In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in

Few things we learned from this passage:
1). Scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye
2). The cells possess the ability to restore lost sight
3). This discovery offers a promising alternative to treat blindness

Keep in mind that it is the potent stem cells that possess the ability to restore sight, not the eye itself or the discovery of the cells.

1. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye that possess the ability to restore lost sight.

A. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye that possess the ability to restore lost sight.
"That" incorrectly modifies "eye", which does not possess the ability to restore lost sight. The potent stem cells in the eye possess the ability to restore lost sight. Incorrect

B. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation for treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, the discovery of potent stem cells in the eye by scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists possess the ability to restore lost sight.
If we read this answer choice carefully, we see that "the discovery of..... by scientists..... possess the ability to restore lost sight". Again, the discovery does not possess the ability. Incorrect

C. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation for treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, the discovery of potent stem cells possessing the ability to restore lost sight in the eye by city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI)’s scientists along with U.S. scientists, offers hope.
Here, "Possessing the ability to restore lost sight" correctly modifies potent stem cells. Correct

D. Scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye, which possess the ability to restore lost sight, and promising to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea.
Like choice A, "which" incorrectly modifies "eye", which does not possess the ability to restore lost sight. Incorrect

E. Scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye that possess the ability to restore lost sight promising to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea.
Same as choice A. Incorrect

Hope this helps!

In my own logic:

The discovery only promises to be an alternative to the existing treatment. The discovery is not yet proven and complete. The use of a past tense verb ‘claimed ‘to describe something that started in the past, but still ongoing currently, is not appropriate. The verb should be either in the present perfect, 'have claimed to have’ or even in present tense ‘claim to have’. We can simply kick off A, D and E. Between B and C: The subject is the singular discovery; its verb also should be a singular ‘offers’ as in C rather than the plural ‘possess’ as in B.
_________________

Fell for A. Need explanation on OA please!!
And what is the source of this question?

The initial opening phrase is meant to modify the discovery and not the scientists; therefore it boils down to 2 choices B and C. Between B and C, C is the better option having all modifiers correctly placed ...

Let me try to explain, although I rarely post anything.

I am trying to explain each answer choice.

1) In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness..................., scientists from city-based ................

here opening of the sentence seems to modify scientists, but scientists are not promising anything. It is Discovery that is promising. So wrong.

2) In what promises to be an alternative...................., the discovery of potent stem cells..............................possess the ability to.................

Opening seems to modify the discovery of cells - correct, after that there is subject-verb mismatch. It should have been, the discovery of........possesses... So wrong

3) This is correct answer choice. Opening modifies discovery of stem cells...and verb is ...offers hope.

4) potent stem cells in the eye, which

this seems to suggest eye possess the ability, wrong choice.

5) discovered potent stem cells in the eye that possess the ability to restore lost sight promising to be an alternative

here "that" seems to point to "eye", even if we ignore and think it might be referring to stem cells (as there are few examples in which "that" can refer a little backward) but as we move forward we have another confusion, " lost sight promising", lost sight is not promising. as this is verb-ing and it refers to subject immediately before it. another confusion ---- wrong choice.

so answer is C

Lets first understand the 3:2 split.

A. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye that possess the ability to restore lost sight.-"In what promises to be an alternative" should be followed rightly modified by "the discovery" after the comma. Hence incorrect

B. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation for treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, the discovery of potent stem cells in the eye by scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists possess the ability to restore lost sight."In what promises to be an alternative" should be followed rightly modified by "the discovery" after the comma. Sentence agrees to it."the discovery" possesses the ability(and not possess the ability) to restore lost sight is the correct usage.Hence incorrect

C. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation for treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, the discovery of potent stem cells possessing the ability to restore lost sight in the eye by city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI)’s scientists along with U.S. scientists, offers hope.-"the discovery" .....offers hope sounds correct. Also the discovery possessing the ... does not change the meaning. Hence correct.

D. Scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye, which possess the ability to restore lost sight, and promising to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea.-which wrongly modifies the eye.incorrect

E. Scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye that possess the ability to restore lost sight promising to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea."scientists claimed...wrong usage,Hence incorrect.

In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye that possess the ability to restore lost sight.

the scientists cannot modify or refer to promises to be alternative.
stem cells promises to be alternative

the given sentence is wrong due to above reason

B. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation for treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, the discovery of potent stem cellsin the eye by scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists possess the ability to restore lost sight.

the discover of cell ............seems to possess the ability to restore lost light
this does not make sense
Also stem cells promises to be alternative not discovery

C. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation for treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, the discovery of potent stem cells possessing the ability to restore lost sight in the eye by city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI)’s scientists along with U.S. scientists, offers hope.

This option looks structurally correct if not U.S. scientists and offers hope is separated by comma.
promises and offers hope are same in meaning thereby causing redundancy.
offers hope is a run on sentence which should be connected or refer to discovery
Also stem cells promises to be alternative not discovery

D. Scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye, which possess the ability to restore lost sight,and promising to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea.

and promising ruins everything
It looks like scientists claimed to have done two things
1. discovery
2. promising to be an alternative(his does not make sense at all.)

E. Scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye that possess the ability to restore lost sight promising to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea.

This solves all problems without adding more.
Stem cells in eye..........posses the ability to restore sight
thereby promising t o be an alternative

I hope I'm right
correct me if I'm wrong

I have a doubt regarding option C,

Isn't it wrong on grounds of essential and non-essential clause?

Manhattan GMAT says that we put non-essential clauses in commas.

Then if non essential phrase(the discovery of potent stem cells possessing the ability to restore lost sight in the eye by city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI)’s scientists along with U.S. scientists) in this is removed, the sentence makes no sense.

Hit Kudos, if u've got the same doubt or now agree with me.

it doesn't seem that C is the correct answer.
It is not logical that "The discovery is what promises to be an alternative"
Actually it is the potent stem cells discovered that promises.

IMO option E is the most clear and correct

If there was a comma before promising then option E would be correct i feel. An ing-verb without a comma can only modify a noun, so in this case promising is modifying "sight" but an ing-verb with a comma can modify an entire clause.

about c-
i agree it seems the most logic

but i kinda have a modifier problem with it

what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation for treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, the discovery of potent stem cells possessing the ability to restore lost sight

its not to discovery itself that could be alternative. it's those potent stem cells no?

Hi lpardess ,

Welcome to GMATClub :)

You have slightly misunderstood the meaning here.

It is saying "In what promises to be alternative" meaning in the discovery "something is an alternative". What is that? It is the potent cells.

Easy question if you are very careful while understanding the meaning.

Does that make sense?
_________________

I saw almost all the explanations before writing this post.
I also came down to B and C.
But I am not sure if in choice C, THE DISCOVERY has the ability to restore list sight or the POTENT STEM CELLS haven't tis ability.

Actually I am confused with option C due to this.

Pls help.

Sent from my Lenovo TAB S8-50LC using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hi kumarparitosh123 ,

Here is the concept gap.

Whenever we are used "ing" form joined directly to the noun without any comma, it always refers to the noun it is next to.

Hence, "possessing" is actually referring to Potent cells rather than discovery.

Does that make sense?
_________________

Isn't "caused from" unidiomatic? Help?

Hi NicoleJaneway ,

I donot see any issue with this idiomatic usage.

It is clearly saying blindness caused from damage to cornea. I know you must be thinking why is it not "blindness caused by damage to cornea".

Well, I would say both are fine.

As GMATNinja says, try to find out other reasons of rejecting an option if you are literally not sure about the idioms.

I would prefer to stay away from Awkwardness, sounds bad or idioms usage unless I don't have any option than to go with these.

Does that make sense?
_________________

I agree that C is the best answer. However, I am a bit uncomfortable with the placement of 'in the eye' in option C.

As per the original meaning of the sentence, stem cells are found in the eye. Option C changes this meaning. Option C places 'in the eye' away from stem cells. As per option C, 'in the eye' phrase modifies 'lost sight'. Such a placement of in the eye makes it redundant. When we are talking about sight, obviously we are talking about eye. In other words, we don't need 'in the eye'. We can just say 'to restore lost sight'.

i would make a holistic logical approach than grmmatical errors which made it easier to crack

A. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye that possess the ability to restore lost sight.
Stems cells were discoverd not present in the eyes but rather that can be installed in the eyes

B. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation for treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, the discovery of potent stem cells in the eye by scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists possess the ability to restore lost sight.
Same reasoning as A

C. In what promises to be an alternative to corneal transplantation for treating blindness caused from damage to cornea, the discovery of potent stem cells possessing the ability to restore lost sight in the eye by city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI)’s scientists along with U.S. scientists offers hope.
Yes this provide us the intent meaning of new stem cells thst can help restore the vision

D. Scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye, which possess the ability to restore lost sight, and promising to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea.
Same reasoning as A

E. Scientists from city-based L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI) in collaboration with U.S. scientists claimed to have discovered potent stem cells in the eye that possess the ability to restore lost sight promising to be an alternative to corneal transplantation in treating blindness caused from damage to cornea.
Same reasoning as A
Hence IMO C

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________