When a ton of wheat was being moved from Buffalo to New York

workout
In this context, the word 'cost' is the past tense of the singular cost/costs. as the sentence is in past tense.
We also use 'costed' as the past tense of cost, when we talk of an estimate of cost, such as in 'the stormwater drainage project was costed by the government $100 million originally."

I preferred sticking to A because "the move" was very unusual. I have never read it being used in this manner.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

sonal
The problem with A is the use of past progressive tense 'was being moved". It may connote just one single instance when the cargo was being transferred rather than the overall high cost and excessive time the move generally involved in those days, which is the real intent of the comparison.

Hi, in (C) the modifier is not modifying the wheat?

Hello, lakshya14. I am not sure to what modifier you may be referring in (C). The gerund phrase moving a ton of wheat... acts as the subject of the main clause, the first independent clause of the sentence. As such, it is not a modifier. Notice how the verb took indicates a preceding subject. Neither is the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825 acting as a modifier, instead being used as another gerund, the subject of the introductory clause. What we have in (C) is a perfectly parallel and relatively straightforward sentence. It would be cumbersome to replace the concise the move with a second gerund phrase when the only move that has been described is the first one. In other words, it is clear that we are comparing like to like, without repeating the details. The sentence:

(C) Before the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, moving a ton of wheat from Buffalo to New York City took three weeks and cost $100; on the canal the move took less than eight days and cost less than $6.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions about this one, feel free to ask.

- Andrew

Hi EducationAisle

I got this question right, but I am still confused on the usage of before. Isn't before a subordinate clause that join 2 clauses. A some other GMATPREP question uses before for presenting a clause, I will tag in you in that question as well.

Yes Mayank, "before" can be used both as a preposition (as is the case in option C in this sentence) and as a subordinating conjunction (marking the start of a dependent clause).

In most options what cost is? is it a verb? in such case it should be singular. (costs) please clarify.

Shouldn't there be a usage of "but" in the sentence to bring out the contrast ?

Hello, Namangupta1997. When a semicolon is used to join two independent clauses, it takes the place of whichever coordinating conjunction would be used, so it would be grammatically incorrect to see a sentence that used a semicolon in this context and then added but. A comma would need to appear instead.

Acceptable: Independent clause 1, [coordinating conjunction] independent clause 2

Acceptable: Independent clause 1; independent clause 2

Unacceptable: Independent clause 1; [coordinating conjunction] independent clause 2

It is also acceptable to see a semicolon used with an adverb—e.g., nevertheless, moreover—before launching into the second independent clause, but such transition words are not to be confused with coordinating conjunctions.

Acceptable: Independent clause 1; adverb, independent clause 2

Perhaps this information will prove useful to you the next time you come across a question that includes a semicolon. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Hello Namangupta1997,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, if the relation between two independent clauses is apparent from the construction of the clauses, they can be joined with a semicolon without the need for conjunction to convey the meaning; the semicolon plays the grammatical role of the conjunction, and the meaning conveyed by the conjunction is considered implicit.

For example, "I need to go to sleep now; I need to get up early."

This sentence does not require conjunction such as "because" or "since" to convey the cause-effect relationship between the clauses; this relation is implicit.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Hi AndrewN

I appreciate your explanation about ICs and semi-colons but my question essentially was , if we have one answer choice that uses "but" and the other answer choice that joins 2 ICs with a semi-colon, shouldn't we go for the choice that uses a conjunction to join 2 contrasting statements ? Are both constructions grammatically correct ? Yes. But which answer choice makes meaning/gist of the statement more apparent to the reader ? Maybe the one actually using a conjunction that triggers the thought of contrast in the mind of the reader.

Am I making any sense ?

It makes no difference, Namangupta1997. If both iterations of a sentence are grammatically sound, and they both can be interpreted in the same way, then you cannot disfavor one over another on the grounds that one simply appears the way you want it to. A semicolon is more versatile than a specific coordinating conjunction, but does that make it any worse if the context of the sentence suggests the same interpretation? Consider:

1) I like to walk; I sometimes drive to get to work.
2) I like to walk, but I sometimes drive to get to work.

In the first sentence, the semicolon could reasonably be interpreted as yet, but the contrast is clear—and or so, for example, would not logically fit—and in the second sentence, yet could just as well have been used instead of but. We can only go by what we see in front of us, not by what we want to be there, and in this case, the semicolon is just as functional, so we would need to turn to a different consideration (if this were part of a lengthier SC question) to favor one whole answer choice over the other.

Thank you for following up.

- Andrew

When a ton of wheat was being moved from Buffalo to New York City before the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, it took three weeks and cost $100, but when the canal was used, it took less than eight days and cost less than $6.

Option Elimination -

(A) When a ton of wheat was being moved from Buffalo to New York City before the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, it took three weeks and cost $100, but when the canal was used, it - What is "it" referring to? The act of moving? It can't refer to an action. Again the second "it." What is it referring to? The act of using the canal? Again, "it" as a pronoun can't refer to the action. Wrong.

(B) Moving a ton of wheat from Buffalo to New York City before the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, it took three weeks and cost $100; using the canal, it - ING verbal before the clause will modify the subject. Here, "Moving a ton of a wheat..." Who? "It"? "it" as a pronoun can't move anything. Wrong. Again, "using the canal." Who used the canal? "it"? Wrong.

(C) Before the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, moving a ton of wheat from Buffalo to New York City took three weeks and cost $100; on the canal the move - okay.

(D) In 1825, before opening the Erie Canal, to move a ton of wheat took three weeks from Buffalo to New York City, which cost $100; moving it on the canal - "which" referring to what? New York City? Wrong.

(E) To move a ton of wheat in 1825 from Buffalo to New York City took three weeks before the opening of the Erie Canal, costing $100, but in using the canal, the move - "costing $100" is adverbial modifying "took." Does it even make sense? No. Moreover, "using the canal" modifies "the move." Meaning as if the move used the canal. Rodiculous.