The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California

The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California, has increased unchecked in recent years as a result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands.

(A) years as a result of the removal of Correct answer, no errors in this.

(B) years as a result of removing "removing" (verb) is not parallel to "the clearing" (gerund). Eliminate.

(C) years, resulting from the removing of This is a very tricky option. At first glance there doesn't seem to be any grammatical error in this, and there isn't. However, couple of things raise doubt in my mind. Firstly, I have never seen "resulting from" used as an adverbial modifier modifying a clause. It is often used to modify a noun, though. Secondly, if we do consider it to be an adjective (modifying "the rabbit population"), it does not make sense, since the the rabbit population itself does not result from anything (in this sentence). Therefore, even though we do not have a clear reason for eliminating this option, we still should given these doubts and the fact that option (A) is so much cleaner and without any errors. Eliminate.

(D) years, which is result of removing Same error as in (B). Also, "which" incorrectly modifies "years". Eliminate.

(E) years, which is a result of the removal of "which" incorrectly modifies "years". Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that the cottontail rabbit population in Orange County has increased unchecked in recent years because of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Modifiers + Parallelism

• Any elements linked by a conjunction (“and” in this sentence) must be parallel.
• The introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “resulting” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
• "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.

A: Correct. This answer choice avoids the modifier errors seen in Options C, D, and E through its use of the phrase “as a result of”; the construction of this phrase correctly conveys that the cottontail rabbit population in Orange County has increased unchecked in recent years, and this increase is the result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands. Further, Option A maintains parallelism between “the removal of the native fox population” and “the clearing of surrounding woodlands”.

B: The sentence formed by this answer choice fails to maintain parallelism between “removing the native fox population” and “the clearing of surrounding woodlands”; remember, any elements linked by a conjunction (“and” in this sentence) must be parallel.

C: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “resulting from the removing of”; the use of the “comma + present participle (“verb+ing” – “resulting” in this sentence) incorrectly implies that the cottontail rabbit population in Orange County has increased unchecked in recent years because the cottontail rabbit population in Orange County is the result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands; the intended meaning is that the cottontail rabbit population in Orange County has increased unchecked in recent years, and this increase is the result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “resulting” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

D: This answer choice incorrectly modifies “recent years” with “which is result of instituting”, illogically implying that the recent years are the result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands; the intended meaning is that the increase in the cottontail rabbit population in Orange County is the result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands; remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma. Further, the sentence formed by Option D fails to maintain parallelism between “removing the native fox population” and “the clearing of surrounding woodlands”; remember, any elements linked by a conjunction (“and” in this sentence) must be parallel.

E: This answer choice incorrectly modifies “recent years” with “which is a result of the removal”, illogically implying that the recent years are the result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands; the intended meaning is that the increase in the cottontail rabbit population in Orange County is the result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands; remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Comma Plus Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship", you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the use of "Which, Who, Whose, and Where" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

D and E are str8 out... Can someone explain A,B and C

I picked A but want to know why the other options are incorrect. Thanks!

The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California, has increased unchecked in recent years as a result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands.

A. years as a result of the removal of
B. years as a result of removing
C. years, resulting from the removing of

First I would talk about C. You can eliminate it because the ING verb after the comma must make sense with the subject of the preceding clause.
"The cottontail rabbit population" "resulting from the removing" does not make sense. So C is out.

Between A and B, A is better simply because is parallel to the next part:
"years as a result of the removal of" and "clearing of".

A because of parallelism b/w removal and the clearing here the clearing is a complex gerund and removal an action noun.

-- In general only a action noun or a complex gerund can be parallel to an action noun.

Kindly help me since i am still confused with C .

C does not sound right i know but i need a definite reason to eliminate C as an answer.

"The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California, has increased unchecked in recent"..


Usage of verb-ing modifier after the clause ...
a) Describe the clause
Sentence talks about the cotton rabbit population to be increased and how this was done was due to removal of the fox population ..


b) Presents the result of the clause
Here it does not present any result of the clause ...

A] The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California, has increased unchecked in recent years {Result} as a result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands (Cause}


C] The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California, has increased unchecked in recent years {Cause} , resulting from the removing of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands {Result}

C is logically incorrect since it reverses the intended cause-effect relationship

The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California, has increased unchecked in recent years as a result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands.

A. years as a result of the removal of --> Correct. Action noun is parallel to the complex gerund.
B. years as a result of removing --> Simple gerund phrases are NEVER PARALLEL to complex gerund phrases (see MGMAT SC Guide)
C. years, resulting from the removing of --> Subject cottontail rabbit doesn't make sense with ING-Modifier (resulting) - the rabbit doesn't result from anything, rather the "increase" would be the right subject for the preceding clause.
D. years, which is result of removing --> Which cannot modify a clause
E. years, which is a result of the removal of --> Which cannot modify a clause

egmat
In option C we have resulting after comma . Ing modifier after comma tells or explains how aspect too. I understand that in choice C from the removing of is not very clear and concise. however, if choice c is written like this "years,resulting from the removal of" , would this be correct ?

vishuvashishth That version still wouldn't work, because there's no reasonable noun for "resulting" to refer to. The tricky thing with comma + -ing modifiers is that they typically modify the preceding action or clause (they are adverbial modifiers), but we need a fitting noun to be performing that action. If I am showing the result OF the action, that's easier:

The Fed raised the prime rate, resulting in a decrease in spending.

In that case, "resulting" describes a result of the entire previous clause. The Fed didn't result in something; the action it took did. However, if we want to say "resulting from X," this needs to refer to a specific noun that resulted from X. It would be hard to achieve that in the present sentence. We could say "The increase in the rabbit population, resulting from the removal of X and the clearing of Y . . . " but we'd still need a main verb for the sentence. So far, the subject is "increase" and the rest is all modifiers. We'd need more content to make this a workable sentence, and that would be quite different from the answers on offer above.

Hi GMATNinja,
Can you help me understand this one. The parallelism isn't clear to me here.

Let's strip out some of the modifiers in choice (A):

"The cottontail rabbit population has increased unchecked as a result of (1) the removal of the native fox population and (2) the clearing of the surrounding woodlands."

Taking it one step further, we basically have: "The population has increased as a result of (1) the removal.. and (2) the clearing..." And that makes perfect sense: both "the removal" and "the clearing" are nouns, and they're the two reasons why the population has increased. Since both nouns perform the same function, we have perfectly solid parallelism here.

I hope that helps!


I'm assuming you're asking about the parallelism in the OA. The important thing to remember is that parallelism isn't about two parts of a sentence appearing identical, but rather about two elements playing the same grammatical role. If I describe someone as "tired and hungry," it's true that I don't have "VERB-ed and VERB-ed," but I don't need to, as "tired" and "hungry" are both adjectives, and so have the same function in the sentence. If they have the same function, they're considered parallel.

Now take another look at the OA: "The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California, has increased unchecked in recent years as a result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands."

In this case we have two noun phrases that are causes of the increased rabbit population: 1) the removal of the native fox population and 2) the clearing of surrounding woodlands. It's fine that "the removal" and "the clearing" don't appear identical, because they're both nouns and are playing the same grammatical role.

I hope that helps!

VeritasKarishma please help with opt A and B. in opt A - removal is noun and clearing is also noun but it is gerund that denotes action... my understanding is that noun is not parallel to gerund... in opt B both are gerund and hence parallel.

Sure, we like a pure noun to be parallel to a pure noun but when that is not possible, we make a gerund parallel to the noun. That is acceptable too.

'the clearing' is clearly acting as a noun here.
So we need a noun - the 'removal' in this case

I have been able to come down to options A and B,
But I'm not able to understand why A over B?

This comes down to a very subtle difference in the way "-ing" words can function as nouns. Consider two examples:

1) "Teaching his children not to eat thumbtacks has not been as much of a priority for Tim as it should have been."

In this example, "teaching" is the subject of the sentence. While it's technically a noun here, it feels somewhat verb-like in the sense that it captures an action Tim is doing. (Or, in this case, not doing.) Now consider another example:

2) "The teaching Tim provided his children has proved inadequate, as they still begin every day by eating mounds and mounds of thumbtacks."

Now, "the teaching" is the subject. Notice that this construction feels more noun-like than the first one - you could easily imagine substituting a phrase like "the instruction" or "the lesson" in place of "the teaching."

This distinction turns out to be important when there's a parallelism issue. In the example you're asking about, we need something to be parallel to "the clearing," which feels more like the second example above, and is more noun-like. So we'd prefer this to be parallel to another element that plays a similar noun-like role.

The problem in (B) is that "removing," even if it's technically a noun, feels more verb-like, and seems to suggest an entity actively performing the act of removing, whereas in (A) "the removal of" feels more noun-like and so creates better parallelism with "the clearing."

Takeaway: This is a very subtle point, but it's one that doesn't require you to internalize a lot of terminology about action nouns or complex vs simple gerunds. Rather, it's a good reminder that parallelism isn't about two elements of a sentence looking the same, but about elements playing the same role. So long as you don't go on auto-pilot and instead remind yourself to think about the logical function of the parts of a sentence, you're more likely to notice those subtle distinctions.

I hope that helps!

Hi there,

I have doubts in below options

(B) 'the' removing would have made the answer correct

Moreover when 'removing' is followed by a preposition (of), does not it become an object and therefore a noun?


(C) Is there a problem in using 'resulting' in choice C]

...................
Will the below sentence be wrong? There is no flaw in meaning though.

''The Fed raised the prime rate, resulting in a decrease in spending''

It is not always true that ''comma+ing verbal'' has to agree with main subject as doer of the action.