woohoo921 wrote:
Hi experts,
This was one of the first
OG questions I came across in which order really matters. Choice A seems to be grammatically correct, but the meaning is off.
The Official Guide's explanation as to why A is wrong is as follows "although this sentence accurately describes what causes what, the elements are listed in an order that does not correspond to the order of causation (global warming is following by harming the habitats, which is followed by altering the environment.)"
Please keep in mind that the
OG SC answer explanations are of middling quality at best. They are quite often incomplete or less than fully accurate; occasionally they contain statements that are actually wrong.
This is one of many examples of a less-than-stellar SC answer explanation.
The biggest issue with A is that it just doesn't state the reasonably intended content of the sentence correctly. A phenomenon as broad and unspecific as global warming is going to impact bird habitats only by wreaking more general environmental havoc, which
in turn degrades the bird habitats. General global warming is not going to attack bird habitats in some specifically targeted way, as is implied by the direct subject-verb relationship in choice A.
Choice C, on the other hand, expresses the actual direct impact—i.e., of global warming upon the environment—as the main subject and verb of the sentence.
Choice A
does express the time relationship badly, but (
contra the answer key you cited) not to the extent of actually reversing the right order. Instead, the temporal issue in A is the implication that the entire sum-total action of global warming on the environment FIRST takes place, and ONLY THEN, as a "result", is there any degradation of bird habitats. That's not reasonable.
Choice C, on the other hand, allows for the much more reasonable interpretation that the entire process of environmental alteration is bad for bird habitats.