Bunuel wrote:
The bridge oscillated vigorously under the fluctuating load of the oncoming vehicles,
the faulty load bearing mechanisms unable to damp down its vibrational energy, and was on the verge of collapse.
A. the faulty load bearing mechanisms unable to damp down its vibrational energy, and was
B. unable to damp down its vibrational energy by the faulty load bearing mechanisms and
C. the faulty load bearing mechanisms were unable to damp down its vibrational energy and were
D. it was unable to damp down its vibrational energy by the faulty load bearing mechanisms and was
E. the faulty load bearing mechanisms were unable to damp down its vibrational energy, was
Thank you
sayantanc2k for the question!!!
GMAT CLUB Official Explanation:A. Correct. The basic structure of the sentence is as follows:
“The bridge oscillated vigorously under the fluctuating load of the oncoming vehicles and was on the verge of collapse.”
Main subject: The bridge
Main verbs: “oscillated” and “was”, connected by the conjunction “and”.
An absolute phrase “the faulty load bearing mechanisms unable to damp down its vibrational energy” is inserted to explain why the bridge oscillated vigorously.
B. In this construction there are two modifiers “unable to damp down its vibrational energy by the faulty load bearing mechanisms” and “on the verge of collapse”, referring to the noun “ the bridge”. However the modifiers are placed far away from the noun they refer to. Moreover one of the modifiers is an adjective (“unable…”) and the other a preposition phrase (“on the verge…”), which are not parallel.
Moreover an implication that might be questionable is as follows: the bridge itself does not damp down its vibrational energy, the load bearing mechanisms do. Hence the load bearing mechanisms are unable to damp down - it is questionable to say that the bridge is unable to damp down.
C. Two independent clauses, “The bridge oscillated vigorously…” and “ the faulty load bearing mechanisms were unable… and were on the verge….” are wrongly connected by a comma. Two independent clauses must be separated by a conjunction instead.
Moreover an implication that might be questionable is as follows: the original sentence implies that the bridge is on the verge of collapse, whereas this sentence implies that the load bearing mechanisms were on the verge of collapse. Although this meaning is valid, it modifies the original meaning. (Nonetheless it would not be alright to eliminate this option only on the basis of the changed meaning.)
D. Two independent clauses, “The bridge oscillated vigorously…” and “ it was unable… and was on the verge….” are wrongly connected by a comma. Two independent clauses must be separated by a conjunction instead.
Moreover an implication that might be questionable is as follows: the bridge itself does not damp down its vibrational energy, the load bearing mechanisms do. Hence the load bearing mechanisms are unable to damp down - it is questionable to say that the bridge is unable to damp down.
E. A conjunction is required to join the verbs “oscillated” and “was”.
An absolute phrase does not have a verb - inserting the verb “were” converts the absolute phrase into a clause, making the construction faulty.