In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure

Hi Karan911,

You're right about the fact that raising seems to be modifying tourists in D, and even if we ignore the that-clause, we get because of moisture raising the humidity, which is awkward. As for C (and D as well), I think we should consider them ambiguous (pronoun reference is extremely resistant to rules, so sometimes we must go by sound). Finally, Souvik's success is a noun phrase, so a due to would be appropriate in that sentence. Just keep in mind that the because of/due to split may not be an "absolute" rule.
_________________

GMATNinja mikemcgarry AjiteshArun DmitryFarber AndrewN MartyTargetTestPrep VeritasPrepHailey

I'm kind of confused with option C, specifically the parallelism part and I was hoping yall can shed some light on it

For parallelism, from all the videos I've seen, it's stated that the verbs only need to be of the same "type". It doesn't matter if they are in different tenses (Also the sentence needs to make logical sense when you read it altogether)

In this question, I get that "salt would crystallize (Clause 1) and fungus was growing (Clause 2)" need to be in the same tense to keep the sentence logical and I understand that but from all the replies and posts I read for this question, the response was just verbs are "not parallel". I wanted to clarify if this was true. If it is not parallel indeed, could you tell me why?

If they are parallel, then that would mean that the reason this option is incorrect is because the verb tenses are not correct.

Am I correct?
_________________

SiddharthR

Different tenses are not parallel. But there is an exception when it affects the meaning of the sentence. You should consider different tenses to be parallel only if there is no way around without distorting the meaning.

A few explanations on why they are not parallel -

1. As per the question, salt crystallizing and fungus growing are benchmarks for the level of humidity. So, there is no place for doubtful or hypothetical word - "would". This should be one trigger to identify that it distorts the meaning.

2. keeping the benchmark aside, there is no other information provided in the sentence that supports stone would crystallize (can happen later) and not crystallizing (happen with the level mentioned). So, by default we have to go with the meaning intended by the sentence in the question itself.
Hence, different tenses in the parallelism makes no logical sense.

3. Let's assume that the level mentioned was not a bench mark. In this case, 'stone would crystallize' should be preceded by 'fungus was growing' to maintain the sequence of events logically.

Hi SiddharthR,

That is correct. There are two verbs (one in each subject-verb pair) in that part of the sentence, and although we can't say that such verbs must always be in the same tense, we do want to take a look at the intended meaning before taking that call.

1. ... moisture had raised the humidity to such levels that salt from the stone was crystallizing... ← This is something that was happening in the past, an ongoing process (in the past).

2. ... moisture had raised the humidity to such levels that salt from the stone would crystallize... ← This is something that happened regularly or something that was generally true at that time.

Here's another example:

3. The CEO was so bad that shareholders were calling for his resignation. ← This is a "one-time" process.

4. The CEO was so bad that shareholders would call for his resignation. ← Depending on how we look at this would, this sentence could mean that shareholders would regularly or generally call for his resignation or it could mean that shareholders would call for his resignation in the future. This could even be a conditional if we have any reason to expect an if.

To sum up, given that we have "fungus was growing" in the nonunderlined portion of the sentence, it's just more likely that the intended meaning is the one conveyed by "salt was crystallizing".
_________________

Thank you AjiteshArun & saipk. It makes more sense this way .
_________________

Hi i chose e but i have a question regarding the use of had here.
had can be used when 2 events happen and end in the past and the event attached with had starts & ends before the other event

So how can the humidity rise before the moisture was exhaled ???
Am i missing something here . Please help

The verb in the past perfect just needs to come before something else in the past.

Also, notice that the main verb of the clause is "were closed." The chambers were closed in the past and the humidity rose some time before the closing. This makes sense -- if the humidity hadn't yet risen, there'd be no reason to close the chambers!

Because "had raised" comes before "were closed," the past perfect is perfectly logical here.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Thanks for that. But in this question over here the event that happened after "had" in the past is not explicitly mentioned with past tense but is implied. What are your views on that?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/according-to-some-analysts-the-gains-in-the-stock-market-reflect-grow-70645.htmlhttps://gmatclub.com/forum/according-to-some-analysts-the-gains-in-the-stock-market-reflect-grow-70645.html[/url]


According to some analysts, the gains in the stock market reflect growing confidence that the economy will avoid the recession that many had feared earlier in the year and instead come in for a 'soft landing', followed by a gradual increase in the business activity.
A is correct
(A) that the economy will avoid the recession that many had feared earlier in the year and instead come

Sequence of events
people had feared --> gains in stock market -->according to analysts gains reflect confidence --> economy will avoid recessions & instead come in .......
PAST PAST PRESENT FUTURE
I know why the other choices are wrong but
I dont understand that when the simple past event is not explicitly mentioned is it fine if it is implied??

I feel your pain here. It's certainly more challenging to see why the past perfect is called for when the other past element isn't spelled out for us explicitly. But we want to make sure we're never just going on autopilot, looking for grammar issues without thinking about context.

So when we see "had feared", we have to ask ourselves: what other past thing in the sentence could have come before the fear? And you nailed it. It's the gains in the stock market. Because, logically, the gains had to have begun in the past, right? How could investor sentiment have changed if the gains are happening right now?

Well, if the gains began in the past, then it makes sense to write that the fear of the recession occurred before these gains, so "had" is okay, even though we don't get an explicit date or past tense verb.

The takeaway: usually, when the past perfect is used, we'll get either a past tense verb or a date that the earlier action came before. On rare occasions, like this one, we have to use context and engage with the logic of the sentence to see that the action occurred before some other past event. If there's a good argument for the use of the past perfect, or if you're not sure, don't treat it as a concrete error.

I hope that helps a bit!
_________________

Thanks for clearing that up I was stuck on that for a while. Basically If the use of past perfect and other tenses are the only splits then we have to ask ourselves 5 questions.

What does the sentence wants to say meaning wise?

Did the event with past perfect happen & end before the another event in the past --> valid use

Did the event with past perfect happen after another event in the past --> invalid use as "had" event needs to start and end before the other past event


Did the event with past perfect happen at the same time of another event in the past --> invalid use as "had" event needs to start and end before the other past event

Is the event with past perfect still happening --> invalid use as past events need to end in past

In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure at Giza were closed to visitors for cleaning and repair due to moisture exhaled by tourists, which raised its humidity to such levels so that salt from the stone was crystallizing and fungus was growing on the walls.

There are different ways to solve this problem. Let's see the non-underlined part, "and fungus was growing on the walls", how can we make it parallel. We can say "stone was crystallizing". Now, we can easily discard option B, C and D. There are other reasons to avoid them also. Let's closely look into A and E.

(A) due to moisture exhaled by tourists, which raised its humidity to such levels so that salt from the stone was crystallizing -> Did tourists raise humidity or moisture raised humidity. Incorrect.

(E) because moisture exhaled by tourists had raised the humidity within them to such levels that salt from the stone was crystallizing -> "had" jumped out for me first. Do we have two actions, yes! moisture raised first then the place was closed for tourists. "them" pronoun should refer to subject, which is "chambers". It is also correct and make sense.

So, I think E.

I have a small doubt, although I marked the correct answer. Can someone show on a timeline to justify the usage of past perfect tense 'had raised the humidity'? If the two actions compared are exhaled and raised, then ideally the cause (tourists exhaling) should come before effect (raise in humidity levels). But I believe the actions compared in the past are 'were closed' and 'had raised'? Please clarify.

Yes Mayank, would agree with this.
_________________

Hi MayankDimri

Welcome to an important and tricky distinction in SC. "---ed" words, while always 'action' in some way, can serve two very different functions in a sentence depending on how they are use, EVEN IF THEY ARE THE SAME WORD.

My favorite (very tricky) example of this can be seen in these two sentenes:

"The dog walked past the barn."

"The dog walked past the barn fell."

Some people think that the second sentence must be wrong. The sentence must be "The dog walked past, and the barn fell." Or "The dog walked past; the barn fell." Some students ask if a 'barn-fell' is a thing they've just never heard of!

But actually, the second sentence is completely correct and unambiguous as written... It's just that the word 'walked' is no longer a verb, as it is in the first sentence. It is now a *modifier*. (We sometimes call them 'ed' modifiers--the official word is 'past participle.')

These look like verbs, come from verbs, and feel like verbs... But are really descriptions. You can add a 'that was/were' or 'that had been' in front of them to get the full meaning: "The dog [that was] walked past the barn fell." But it is conventional to not include the 'that was' in such a sentence.

(Aside: notice how the purpose of 'walked' isn't really clear until the sentence is complete! Words later in a sentence affect structure earlier in the sentence! By adding a single word, the verb 'fell,' we transform the role of 'walked' from verb to modifier! Tricky stuff).

The word 'exhaled' is such a word in this sentence. It is description of the air... It's not *really* a verb. And it's definitely not the verb that 'had raised' happened before (as you note, the cause must precede the effect)!

I think you are right that 'had raised' precedes 'were closed,' justifying the use of the past perfect.

But more generally, look out for -ed words and be thoughtful of how they are used. If you can add a "That was/were" in front of them, they are *description*.
_________________

'Due to' is used to modify nouns. 'Because of' is used to modify verbs.
For this reason we can eliminate A,B.
Now in C and D we will see parallelism and since they are not parallel we will eliminate them.
In E stone was crystallizing is parallel to fungus was growing Therefore E is Correct.

can we consider phrase "humidity within them" as referring to antecedent "chambers" only. Because, it is not meaningful to consider- "tourists raised humidity within them".
please give your opinion.

Hello sourabhgx,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, yes; there is no pronoun ambiguity in the usage of "them" because there is only one noun - "chambers" - that "them" can logically refer to.

To understand the concept of "Exceptions to Pronoun Ambiguity" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

The sentence is:

.. the chambers were closed because moisture exhaled by tourists had raised the humidity within them to such levels that salt ...

The clause after 'because' will give us why the chambers were closed. The clause tells us that something had raised the humidity within them. Is there any doubt about who or what 'them' is? No. Moisture exhaled by tourists cannot raise the humidity within tourists.
When logic dictates that only one antecedent is possible, there is no ambiguity.

Consider this:
Take the pizza out of the box and throw it.

What does 'it' refer to? The pizza or the box? Both are possible though it is more likely that the box is being thrown away.
But if the pizza has gotten spoilt, we may be asking someone to throw away the pizza.
Here the sentence has ambiguity.
_________________