Zarrolou wrote:
fozzzy wrote:
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!
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
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)