Theoretically, water could remain in liquid form indefinitely in extre

I think it should be A.

(C) its molecules prevented from evaporating by an insufficient level of kinetic energy.

here, by has to be preceded by a noun but it is followed by an adjective. I eliminated B,C and E based on that.

In D,use of being was unnecessary. The only option left was A.

@cvsmech
You wrote
.
What you perhaps mean is


Actually, meaning – wise, ‘by’ is indeed followed by a noun i.e. ‘level’; insufficient is a modifier that is just an additive. Therefore, there is no need to discard choices using ‘by’

comma+ed-modifier modifies the closest noun - here...not correct.
A and B are out.
clearly we need a noun+noun modifier. only C and D works. between C and D - D is wordier and C is more concise.
E - comma+ing modifier -> modifies the clause:
water could remain bla bla bla BY preventing its molecules from evaporating
how can water prevent smth? it's just water so no
water could remain bla bla bla and the result -> preventing its molecules..
again no..

C looks to be the best, though I'd prefer evaporation instead of evaporating...

This question is a copy of the following official question:

sound-can-travel-through-water-for-enormous-77588.html

Hello,

Here is my doubt:
Choice C: its molecules prevented from evaporating by an insufficient level of KN...
(Essentially meaning: An insufficient level of KN prevented the evaporation of molecules)
'insufficient level of Kinetic energy' is essentially a 'level' (may be a number). How can 'level of KN' prevent something from happening?
Moreover it is a non living and non tangible thing. It cannot perform the action of preventing molecules from evaporating.

The molecules may be prevented from evaporating 'because of' the insufficient level of KN...

Choice D looked better to me.

Please explain where I am mistaken

Thanks and Regards!

I don't see why this is a problem.

We can have countless similar examples:

.....River prevented from flooding the planes by sturdy river-bank.

.....Pollution prevented from overwhelming the citizens by sufficient number of smog towers.

Hello!

It's true that there are similar examples of what should be similarly illogical constructions proving correct. For instance:

The passage of the bill was blocked by a small number of assembly members.
Her depression was caused by low levels of serotonin.

Even though number and levels refer very literally to a quantity, the GMAT won't be a huge stickler on that point. That said, there's nothing wrong with as a result of in answer (D), and to some degree it would help avoid this (minor, by GMAT standards) issue. However, while it may resolve that small potential problem, (D) introduces a more serious problem of its own: prevented from being evaporated is problematic because it makes evaporation seem like a transitive process (something that can be done to something else). Evaporation is generally intransitive (something that just happens). For instance, while I can say, "The water evaporated," it would be a bit more strange to say, "I evaporated the water."
And there's another problem: even if we do accept that maybe molecules can be evaporated by something else, it's very easy to read (D) as implying that the molecules would have been evaporated as a result of the low level of kinetic energy but that this process was prevented in some way. To put it another way, as a result of the low level of kinetic energy could be read as modifying being evaporated rather than prevented, which should be its logical target. That ambiguity of modification/meaning doesn't occur in (C), as (C) doesn't invoke the passive verbal being evaporated, a construction that tends to look for a by whom/what? answer.

Basically, while this question and answer (C) aren't perfect, in a head-to-head comparison, (C) still has less of a serious meaning issue than (D).

I hope that helps!

I would request any expert to clarify this, but from my limited understanding, the reasoning used in contrasting "by" vs "as a result" of in the official guide should not be used in a copy paste manner in this question.

In the OG question, the boundaries in the water are actively dissipating the acoustic energies. The passive form, "energies dissipated by the boundaries" makes sense there. But does it make equal sense to say that "insufficient kinetic energy" actively prevents the water molecules from evaporating? It is a deficiency, the consequence of which is the water molecules don't evaporate and remain liquid.

Is it similar to "Timmy was prevented from achieving a rank of pilot last year by his poor vision" as opposed to "Timmy was prevented from achieving a rank of pilot last year as a result of his poor vision"?