GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

It is currently 23 May 2018, 21:17

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

6 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 205
Location: Taipei
New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 27 Mar 2018, 15:34
6
This post received
KUDOS
43
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

58% (00:40) correct 42% (00:47) wrong based on 1908 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year included a safer air bag , which, unlike previous air bags, eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated, and making an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.

A. inflated, and making
B. inflated, so that it could make
C. inflated and made
D. inflated and make
E. inflated to make

Originally posted by jerrywu on 09 Sep 2006, 13:35.
Last edited by GMATNinja on 27 Mar 2018, 15:34, edited 2 times in total.
Edited the question
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 195
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Sep 2006, 13:39
1
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I believe that the answer is D. parallelism i think.

eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke eliminated the possibility
that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated, and make an
already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.
7 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1082
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2013, 01:06
7
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
KC wrote:
New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year included a safer air bag , which, unlike previous air bags, eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated, and making an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.

A. inflated, and making.
B. Inflated, so that it could make.
C. Inflated and made.
D. Inflated and make.
E. Inflated to make.


First of all, we need to focus on the question's meaning.
What made terrified passengers think the car was on fire? The burst of smoke or the bag. It cannot the bag, only the burst of smoke makes sense.

Second, we use a parallel structure [X would appear ....and make Y do something.....] or an intention structure [X would appear to make Y do something...]

C and D are debatable choices. Now, we will look at them closely.
If we use parallel structure like D:
" .........a safer air bag, which eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would appear.......and make.........." ==> "appear" and "make" are parallel. Does it make sense? Nope, it's like the smoke appeared and then it made something else to terrify a passenger. The intended meaning is that the appearance of the smoke itself made passengers terrified.
Similar example: A ghost appeared and made us terrified. the sentence does not covey the intention of a ghost's appearance.

To convey the intention, we should use the idiom "X would appear to make Y do something"

Hence, E is correct
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

3 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 907
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2013, 04:26
3
This post received
KUDOS
pqhai wrote:
To convey the intention, we should use the idiom "X would appear to make Y do something"

Hence, E is correct

With E, the sentence would be:

..that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag Inflated to make an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.

The use of intention (to make) is not justified here, because the bag is not inflating because it wants to make an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire. In other words, it is not the intention of the bag to make an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.

So, E cannot be correct. D is appropriate.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 197
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GMAT 2: 740 Q48 V44
GPA: 3.1
WE: Sales (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2013, 10:25
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
When I saw how low the % correct on this one was, i thougth for sure I'd get it wrong, but E. is the only one that makes sense.

First, any choice with "and" in it should be eliminated because it implies that the release of smoke by the airbag and the passenger thinking the car is on fire are two independent events, when in fact they are dependent.

That leaves B. and E.

B. Inflated, so that it could make.

E. Inflated to make.

B. is wrong for a few reasons, but the main one that I honed in on is because of the redundancy... "To reduce the possibility... that it could make" is redundant. It should be either "To reduce the possibility... to make" or "to reduce... that it could make"

Also, i've just never heard the idiom "so that it could make" before in a causational way.

E. is all that's left.

EducationAisle, you are incorrect with how you're interpretting the phrase "to make"... it does not imply nor require intent, only causation.
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 907
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2013, 11:06
1
This post received
KUDOS
dave785 wrote:
First, any choice with "and" in it should be eliminated because it implies that the release of smoke by the airbag and the passenger thinking the car is on fire are two independent events, when in fact they are dependent.

Actually, there are examples on OG of this nature:

In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer, absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.

In the above sentence, breakwater of rocks do not do following two independent things:

1. rise six feet above the waterline
2. act as a buffer

The fact that breakwater of rocks rise six feet above the waterline is the reason why they act as a buffer.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 197
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GMAT 2: 740 Q48 V44
GPA: 3.1
WE: Sales (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2013, 21:58
1
This post received
KUDOS
EducationAisle wrote:
dave785 wrote:
First, any choice with "and" in it should be eliminated because it implies that the release of smoke by the airbag and the passenger thinking the car is on fire are two independent events, when in fact they are dependent.

Actually, there are examples on OG of this nature:

In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer, absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.

In the above sentence, breakwater of rocks do not do following two independent things:

1. rise six feet above the waterline
2. act as a buffer

The fact that breakwater of rocks rise six feet above the waterline is the reason why they act as a buffer.



It's the "when the bag inflated" aspect of the original sentence that requires the final part as a dependent, conditional aspect - this question has no such "conditional" aspect to it.

If we were to add the same type of modifier to that sentence:

In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline when the builders finished and act as a buffer, absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.

The builders don't act as a buffer, the wall does.
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 907
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2013, 23:08
dave785 wrote:
It's the "when the bag inflated" aspect of the original sentence that requires the final part as a dependent, conditional aspect - this question has no such "conditional" aspect to it.

By the way, hope you realize that inflation of bag did not terrify the passenger; the burst of smoke did. In choice D, the structural parallelism between would appear and (would) make helps establish this relationship.

dave785 wrote:
If we were to add the same type of modifier to that sentence:

In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline when the builders finished and act as a buffer, absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.

The builders don't act as a buffer, the wall does.

This doesn't change anything. This doesn't say that builders act as a buffer. The structural parallelism (at least at the first level) still stays between would rise and (would) act.

Nevertheless, we are deviating from the point that you had originally brought up: Presence of and indicates two independent events. As this OG question suggests, this is not necessarily true.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 197
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GMAT 2: 740 Q48 V44
GPA: 3.1
WE: Sales (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 May 2013, 00:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
EducationAisle wrote:
dave785 wrote:
It's the "when the bag inflated" aspect of the original sentence that requires the final part as a dependent, conditional aspect - this question has no such "conditional" aspect to it.

By the way, hope you realize that inflation of bag did not terrify the passenger; the burst of smoke did. In choice D, the structural parallelism between would appear and (would) make helps establish this relationship.

dave785 wrote:
If we were to add the same type of modifier to that sentence:

In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline when the builders finished and act as a buffer, absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.

The builders don't act as a buffer, the wall does.

This doesn't change anything. This doesn't say that builders act as a buffer. The structural parallelism (at least at the first level) still stays between would rise and (would) act.

Nevertheless, we are deviating from the point that you had originally brought up: Presence of and indicates two independent events. As this OG question suggests, this is not necessarily true.


I see your point, but I still think you're misapplying the logic of the OG. While those things could be dependent, in the phrasing of the OG they're independent... the wall would act as a buffer whether it would be six feet, eight feet, or even teen feet above the waterline. While they're correlated, the second part does not necessarily depend on the exact circumstances of the first - there could be other preceding circumstances in which it would still hold true.

In this case, however, we're only trying to eliminate the possibility that a burst of smoke makes an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire if that burst of smoke is caused solely by the inflation of the bag.


What we DON'T want is to eliminate the possibility of a terrified passenger thinking the car is on fire if the car is actually on fire.

When you use the "and" in there, a good test to see if it fits is to switch around the order and see if the meaning has changed. This phrase's meaning is changed completely:

"eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke would make an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire and appear when the bag inflated"

Again, what we DON'T want is to eliminate the possibility of a terrified passenger thinking the car is on fire if the car is actually on fire. In this version of the sentence this is entirely possible.

Whereas in the OG example you posted, while the grammar and syntax isn't as pretty, the sentence's meaning remains unchanged:

In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would act as a buffer, absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches, and rise six feet above the waterline.

Does that make sense?
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 907
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 May 2013, 01:00
dave785 wrote:
I see your point,

Thanks.

dave785 wrote:
but I still think you're misapplying the logic of the OG. While those things could be dependent, in the phrasing of the OG they're independent...

If OG really thought (or wanted to convey) that these are independent, the phrasing would have been something along these lines:

a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and that would act as a buffer...


dave785 wrote:
the wall would act as a buffer whether it would be six feet, eight feet, or even teen feet above the waterline. While they're correlated, the second part does not necessarily depend on the exact circumstances of the first - there could be other preceding circumstances in which it would still hold true.

The actual height does not matter; in fact even without the height the sentence would have been ok:

a breakwater of rocks that would rise above the waterline and act as a buffer...

As I had mentioned earlier, the structural parallelism is between would rise and (would) act; six feet is not a part of this parallelism.

dave785 wrote:
In this case, however, we're only trying to eliminate the possibility that a burst of smoke makes an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire if that burst of smoke is caused solely by the inflation of the bag.

What we DON'T want is to eliminate the possibility of a terrified passenger thinking the car is on fire if the car is actually on fire.

This is outside the scope of the sentence (what we want the passenger to think if the car is actually on fire.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 197
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GMAT 2: 740 Q48 V44
GPA: 3.1
WE: Sales (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 May 2013, 01:10
EducationAisle wrote:
dave785 wrote:
I see your point,

Thanks.

dave785 wrote:
but I still think you're misapplying the logic of the OG. While those things could be dependent, in the phrasing of the OG they're independent...

If OG really thought (or wanted to convey) that these are independent, the phrasing would have been something along these lines:

a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and that would act as a buffer...


dave785 wrote:
the wall would act as a buffer whether it would be six feet, eight feet, or even teen feet above the waterline. While they're correlated, the second part does not necessarily depend on the exact circumstances of the first - there could be other preceding circumstances in which it would still hold true.

The actual height does not matter; in fact even without the height the sentence would have been ok:

a breakwater of rocks that would rise above the waterline and act as a buffer...

As I had mentioned earlier, the structural parallelism is between would rise and (would) act; six feet is not a part of this parallelism.

dave785 wrote:
In this case, however, we're only trying to eliminate the possibility that a burst of smoke makes an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire if that burst of smoke is caused solely by the inflation of the bag.

What we DON'T want is to eliminate the possibility of a terrified passenger thinking the car is on fire if the car is actually on fire.

This is outside the scope of the sentence (what we want the passenger to think if the car is actually on fire.


exactly, it's outside the scope, which is why you can't use "and" to bring it in...

You seem to agree with me without agreeing with me and it's very confusing :P You seem to be dead-set on parallelism while I'm talking about meaning. Try rereading my last few posts and instead of looking at independent/dependent as sentence structure issues, look at independent/dependent as sentence meaning issues... I should have made that more clear, my apologies.
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 907
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 May 2013, 01:25
dave785 wrote:
You seem to agree with me without agreeing with me and it's very confusing :P You seem to be dead-set on parallelism while I'm talking about meaning.

I know it is easy to loose track of the actual issue under discussion, when the thread gets long. But this is all good discussion.

I believe you had initially discarded all choices that used an and, because presence of and denotes independent events. Most of my posts above were aimed at letting you know that this is not necessarily true.

If I get some time, I will see if I can find out more such examples from OG, though it is a very tedious exercise (but not worthless).

As for the infinitive usage, came across this sentence in OG:

The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual to create, in turn, physiological responses that are unconscious.

OE says: the infinitive construction implies intent, which does not really make sense.

While one may argue that infinitive also implies pure causation, at the very least, there is an ambiguity of interpretation in E.

D is the best of what we have.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 197
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GMAT 2: 740 Q48 V44
GPA: 3.1
WE: Sales (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 May 2013, 10:03
EducationAisle wrote:
dave785 wrote:
You seem to agree with me without agreeing with me and it's very confusing :P You seem to be dead-set on parallelism while I'm talking about meaning.

I know it is easy to loose track of the actual issue under discussion, when the thread gets long. But this is all good discussion.

I believe you had initially discarded all choices that used an and, because presence of and denotes independent events. Most of my posts above were aimed at letting you know that this is not necessarily true.

If I get some time, I will see if I can find out more such examples from OG, though it is a very tedious exercise (but not worthless).

As for the infinitive usage, came across this sentence in OG:

The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual to create, in turn, physiological responses that are unconscious.

OE says: the infinitive construction implies intent, which does not really make sense.

While one may argue that infinitive also implies pure causation, at the very least, there is an ambiguity of interpretation in E.

D is the best of what we have.


It implies intent here because of its context (involuntary reaction is the exact opposite of intent...) within the overall meaning in the sentence and how it is placed / what it modifies, not because infinitives imply intent as a rule.

In otherwords, if you change the cause of the physiological reactions from emotional reactions (unintended) to the individual then you are implying that the individual intends to do it... not because infinitives imply intent but because you're changing the causation away from something that is unintended to something that has a choice.

Anyone know the source of the original question? We know that OA is E... we just need to find out if it's from a reputable source.
2 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 907
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 May 2013, 10:28
2
This post received
KUDOS
dave785 wrote:
It implies intent here because of its context (involuntary reaction is the exact opposite of intent...) within the overall meaning in the sentence and how it is placed / what it modifies, not because infinitives imply intent as a rule.

In otherwords, if you change the cause of the physiological reactions from emotional reactions (unintended) to the individual then you are implying that the individual intends to do it... not because infinitives imply intent but because you're changing the causation away from something that is unintended to something that has a choice.

Just to clarify; the OG sentence (The use of lie detectors is ..) and the corresponding OE in my last post were for an incorrect option. So, despite that fact that emotional reactions are unintended, OG still considers the infinitive usage wrong here (since the usage of infinitive may still attach/imply intent). The correct answer by the way, is:

The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses.

dave785 wrote:
We know that OA is E... we just need to find out if it's from a reputable source.

Well, let's remove the "O" from the "OA" for now and just call it "A", until it is established that this question is indeed "O"fficial: ).
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4254
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: #Top150 SC: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2015, 09:40
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
The key factor in this deceptive question is that a burst of smoke would appear and do the other things mentioned in the text. The verb in the underlined part should tally with main verb ‘appear’, the auxiliary verb ‘would’ being common for both the action verbs -----would (base action verb and base action verb). This is the real parallelism that the text wants to bring in. In addition, the purpose of the burst of the smoke is to caution and not to frighten an already terrified one. So an infinitive does not work out aptly in the case.

A. inflated, and making. ---- faulty parallelism

B. inflated, so that it could make.--- could make changes the meaning from one of near certainty to one of possibility.

C. inflated and made. ---- Pseudo parallelism

D. inflated and make. -------- Correct

E. inflated to make. – changes the intention as explained above.
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Expert Post
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4254
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: #Top150 SC: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Oct 2015, 01:32
I am afraid that to think that the bag when inflated is terrifying the passenger is erroneous. It is the burst of smoke that terrifies the passenger that leads him to think that the car is on fire. The new safer bag eliminates the possibility of the burst of the smoke only. It does not eliminate the possibility of the bag being inflated. The very action of an air bag is to inflate and thereby create a barrier between the person and the object in front when a collision occurs. If the inflation of the bag itself is eliminated, how could it then be a safety bag, or how can we conclude that it is a safer bag. Therefore there is no causal relationship between inflation and additional fear. It is the smoke that is the cause. Inflated to make is wrong

The choice must also be read with the expression ‘eliminated the possibility’ which implies that the safer bag meant to eliminate a negative aspect, which is the burst of smoke causing the additional fright.
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Posts: 52
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Nonprofit
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2016, 02:41
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
THIS IS A GMATPREP QUESTION AND OA IS D.

New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year included a safer air bag , which, unlike previous air bags, eliminated the possibility
that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated, and making an already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.

would appear and would make ( would understood) need to be parallel and this is happening in choice D only

A. inflated, and making - not parallel to appear
B. inflated, so that it could make. - not parallel
C. inflated and made - wrong tense use d, not parallel
D. inflated and make. - make is parallel to appear
E. inflated to make - to is used to give intention, which makes no sense here.
9 KUDOS received
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 883
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 May 2016, 10:25
9
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
jerrywu wrote:
New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year included
a safer air bag , which, unlike previous air bags, eliminated the possibility
that a burst of smoke would appear when the bag inflated, and making an
already terrified passenger think the car was on fire.

A. inflated, and making.
B. inflated, so that it could make.
C. inflated and made.
D. inflated and make.
E. inflated to make.


Great question!

The new airbag eliminated the possibility that a burst of smoke 'would appear' and 'would make' .......

'C' is wrong because usage of 'made' is wrong.

'E' is wrong because inflated bag intentionally didn't do anything :P. 'to' implies the intention
_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

Expert Post
5 KUDOS received
SVP
SVP
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1888
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jun 2016, 21:46
5
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
This problem can be solved by paying attention to parallelism.

would appear ... and ....
We need to make the thing after "would" to be parallel to "appear". Hence we need a present tense.
Hence we are left with options D and E

But option D changes the meaning. It seems that the air bag wants to make the passengers afraid.

Correct Option: D
Expert Post
Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3201
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jan 2017, 07:20
The correct answer should be D. As per option E, the sentence is as follows:
A burst of smoke would appear to make a terrified passenger think.

The above implies that the burst smoke would appear with an intention to make the passenger think. This is not the intended meaning. Compare with the following:
I came to give you the news. (The reason for my coming was to give the news.)

Therefore option E is wrong.

OA has been changed to D.
Re: New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year   [#permalink] 05 Jan 2017, 07:20

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 25 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

New items developed for automobiles in the 1997 model year

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.