I'll go with A. I don't think "five miles per gallon" can refer to anything but increased fuel efficiency. The tense is consistenct throughout the sentence, and it is concise. Further, "amounting" || "representing"

B does not seem || "amounting" is present continuous, whereas "and it would represent" is future.

C not ||. "amount to" not || with "it would represent"

D not ||. "that would amount to" is || to "that would represent", not "would represent"

E which after years, misplaced modifier

One automobile manufacturer has announced plans to increase the average fuel efficiency of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over the next five years, amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, and representing the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost two decades.

(A) amounting to rougly five miles per gallon, and representing
(B) amounting to rougly five miles per gallon, and it would represent
(C) an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and it would represent
(D) an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent
(E) which is an increase amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, representing

I think the answer is D. A cannot be correct because the word "to increase" needs to be represented in parallel by stating the two words "increase" and "represent" (which will be parallel). A and B both are missing the word increase or increasing. Amounting and representing are not the 2 parallel words... increase and representing are the 2 words that should be parallel. Having said that C and D are the closest and represent the correct parallelism. The only thing differentiating between the 2 is the word "it". I think "it" could mean the plan (plan to increase) or the actual increase. Hence D is the correct answer.

It's not A.

"amounting" and "representing" are ambiguous.

I am taking D. It's the 'increase in average fuel efficiency' that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger

One automobile manufacturer has announced plans to increase the average fuel efficiency of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over the next five years, an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost two decades.

Regards,
Brajesh

(D) an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent

"has announced" is present perfect tense, which would require a present tense.

However, as this increase is as yet uncertain as it is in the future, "would amount to" is the ideal construct.

Again due to the uncertainty "would represent" is the ideal construct keeping all verbs in the same tense.

D it is.

One automobile manufacturer has announced plans to increase the average fuel efficiency of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over the next five years, amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, and representing the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost two decades.

(A) amounting to rougly five miles per gallon, and representing
(B) amounting to rougly five miles per gallon, and it would represent
(C) an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and it would represent
(D) an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent
(E) which is an increase amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, representing

I think it refer automobile manufacturer in B,C, so those are out.
E is out because of "which"
Between A and D, I prefer D.
I think A has misplaced modifier err.

Deadset D.
D stands out in the first glance itself.
' an increase that would amount ' conveys the right meaning.

Hey guyz, what the neccesity of "and" after the comma. Is it neccessary??

I believe that "and" is not necessary and went with E

Late but D for ||ism
A is not parallel.
Amounting and representing is ambiguous.

One more vote for D..

But I feel that question is wrong.. 'an increase .. " is trying to modify 5 years ?? Or what is it trying to modify ??

Late, but (D)

We need the modal "would" to preserve the hypothetical tone of the sentence.

Can someone provide a detailed analysis on this one!

Especially option A and B

C and E is easy to eliminate

I did pick D but wasn't convinced with my reasoning. Thanks in advance!

One automobile manufacturer has announced plans to increase the average fuel efficiency of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over the next five years, amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, and representing the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost two decades.

(A) amounting to rougly five miles per gallon, and representing
before comma and ==>there is an IC..SO AFTER AND it should be IC...hence incorrect

(B) amounting to rougly five miles per gallon, and it would represent
it ==>ambiguously points towards manufacturer....and hence the meaning is changed==>manufacturer would represent the first significant change...not correct

(C) an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and it would represent ==>IT breaks the parallelism.

(D) an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent ==>parallel.

(E) which is an increase amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, representing
incorrect use of which and verb-ing modifier.

hope it helps
_________________

A and B can easily be eliminated because, as COMMA + ING, the must "make sense" with the subject of the preceding clause.

One automobile manufacturer (subject) has announced (...)

(A) amounting to rougly five miles per gallon, and representing
(B) amounting to rougly five miles per gallon, and it would represent

IMO ammounting doesnt have an error in this case

as plans will increase the fuel efficiency ....and hence resultant action is in ING form..

please correct if i am wrong.
_________________

amounting does not present the results of the action.

One automobile manufacturer has announced plans (...), [and the result of this is:] amounting to rougly five miles per gallon.

That does not make sense. Or if you want you can analyze the question in this way
"amounting to rougly five miles per gallon" as COMMA + ING will modify the whole preceding clause, but here is meant to modify/refer to the increase ONLY (that amounts at 5 ...) so the COMMA + ING modifier is not used correctly anyway.

Nope. It is wrong but nor for the reason you mentioned. Here amounting is functioning as an adverbial clause, modifying the entire preceding clause. So the reference to noun error is unfounded

One automobile manufacturer has announced plans to increase the average fuel efficiency of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over the next five years, amounting to roughly five miles per gallon, and representing the first significant change in the fuel efficiency of any class of passenger vehicle in almost two decades.

(A) amounting to rougly five miles per gallon, and representing
(B) amounting to rougly five miles per gallon, and it would represent

The problem is :

amounting to roughly five miles per gallon.

It is modifying the preceding clause.

So the question is: What is amounting to five miles per gallon?

Ans. average fuel efficiency??? or increase in average fuel efficiency? You can see that a fuel efficiency of 5 miles per gallon though nonsensical can't be ignored

Whereas D says an increase that will amount to...

So we now know clearly that the increase in fuel efficiency is 5 miles/ gallon

That's why A and B are wrong.

Be very careful of , followed by ing. They are adverbial modifiers (with some rare exceptions)

Hi,

Should 'that' be there before 'would' in the answer choice D? The entities are parallel, no doubt. But 'an increase that ... and that would ... ' would be right, in my opinion.
Thanks in advance!

there are 2 things, which makes you can not goo OA.
first, we can not realize the illogic modification.
second, we can not realize the good sentence pattern.

in choice D. a noun phrase modifies a verb/ preceding clause. but the point here is that the noun and the verb is the same

I accept you, an acceptance which everybody know

this pattern is good and logic. our choice d is similar

the company plan to increase the fuel efficiency, an increase that amount... and represent.

at first, I am uneasy with "to increase" and again "increase." but latter I see other choices are not logic. and I accept " to increase " go with "increase"

I have a question here.
Many posts suggest that 'amounting' and 'representing' modify the preceding clause and hence A is wrong.
The manufacturer's announcement does result into the efficiency of 5 miles per gallon ( & representation), but it is 'the increase in the efficiency'.
However, in the below GMAT question , 'forming' modifies the two companies agreement and not merger ( using the same logic as above). But, it is merger and not the act of agreement which resulted the formation of new company.
Here B is correct .
How 'forming' can modify merger ? Please help.

The two oil companies agreed to merge their refining and marketing operations in the Midwest and the West, forming a new company for controlling nearly fifteen of the nation’s gasoline sales.
A. forming a new company for controlling
B. forming a new company that would control
C. which would form a new company that controlled
D. which formed a new company for controlling
E. which formed a new company that would control

thangvietnam daagh