Hello, everyone. I do not typically respond to competition questions of any sort, since I feel that an Expert opinion,
any Expert opinion, will likely sway onlookers, but here, I see a lot of confusion, and I thought it might be helpful to weigh in ahead of the reveal and clarify a few grammatical concepts.
EMPOWERgmatVerbal wrote:
Pack 14, Question 2 of 5:
In the next several years, scientists predict that the San Andreas Fault, which stretches from one end of California to the other, could experience a catastrophic earthquake, which would destroy infrastructure across the state, and to cause widespread devastation, over $200 billion in damage, and the loss of thousands of lives.
A. which would destroy infrastructure across the state, and to cause widespread devastation
As others have pointed out, the infinitive marker is unnecessary here. If we skip over the non-restrictive
which clause, the one that refers to
a catastrophic earthquake, the sentence would read,
... could experience a catastrophic earthquake... and to cause widespread devastation. I would not consider this one any further.
EMPOWERgmatVerbal wrote:
B. destroying infrastructure across the state and causing widespread devastation
I am not sure why so many people seem to have a problem with the cause-and-effect relationship outlined by the grammar here. The San Andreas Fault could experience a catastrophic earthquake, [thereby] destroying infrastructure and causing three outcomes: 1) devastation; 2) damage; and 3) loss of life. You have to understand that there are two parallel "effect" elements in
destroying and
causing, so there should
not be a comma between them, but that the second element branches off into three other sub-elements. It can help to place
causing at the head of the last three items to test for clarity of meaning:
1) causing widespread devastation
√2) [causing] over $200 billion in damage
√3) [causing] the loss of thousands of lives
√Everything checks out here. If you were unsure, you could put this one on hold for the time being and check the other answer choices, but there is no compelling reason to eliminate this one either in terms of meaning—most importantly—or grammar.
EMPOWERgmatVerbal wrote:
C. destroying infrastructure across the state, and causing devastation across widespread areas
The easier of the two issues here is
widespread areas. Now the sentence could be suggesting that only areas that are widespread will face devastation, rather than indicating that the devastation itself will be widespread. The more grammar-based problem lies with the comma and
and causing. There are two ways to interpret this usage, neither of which makes sense. First, we can see the construct as a list. However, two items,
destroying and
causing, do not warrant the use of a comma between them. This interpretation is out. Second, we can skip over the
destroying phrase, similar to the way we had outlined earlier with the
which clause in (A), but that proves equally unsatisfying:
could experience a catastrophic earthquake... and causing devastation across widespread areas... We have exposed a flaw in parallelism. In this construct, we would expect
could experience... and cause. There is just no way to justify this answer choice.
EMPOWERgmatVerbal wrote:
D. and destroy infrastructure across the state, causing widespread devastation
I am assuming that there is no typo in the original sentence, that the comma before the non-underlined portion is non-negotiable. If so, this option creates a two-item list that is separated, once again, by a comma:
the San Andreas Fault... could experience a catastrophic earthquake, and destroy infrastructure across the state. If we could not join two parallel items before with a comma, then we cannot do so here either. We also know that
could experience a catastrophic earthquake is not being used as an interrupter, since it continues the embedded clause (the one following
scientists predict that) by providing a verb for
the San Andreas Fault. Although people sometimes write this way and place a comma before
and when an independent clause does
not follow, for GMAT™ purposes, this is a no-no.
EMPOWERgmatVerbal wrote:
E. and it would destroy infrastructure across the state, cause widespread devastation
It is unclear to what
it may refer. The San Andreas Fault? The earthquake? But beyond such ambiguity, the latter portion creates a list that needs to be introduced with
and. The parallel verbs appear to be
would destroy and
[would] cause, but then the other two items in the list,
over $200 billion... and
the loss..., are headless. What we need instead is an
and between the first and second verbs, with a clear indication that the second part of that action, the one starting with
cause, continues to branch off in different directions, similar to the way I have outlined in (B) above.
The takeaway? The GMAT™ allows three ways in which
and may be used, and it is downright draconian about sticking to the rules:
1)
and to join two parallel items or actions—e.g.,
John and Sally;
run and jump (not
run, and jump)—NO COMMA
2)
and to complete a list of more than two items/actions—e.g.,
run, jump, and skip—COMMA
3)
and to join independent clauses—e.g.,
The way is long, and the terrain is rugged.—COMMA
Choice (A) does not run afoul of the
and rules, since the
which clause can be seen as an interrupter, but it has another problem in an extraneous
to; choices (C) and (D) both violate comma +
and rules; and choice (E) includes one problematic element, an ambiguous
it, while omitting another necessary element, our much-talked-about
and.
I cast my vote for (B). I hope that sharing my thoughts may assist the community, in any case.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.