The auk, because it exhibits a docile nature, it will typically not ru

I think meaning wise, the sentence is showing the reason for the auk's near extinction. D is changing that.

its C...it correctly states the reason for extinction.

Shouldn't the comma before was nearly driven be included in the underlined portion?

The auk, because it exhibits a docile nature, it will typically not run from humans, and because it provided meat reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious, was nearly driven to extinction, its numbers, at one point, down to a mere thousand.

A. The auk, because it exhibits a docile nature, it will typically not run from humans => Doesn´t make sense a docile nature doesnt cause the auk to stay (and not run away); because it provided meat as reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious => very weird construction

B. The auk’s docile nature, it typically will not run from humans, and its delicious meat, as reputed by 19th century poachers, => the docile nature wil not run away?

C. Because it exhibits a docile nature, it did not run away from humans, and it provided meat, reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious, the auk => What are those ITs referring to? Repaets problem with A

D. Exhibiting a docile nature—it will typically not run from humans—and providing meat reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious, the auk => correct (IMHO)

E. The auk not only exhibits a docile nature, not typically running from humans, but also provided delicious meat, as reputed by 19th century poachers, => not parallel and seems to be independent clause => would require ; or AND before the second clause

Poorly constructed though... waiting for OA

Hi,
E. The auk not only exhibits a docile nature, not typically running from humans, but also provided delicious meat, as reputed by 19th century poachers, was ...
was "has to refer to the auk.. but here it does not

I agree with this comment. Without the comma in the underlined portion, none of the choices makes sense to me.

What is the correct answer?

By elimination (took some time) is also got D...

One thing i would like to understand. When i see something like "-sentence-" in Gmat, how do i approach it?

The way it is in the sentence below i just readed and decided to ignore it.

Exhibiting a docile nature—it will typically not run from humans—and providing meat reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious, the auk

Dashes add more emphasis than commas. This section of the sentence is grammatically correct, and to me, the sentence between the dashes (it will not typically...) emphasizes the auk's docile nature, rather than explains another trait of the auk.

Here is a link that provides more on the topic from UNC: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/s ... nd-dashes/

Hope this helps you understand.

We have modifier error and subject-verb errors in the given sentence.
because it exhibits a docile nature cannot modify auk and there is no verb for auk. A is out.
We have pronoun error as it cannot refer to noun in possessive case. Therefor B is nt ryt.
Ing verbs Exhibiting and providing attempts for false parallel construction thereby implying wrong meaning.Even D is wrong.
Not only...but also IDIOM changes the intended meaning and there is no proper for was eliminating E.

My angle is

1. The passage wants to describe the universal nature of auk; That it is docile and hence it does not runaway and it provides meat etc are all happening even today and will perhaps in the future also; these traits are not exclusive to the past. Hence to describe them in the past tense is untenable.

Secondly one of the traits i.e exhibits docile nature is stated in the present tense, while all other verbs are in the past tense; this shift of tense is a major flaw in the problem. Choices A, B, C and E suffer from this malady; D bucks the problem by using the tenseless modifier form to describe the two essential traits.

Thirdly, the docile nature and not running away from humans is a cause and effect phenomenon; equating both with parallel verbs is wrong. The cause, the primary trait has to have a full working verb while the effect should be in a sub-ordinate form. Choice D does this adroitly by pushing the effect into a parenthesis.

E seems to be a fragment and run-on without a subject for the verb ‘was’ and without proper conjunction or punctuation between the two independent clauses

The auk, because it exhibits a docile nature, it will typically not run from humans, and because it provided meat reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious, was nearly driven to extinction, its numbers, at one point, down to a mere thousand.

Due to the non-underlined portion "was nearly driven to extinction, its numbers, at one point, down to a mere thousand", the first clause should end with noun 'auk'. that eliminates A,B, and E.

Now, as the non-underlined portion is in past, tense agreement will have the rest of the statement to be in past as well, "provided". As nature is a fact, it stays.

Hence, Answer C.

Hi Daagh,

Isn't the cause and effect phenomena missing in this choice D? Looks like "Exhibiting" and "Providing" are providing additional information rather than showing a cause here.
Please clarify.

I think the cause and effect is implicit in D; not all times do we have to specify expressedly that something is the cause and something is the effect. For example ‘Scoring 750 plus in the GMAT, I confidently applied to the Ivy League Schools: Here, it is clear that because I have scored 750+, I am making bold to apply to Ivy League.
I feel it is ok to pass D.

A. The auk, because it exhibits a docile nature, it will typically not run from humans, and because it provided meat as reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious

This answer has a very strange construction to it.

B. The auk’s docile nature, it typically will not run from humans, and its delicious meat, as reputed by 19th century poachers,

The auk’s docile nature, modifier, and its delicious meat, modifier, was nearly driven to extinction. The auk itself not its nature or meat was nearly driven to extinction.

C. Because it exhibits a docile nature, it did not run away from humans, and it provided meat, reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious, the auk

This one is a verb tense issue. It exhibits (present), it did not run (past tense) Incorrect.

It provided meat - This shouldn't be in the past tense as the auk still provides meat.

D. Exhibiting a docile nature—it will typically not run from humans—and providing meat reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious, the auk

Clause - modifier - and clause modifier, subject - Correct

E. The auk not only exhibits a docile nature, not typically running from humans, but also provided delicious meat, as reputed by 19th century poachers,

Provided is wrong here.

I eliminated most of them because their wrong parallel construction and the inconsistent verb tense.

Chose D

The auk, because it exhibits a docile nature, it will typically not run from humans, and because it provided meat reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious, was nearly driven to extinction, its numbers, at one point, down to a mere thousand.

A. The auk, because it exhibits a docile nature, it will typically not run from humans, and because it provided meat as reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious

B. The auk’s docile nature, it typically will not run from humans, and its delicious meat, as reputed by 19th century poachers,

C. Because it exhibits a docile nature, it did not run away from humans, and it provided meat, reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious, the auk

D. Exhibiting a docile nature—it will typically not run from humans—and providing meat reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious, the auk

E. The auk not only exhibits a docile nature, not typically running from humans, but also provided delicious meat, as reputed by 19th century poachers,


Answer is D
Exhibiting a docile nature—it will typically not run from humans—and providing meat reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious

Exhibiting and providing are modifier that modifies Auk

Official Explanation

3:2 split

A good way to attack sentence is to notice that we need the “auk” close to the verb “was”, in the non-underlined part. Only (C) and (D) have “auk” close to the verb “was”, so we can use a 3:2 split by looking at the very end of each answer choice. The original sentence creates too much distance between “auk” and “was”, (B) creates a nonsensical meaning.

(A) The original sentence is a little bit awkward since the "it” repeats the “auk”. The GMAT would never write a correct answer in such a way. Instead, the auk should be doing the verb. Here the verb is very far away, after the unnecessary succession of “it”s.

(B) makes it sound like the “docile nature” was driven to extinction. “As reputed by” also creates a different meaning.

(C) The second phrase, “it did not run from humans” changes the tense from the original. Also “docile” is defined as “not running from humans."

(D) Correct for something very subtle. “Docile nature” is defined as not running from humans. Therefore, we do not want to imply that docile nature and not running from humans are two separate things. By using em-dashes, (D) defines docile nature.

(E) Combines an independent clause with the verb “was”.

FAQ: What is the function of the dashes (—)?

A: These are called “em dashes.” They can serve as commas, parentheses, or colons. Em dashes have multiple uses, the most common one is to "interrupt" part of a sentence, often explaining or defining something just said. That's what we have here:

...docile nature—it typically will not run from humans—

The part between the "— —" defines "docile nature."

FAQ: I thought it’s OK for verb tenses to vary when they’re in parallel structure.

A: In some cases, verb tense can differ in a parallel structure for the GMAT. However, that does not mean that verb tense can differ in a way that disregards the respective temporal frames or references in question. That is, verb tense still must always agree with the temporal reference in question.

Let’s take a look at the verb tenses in answer choice C.

Because it exhibits a docile nature, it did not run away from humans, and it provided delicious meat, reputed by 19th century poachers to be delicious, the auk was nearly driven to extinction, its numbers, at one point, down to a mere thousand.

The key reason why the verb tenses cannot differ is that all of the bolded verbs refer to the same time period! Therefore, all of the verb tenses must be the same also, for the parallel structure to be maintained. If, however, we changed "exhibits" to "exhibited," then all of the verb tenses would be in agreement and, as far as parallel structure is concerned, this answer would work.

So parallelism can be maintained even when verb tenses differ. But for that to work, the verb tenses must still refer accurately to their respective time periods.