According to the American Red Cross approximately 300,000 homes were

My answer is (A). It took me 53 seconds.

(A) "the worst natural disaster in United States history" serves as appositive of "Hurricane Katrina". The use of passive voice is a cause for concern. Keep for now.
(B) It is active voice, but (1) "damage and destruction" should logically be "damage or destruction". (2) Verb (damage / destruct) is preferred to Noun (damage / destruction).
(C) If we can delete "which is considered as" and get (A), why keep those words? In addition, "as" is superfluous.
(D) If we can delete "considered" without changing its meaning, why use it? In addition, "damaged and destroyed" should be "damaged or destroyed".
(E) Many issues. Just the use of "also" is sufficient to eliminate it: Remove the nonrestrictive clause (which was the worst natural disaster in United States history), this "also" is totally nonsensical.

So, (A) is the best option.

According to the American Red Cross, approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history.


A) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history. -> "the worst natural disaster in US history" modifies "approximately 300,000 homes ....". It makes sense. I don't see any error further.

B) Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history, was responsible for the damage and destruction of approximately 300,000 homes. -> after "According to the American Red Cross", we need, "approximately 300,000 homes...". Incorrect.

C) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, which is considered as the worst natural disaster in United States history. -> "considered as" is incorrect. Consider takes nothing.

D) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged and destroyed thanks to Hurricane Katrina, considered the worst natural disaster in United States history. -> "damaged and destroyed" is incorrect. there must be "or" in between.

E) Hurricane Katrina, which was the worst natural disaster in United States history, was also responsible for having damaged or destroyed something like 300,000 homes. -> having damaged..Is it still damaging. Incorrect.

So, I think A.

imo A .

In option A ..Opening modifier
According to the American Red Cross ,approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by X. Clear meaning . Seems correct .

Option B: Seems a meaning change .. with 'X was responsible' - Out
Option C : considered as is wrong idiom -- out
OPtion D : thanks to ..Wordy -- out
Option E : wordy .. Meaning change .. -- Out

Nipungupta9081 , thank you. Edited.

Among other things, I would eliminate B because it says “the damage of homes”. It should say “the damage to homes” or “the damage of the hurricane to homes”.

C and D have quite explicit flaws, as already mentioned above.

By the way, I wouldn’t eliminate E for “also” only. This problem shows that a nonessential modifier in between commas and followed by “also” isn’t a problem.

Ron Purewal writes here: the other things that monroe did are in the modifier... so, if you "drop the modifier", then “also” doesn't make sense anymore. But the modifier is there, so it's fine.

here's a simpler version:
Ron, one of the most prolific posters on the MGMAT forum, is also a GMAT course instructor.
--> again, if you were to remove the modifier, you would also have to remove "also".

JonShukhrat

can we eliminate Option E for error in modifier.
E) Hurricane Katrina, which was the worst natural disaster in United States history, was also responsible for having damaged or destroyed something like 300,000 homes.
Use of which is inappropriate here.

A) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history. -- Correct answer. Nothing wrong.

B) Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history, was responsible for the damage and destruction of approximately 300,000 homes. -- Misplaced modifier. The destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina is the "worst natural disaster" and hence we need the present participle to go after that clause and modify it.

C) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, which is considered as the worst natural dis¬aster in United States history. -- same as B. "which" cannot modify the whole clause. We need a participle modifier. Also "considered as" is not the correct idiom. "consider X Y" is the correct idiom.

D) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged and destroyed thanks to Hurricane Katrina, considered the worst natural disaster in United States history. - "thanks to" (i've usually seen this precede a comma) "damaged and destroyed" is now a combined action. Not too sure. Eliminate.

E) Hurricane Katrina, which was the worst natural disaster in United States history, was also responsible for having damaged or destroyed something like 300,000 homes. -- same problem as B. "which" is modifying Katrina. We need participle modifier to accurately and succinctly convey the modification in this sentence. Modified entity - damage or destruction by Katrina. "which" fails in modifying the modified entity. "was also". Not sure why the "also is for". Eliminate.

According to the American Red Cross, approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history.

Whatever is getting destroyed will also be damaged.
Therefore, use of damaged and destroyed is not correct, since intended meaning is damaged or destroyed.
Eliminate B and D

In C, use of 'considered as' is incorrect

In E, like is used not used for comparison.

A is the answer.


A) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history.

B) Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history, was responsible for the damage and destruction of approximately 300,000 homes.

C) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, which is considered as the worst natural dis¬aster in United States history.

D) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged and destroyed thanks to Hurricane Katrina, considered the worst natural dis¬aster in United States history.

E) Hurricane Katrina, which was the worst natural disaster in United States history, was also responsible for having damaged or destroyed something like 300,000 homes.

Option A

Posted from my mobile device

According to the American Red Cross, approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history.

Lets dive and deconstruct sentence with understanding meaning first (SV pair highlighted) .

According to the American Red Cross, ( Just a Introduction phrase or group of words )

approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed ( Verb ) by Hurricane Katrina (Subject) ,
the worst natural disaster in United States history. ( Modifier phrase for "Hurricane Katrina)

So, We have a passive voice sentence telling us that according to ARC (American Red Cross) , Hurricane Katrina damaged or destroyed approx. 300k homes.
I could not find any concrete errors in first look. We can improve the sentence by switching to active voice though. So, let's start POE.


A) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history.

Hold on to this one for now.

B) Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history, was responsible for the damage and destruction of approximately 300,000 homes.

Definitely better than A in terms voice usage - Active voice. ||ism marker is changed from "or" to "and" - slight shift in the meaning. Bigger Q is : Is minor meaning change allowed ? Yes, it is if the other options have concrete or definite errors.

So the question is: Voice (Active/Passive) usage Vs Meaning change ?

I am not 100% sure. Also , saying "damage" and "destruction" together does not make sense completely. You can say something was "damaged" ( which means it could be repaired or is not intact 100% or its integrity is compromised (Engineer in me - thinking from mechanical or structural viewpoint about homes ) ) while "destroy" means completely annihilated or you need to rebuild the stuff from ground. I still feel A is better option providing us information that houses were damaged or destroyed ( Not Both at same time).

C) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, which is considered as the worst natural dis¬aster in United States history.

Similar to A - only modifier phrase is changed. No impact. You could argue and say "wordy" than option A and conveys same meaning.

D) approximately 300,000 homes were damaged and destroyed thanks to Hurricane Katrina, considered the worst natural dis¬aster in United States history.

Similar use as option B about usage of "damaged and destroyed ". Overall , sentence structure is similar to A - only modifier phrase at the end is changed. No major impact. You could argue and say "wordy" than option A and conveys same meaning.

E) Hurricane Katrina, which was the worst natural disaster in United States history, was also responsible for having damaged or destroyed something like 300,000 homes.

"was" is incorrect tense usage to inform about a currently valid fact. I also don't like "was also" usage here - it implies something else was also done by Hurricane Katrina but we don't have any other information.


So, i will mark A and look forward to Generis official explanation!

Hi ramlala

As for E, “which” is neither a misplaced nor a totally nonsensical modifier. It’s grammatically correct and makes some sense but is not ideal. A hurricane is a natural disaster, so “which” should follow “Hurricane Katrina”. Let’s juxtapose A, B, and E to see the difference in their meaning:

A) …by Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in US history.
B) Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in US history, was...
E) Hurricane Katrina, which was the worst natural disaster in US history, was...

In A and B, “the worst natural disaster in US history” is an appositive that describes Hurricane Katrina. As it’s written, it means that this hurricane is still the worst disaster in US history. There is nothing worse.

In E, “which was the worst natural disaster in US history” also describes Hurricane Katrina. However, it means that this hurricane was the worst disaster at some point in the past but is not anymore. Apparently, something even worse has happened.

To have the same meaning as that of A and B, E should say “which is the worst natural disaster”. However, note that we are not obliged to pertain to choice A’s meaning. As far as “which” in E makes sense, we are fine.

What makes “which” in E not ideal is the absence of the reason for “was”. Why “was”?
If E said: Hurricane Katrina, which was the worst natural disaster until Tupelo tornado hit in 2018, was responsible for…”, then the sentence would make more sense.

Neither “which” nor “also” alone is enough to eliminate E, I think. That’s the nonsense they together make is the reason. They together should give different descriptions of the hurricane, not similar ones. For example:

- Hurricane Katrina, which is the worst natural disaster in US history, also brought much-needed rains and thereby ended the severe wildfires in California.

As you see, “which” and “also” together give one positive and one negative descriptions of the hurricane, as is logical. However, in E, both “the worst natural disaster” and “responsible for having damaged or destroyed” are negative descriptions. So, “which” and “also” together don’t make sense here.

Also note “something like”. It’s a disaster.

The official explanation is here.

If option B was:- Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in United States history, was responsible for the damage or destruction of approximately 300,000 homes

Can we choose the above answer over (A)?

My logic:- After "According to the American Red Cross", the subject of the sentence - Hurricane Katrina is expected.

Please let me know if my logic is correct?

generis

Hi IndyJones21

You can interpret “according to X” as “X says/said that”. All of the sentences below are correct and deliver the same meaning:

- According to the organization, many homes were damaged by the hurricane.
- The organization says that many homes were damaged by the hurricane.

- According to the organization, the hurricane damaged many homes.
- The organization says that the hurricane damaged many homes.

As you don’t expect anything special after “the organizations says that”, you also needn’t expect after “according to the organization”. However, if you see a pronoun in the “according to” part, then you should expect the thing to which that pronoun refers:

- According to her words, Mary has never had a problem with math.

This is usually true for many opening modifiers, for example check here, here, here, here, and here. Below are spoilers:

- In addition to her work on the Miocene hominid fossil record, Mary Leakey’s contributions to archaeology include...
- As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company...
- Building on civilizations that preceded them in coastal Peru, the Mochica...
- Even though many of her colleagues were convinced that genes were relatively simple and static, Barbara Mcclintock...
- In her book illustrations, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives, Beatrix Potter...