In 1852 Robert Angus Smith published a detailed report of the chemistr

Dear mikemcgarry,

I was really confused with this question. The correct choice B looks very weird for me. Since I could find some fatal mistakes in all of the other four choices, I have to accept B. But I still have some concerns with B.

As in A, C,D, the correlation is described as " the closer one came to town (event A), the more the city air became acidic (event B)". Does this structure hint any logical direction between the event A and B? Does choice B, the city air became increasingly acidic (event B) the closer one came to town (event A), convey a different logical meaning?

Thx for your time in advance,
Victoria

bubblehead0922
Dear Victoria

I'm happy to respond.

The order in which we state things doesn't matter. It is true that, in the sequence of time, cause precedes effect, but that does not impose a grammatical requirement that cause be stated before effect. It is still obvious what is cause and what is effect.
In 1852 Robert Angus Smith published a detailed report of the chemistry of rain in a large area around the city of Manchester, England, noting that the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town.
This is a somewhat sophisticated version that departs from the most simplistic and obvious wording. One of the distinguishing marks of sophisticated writing is to say the ordinary in way that is a shade different from the ordinary way of saying it. There's a good deal of sophisticated writing in the text of official SC questions.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Hi mikemcgarry,

I rejected option B because I thought that a comma is must (as you also used a comma in your explanation)...
Can such structures be rendered correct without the use of comma ...

For e.g. :
the more I practice SC, the better I feel about it...

If you see, we by default use a comma all such structures ....

Can please throw some light on this ...
_________________

Dear mihir0710,

I'm happy to respond.

If I may give you feedback on what you have written:
" . . . I thought that a comma is must . . . "
That''s very awkward and hard for a native speaker to understand. By contrast, consider this:
" . . . I thought that a comma is a must . . . "
That sounds natural and makes perfect sense. That one indefinite article makes all the difference.

In this structure, there is some natural variation. The most rigid form of the idiom is
the [comparative][clause #1], the [comparative][clause #2]
That strict version indeed requires a comma.

The OA in this question employed a looser form of the idiom
. . . the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town . . .
Here, the comparative in the first close is not isolated at the beginning; instead, it is integrated into the clause. This variant does not require a comma, and in fact, a comma would be awkward and wrong.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

The point to note is that 'more and increasingly acidic' are redundant. Hence, remove A and D. Remove C for saying that the city air came closer to town. Drop E for missing the connector 'that' in a reported speech. B remains.
_________________

In 1852 Robert Angus Smith published a detailed report of the chemistry of rain in a large area around the city of Manchester, England, noting that the closer one came to town, the more the city air would become increasingly acidic.

A) that the closer one came to town, the more the city air would become increasingly acidic
B) that the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town
C) that coming closer to town, the city air became increasingly acidic
D) that the more the city air became increasingly acidic, the closer one was to town
E) the city air becoming increasingly acidic as one would come closer to town


straight B

Dear all, I have a different reason why we must eliminate [A] in the first place.
The meaning in [A] is illogical : how can the quality of city air is affected by the distance of someone?

That's why I chose between B and D here.
Now, choice B seems bad because the construction would be much better if we put a comma before "the closer one".
I chose D, while I admit that "more" and "increasingly" are redundant.

Dear GMATNinja, sayantanc2k, any idea about construction in B?

Thanks!
_________________

Check out @mikemcgarry's excellent post above for an explanation of the idiom used in this question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-1852-robe ... l#p1868477. If that doesn't do the trick, feel free to follow up, and I'll try take a shot at it.

The bigger picture, though, is that the GMAT really doesn't test the nuances of comma usage, but it does test redundancy. In general, if you think than an answer choice is wrong solely because of a comma... well, it probably isn't wrong JUST because of that comma. Redundancy is a much more severe crime, especially when it's as blatant as in (D).
_________________

Can some expert throw some light on the usage of would in the option.
According to me, would is used either to show some uncertainity ot some action from the past to the present.
In this case since this is a record which was valid in the past, I feel the usage of would is incorrect.
Am I correct in my reasoning?

VeritasKarishma
chetan2u
GMATNinja

Yes, I don't like the use of "would" here. "would" is used to preserve the future aspect in the past.
The way the sentence is structured, it is all in the past.
... published... noting that the closer one came to town, the more acidic the city air became...
We don't need the future aspect here.

daagh don't we need a conjunction or atleast a comma between 2 SV pair in option B
the city air became Vs one came

(A) that the closer one came to town, the more the city air would become increasingly acidic -- more and increasingly. Redundant.

(B) that the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town -- Looks ok.

(C) that coming closer to town, the city air became increasingly acidic -- Gerund. GMAT doesn't prefer those when you have better choices.

(D) that the more the city air became increasingly acidic, the closer one was to town. -- again increasingly and more. Redundant.

(E) the city air becoming increasingly acidic as one would come closer to town -- becoming should have been parallel with come. Error.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello teaserbae,

Even though your question is not addressed to us, here is the answer.

This official sentence employs a specific expression - the more (or any adjective in comparative degree) A, the more (or any adjective in comparative degree) B.

Generally, the expression has a comma between the two parts of the expression. But the usage of the comma is not mandatory. Its absence does not lead to an error. So, Choice B is just fine.

So, the takeway here is that never select/reject an answer choice solely on the basis of the presence/absence of a punctuation mark.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hello ravigupta2912,

A good analysis of this official question here. However, your reason to reject Choice C is not correct.

In Choice C, the word coming is not a gerund. It is a verb-ing modifier. The choice seems to convey that the city air became increasingly acidic as the city air came closer to town. This meaning is illogical.



Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

n 1852 Robert Angus Smith published a detailed report of the chemistry of rain in a large area around the city of Manchester, England, noting that the closer one came to town, the more the city air would become increasingly acidic.


(A) that the closer one came to town, the more the city air would become increasingly acidic
More & increasingly usage is redundant here.

(B) that the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town
No error

(C) that coming closer to town, the city air became increasingly acidic
the structure of the statement doesn't portray the cause and effect relationship

(D) that the more the city air became increasingly acidic, the closer one was to town
Disrupts the actual meaning intent. Cause and effect are flipped

(E) the city air becoming increasingly acidic as one would come closer to town
Disrupts the actual meaning intent. Cause and effect are flipped

(A) that the closer one came to town, the more the city air would become increasingly acidic
The meaning isn't perfectly conveyed therefore out

(B) that the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town
The meaning is perfect therefore let us hang on to it

(C) that coming closer to town, the city air became increasingly acidic
coming isn't the right usage therefore out

(D) that the more the city air became increasingly acidic, the closer one was to town
THis makes a backward reasoning which is not the intended one therefore out

(E) the city air becoming increasingly acidic as one would come closer to town
becoming and come isn't the right usage therefore out

Therefore IMO B

Hi experts AndrewN AjiteshArun GMATNinja

After checking all previous posts in this thread, I understood the reasons why the option (A) is incorrect and why the option (B) is better than (A), (C) or (D). But, I hope to talk about (E). This option was less discussed before. I did not pick (E) in my practice exam since I felt that there was something weird about the option, but I cannot spell it out. Because knowing why an incorrect option is incorrect is also important, could I check the problem of (E)? It would be great if you could share some thought when you have time.

With (E), the sentence would read:
In 1852 Robert Angus Smith published a detailed report of the chemistry of rain in a large area around the city of Manchester, England, noting the city air becoming increasingly acidic as one would come closer to town.

1. "note that" ?

Some members have said that they rejected (E) because there is no "that" following "note." I am curious whether this claim is correct. Although I understand that it is usual and common to write "say that" or "note that" to introduce a concept/message, but such use is not an absolute rule, is it? Cambridge Dictionary has an example: In the article, she notes several cases of medical incompetence.

Is the lack of "that" in (E) inappropriate because the author (Robert Smith) mentions not just some nouns, but an idea that should be expressed in a noun clause?

2. "as"?

The use of "as" was my main concern for (E), because "as" is ambiguous--it can indicate a cause-effect relationship or act as a time indicator. I remember another OG question (https://reurl.cc/d2pp2k) also utilizes this issue. For this sentence, we are looking for a time indicator such as "when" or "while," so the use of "as" is not ideal.


Overall, I could confidently eliminate (E) because of the use of "as," but I am not sure whether its structure is definitely wrong.
Could you share some of your thoughts?

Thanks!

Hello, GraceSCKao. To address your points, I would not reject a sentence on the basis of a missing that. It is true that many SC sentences use that ahead of a complete clause, but there are counterexamples. See, for instance, this question, in which we see the seven-store retailer said it would start a three-month liquidation sale in all of its stores. I keep track of such anomalies as I encounter them to not only avoid prescriptive thinking myself, but to be able to provide a more informed view when I urge others not to abandon solid reasoning.

Regarding your second concern, I agree that the use of "as" is not ideal. However, my main issue with (E) is the pairing of becoming with the verb would come. That is, noting the city air becoming allows the reader to anticipate a commentary on present circumstances. But then the sentence takes a turn with as one would come closer to town. We should be able to transpose the two larger pieces here and be left with a sensible sentence. But look at the mess that comes out of (E):

as one would come closer to town, the city air becoming increasingly acidic X

Compare to (B):

the closer one came to town, the city air became increasingly acidic √

No case can be made for (E). Something has to be changed in the way of a verb form to get anything reasonable. We can and should abandon it in favor of (B).

Thank you for thinking to bring me into the dialogue.

- Andrew
_________________

Dear Expert,

I have 2 questions

1) What does "one" refer or "mean"? a person or what?
2) Why is (C) wrong? Is it because of change of meaning?