multiple options have the same logic and now only the rule can make or break the correct answer.

For this particular question, you are formulating some methodology which may not be valid in another case.
E.g. :
Causing more than $2 billion in damagers, heavy rains led to flooding .-- Comma (can refer to heavy rains or clause: heavy rains led)
heavy rains led to flooding causing more than $2 billion in damagers.-- No comma ( can refer to flooding)

You could be in such a situation where a comma can not decide your answer right or wrong. So what shall you do? or what should you have done to avoid this situation.

Remember: LOGIC is the KING in GMAT.

Global warming is said to be responsible for extreme weather changes, which, like the heavy rains that caused more than $ 2 billion in damages and led to flooding throughout the state of California, and the heat wave in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States, which was also the cause of a great amount of damage and destruction.



(D) such as the heavy flooding that led to rains throughout the state of California causing more than $2 billion in damages,
(D') such as the heavy flooding that led to rains throughout the state of California, causing more than $2 billion in damages,

(E) such as the heavy rains that led to flooding throughout the state of California, causing more than $2 billion in damages,


heavy flooding led to RAINS?
heavy rains led to flooding?
which one you would choose? --> how heavy flooding can lead to Rains? so logically D is nonsense even it has comma or no comma before causing

I hope you got the point:)

Hello Sneha2021,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, regarding the incorrect Option A, "which" refers to "extreme weather changes", and we can, indeed, say that this phrase has no active verb.

Further, the construction "the rains that caused" is a correct example of a "noun + noun modifier" construction, but the larger phrase is incorrect, as it incorrectly uses "like" to provide examples; please remember, "such as" is used to provide examples and "like" is used to compare nouns; "like" is incorrect here because there is no comparison being made in the sentence.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

There is a meaning issue in (C).

What we mean to say is that heavy rains caused flooding which led to damage. Because of heavy rains, flood happened and because of floods, damage happened.

Now notice (C):

like the heavy flooding that, because of rains throughout the state of California, caused more than $2 billion in damages,

What this means is:
Because of rains throughout the state of California, heavy flooding caused more than $2 billion in damages.

Heavy flooding caused damage because of rains! This makes no sense.
Heavy flooding happened because of rains and heavy flooding caused damage.

Notice (E)

(E) such as the heavy rains that led to flooding throughout the state of California, causing more than $2 billion in damages,

Heavy rains led to flooding. This caused damage. Makes sense.

Is this OG question. the heat wave in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States, which was also the cause of a great amount of damage and destruction. Is usage of which right in this question.

What about parallelism with "and" ?

and the heat wave in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States

Aha.. Got this one.. Thanks!

But I was referring to parallelism with the previous sentences..

and the heat wave in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States... should be parallel to something in the previous sentence,

Global warming is said to be responsible for extreme weather changes, which, like the heavy rains that caused more than $ 2 billion in damages and led to flooding throughout the state of California,

of is this a FANBOYS construction?

IC, AND, IC ?

What this sentence is actually trying to convey, or express if you will, is that both a particular set of heavy rains and a particular heat wave in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States are examples of extreme weather changes that caused destruction. The term "such as" denotes an example " Graduate level exams such as the GMAT and LSAT are significantly more difficult than undergraduate level college entrance exams such as the SAT and ACT." Now, we can eliminate A, B and C. What is the difference between D and E? Answer choice D alters the original menaing of the sentence- the original sentence is written so as to convey that heavy rains caused a particular outcome.

Thus
"E"

I hate to spam the thread with my thoughts but this is for my disbelievers friends, who blindly believe "which" clause, as a nonessential modifier, refers to exact preceding word. Here which refers to the subject of previous clause which is "the heat wave".

Further, this is the non-underlined part of the sentence and hence cant be debated!

Something to keep in mind when looking for "which" and finding its correct preceding antecedent.

Imo E
such as is correct here as we are giving example .
D is wrong for the meaning