Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 13:37 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 13:37
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   5   
505-555 Level|   Parallelism|                  
avatar
Hadiagh
avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2020
Last visit: 04 Jan 2022
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 101
Posts: 14
Kudos: 1
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 19 Jul 2021, 07:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sudeep
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.


(A) due to moisture exhaled by tourists, which raised its humidity to such levels so that salt from the stone was crystallizing

(B) due to moisture that tourists had exhaled, thereby raising its humidity to such levels that salt from the stone would crystallize

(C) because tourists were exhaling moisture, which had raised the humidity within them to levels such that salt from the stone would crystallize

(D) because of moisture that was exhaled by tourists raising the humidity within them to levels so high as to make the salt from the stone crystallize

(E) because moisture exhaled by tourists had raised the humidity within them to such levels that salt from the stone was crystallizing


Show Spoiler
As per the OG explanation, 'them' in C and D seems to refer to 'tourists', but in E 'them' clearly refers to chambers.
Can someone please explain the concept of the pronoun reference in this case?

What I understood is that:
in the case of E tourists is the noun in the modifier 'exhaled by tourists'. So, 'tourists' loose the significance as it is out of scope for the remaining main sentence/clause. But is is the right creteria to reject the pronoun reference to noun 'tourists'.

PS: I know why the OA mentioned is correct, but need clarification on the above concept of pronoun reference.
Show more



straightaway eliminated B C and D because crystallizing has to be parallel to growing.
now between choice A and choice E
A sounds as if moisture is due to cleaning and repairing so i eliminated option A.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [1]
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 19 Jul 2021, 22:02
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Karan911
Hi GMATNinja GMATNinja2 chetan2u VeritasKarishma AjiteshArun

I got the correct answer but wanted to check with you if the approach is fine :

Right off the bat dropped (A) and (B) because these options use 'Due to' to refer to moisture which is a noun cause I remember reading the example you provided ( Souvik's success is because of his hard work, not due to his hard work)

(C) : Wanted to drop is right away because them could refer incorrectly to tourists but I stopped myself from doing so [Reference : Your video stating that if the a pronoun in the second clause can refer back to the subject 'the chambers' in the first part, pronoun ambiguity doesn't exist here], but by the time I got to the end I saw 'would cryst.' and it's clearly not a conditional plus the even has happened in the past already so I dropped it. also, it is not parallel to Fungus 'WAS GROWING' in the remainent of the sentence.

(D) : 'because of the moisture that was EXHALED BY TOURISTS RAISING THE HUMIDITY, tourists aren't raising humidity, moisture is, Toursits are exhaling, Plus 'So high as to make salt cryst.' is not parallel to 'Fungus was growing' {past continous}
Show more
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.
User avatar
SiddharthR
User avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2018
Last visit: 20 Feb 2022
Posts: 84
Own Kudos:
36
Given Kudos: 201
Location: United States (TX)
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Schools: McCombs Ross (Michigan)
GMAT 1: 590 Q42 V29
GMAT 2: 650 Q47 V33
GPA: 3.7
WE:Engineering (Consumer Electronics)
Schools: McCombs Ross (Michigan)
GMAT 2: 650 Q47 V33
Posts: 84
Kudos: 36
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 12 Aug 2021, 16:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
User avatar
saipk
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2021
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
26
 [1]
Given Kudos: 10
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
WE:Information Technology (Internet and New Media)
Posts: 35
Kudos: 26
 [1]
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 12 Aug 2021, 18:02
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [1]
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 12 Aug 2021, 23:19
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
SiddharthR
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?
Show more
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".
User avatar
SiddharthR
User avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2018
Last visit: 20 Feb 2022
Posts: 84
Own Kudos:
36
 [1]
Given Kudos: 201
Location: United States (TX)
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Schools: McCombs Ross (Michigan)
GMAT 1: 590 Q42 V29
GMAT 2: 650 Q47 V33
GPA: 3.7
WE:Engineering (Consumer Electronics)
Schools: McCombs Ross (Michigan)
GMAT 2: 650 Q47 V33
Posts: 84
Kudos: 36
 [1]
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 13 Aug 2021, 13:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thank you AjiteshArun & saipk. It makes more sense this way .
User avatar
parth2424
User avatar
Joined: 11 Oct 2020
Last visit: 17 Dec 2021
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 122
Posts: 35
Kudos: 9
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 31 Aug 2021, 01:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,787
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,787
 [2]
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 01 Sep 2021, 10:11
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
parth2424
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
Show more
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!
User avatar
parth2424
User avatar
Joined: 11 Oct 2020
Last visit: 17 Dec 2021
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 122
Posts: 35
Kudos: 9
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 01 Sep 2021, 10:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
parth2424
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!
Show more



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??
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,787
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,787
 [1]
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 02 Sep 2021, 08:48
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
parth2424
GMATNinja
parth2424
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??
Show more
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!
User avatar
parth2424
User avatar
Joined: 11 Oct 2020
Last visit: 17 Dec 2021
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 122
Posts: 35
Kudos: 9
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 03 Sep 2021, 22:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
avatar
TarunKumar1234
avatar
Joined: 14 Jul 2020
Last visit: 28 Feb 2024
Posts: 1,107
Own Kudos:
1,348
Given Kudos: 351
Location: India
Posts: 1,107
Kudos: 1,348
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 09 Oct 2021, 22:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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. :)
avatar
MayankDimri
avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2019
Last visit: 07 Feb 2022
Posts: 22
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 77
Posts: 22
Kudos: 8
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 26 Dec 2021, 00:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 26 Dec 2021, 04:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MayankDimri
But I believe the actions compared in the past are 'were closed' and 'had raised'? Please clarify.
Show more
Yes Mayank, would agree with this.
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
 [1]
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
 [1]
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 26 Dec 2021, 11:59
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MayankDimri
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.
Show more

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*.
User avatar
Tanvi01
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jan 2021
Last visit: 15 Aug 2023
Posts: 20
Own Kudos:
2
Given Kudos: 25
Posts: 20
Kudos: 2
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 09 Mar 2022, 22:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
'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.
User avatar
gmatimothy
User avatar
Joined: 18 Apr 2022
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 111
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 704
Location: United States
Posts: 111
Kudos: 9
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 13 Jun 2022, 12:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sudeep
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.

"Due to" vs. "Because"

Can we say cleaning and repair were "caused by" moisture? No! The negative impact is caused by moisture that triggered the cleaning and repair. Therefore, eliminate (A) and (B)

(A) due to moisture exhaled by tourists, which raised its humidity to such levels so that salt from the stone was crystallizing

(B) due to moisture that tourists had exhaled, thereby raising its humidity to such levels that salt from the stone would crystallize

(C) because tourists were exhaling moisture, which had raised the humidity within them to levels such that salt from the stone would crystallize

"were exhaling" no good intention of using this tense to indicate that tourists are exhaling in the past. OUT

(D) because of moisture that was exhaled by tourists raising the humidity within them to levels so high as to make the salt from the stone crystallize

"raising" modifies "tourists" but is it really the tourists who are raising the humidity? It's the moisture that was exhaled by tourists. OUT

Also "so high as to" is not a good use here - may show some intention of tourists

(E) because moisture exhaled by tourists had raised the humidity within them to such levels that salt from the stone was crystallizing

"had raised" is okay, because this action happened before the closure. Best answer.

Show Spoiler
As per the OG explanation, 'them' in C and D seems to refer to 'tourists', but in E 'them' clearly refers to chambers.
Can someone please explain the concept of the pronoun reference in this case?

What I understood is that:
in the case of E tourists is the noun in the modifier 'exhaled by tourists'. So, 'tourists' loose the significance as it is out of scope for the remaining main sentence/clause. But is is the right creteria to reject the pronoun reference to noun 'tourists'.

PS: I know why the OA mentioned is correct, but need clarification on the above concept of pronoun reference.
Show more
User avatar
sourabhgx
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jan 2022
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 8
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 51
Posts: 8
Kudos: 1
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 20 Sep 2022, 21:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
 [1]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
 [1]
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 21 Sep 2022, 04:44
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sourabhgx
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.
Show more

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
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,000
 [3]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,000
 [3]
In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure 21 Sep 2022, 04:59
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sourabhgx
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.
Show more

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.
   1   2   3   4   5   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts