While some economists propose that agricultural land be used to help

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

While some economists propose that agricultural land be used to help solve the energy crisis by converting arable land from foods to bio-fuel, a majority of analysts believe that bio-fuels should be produced only from non-food crops, whose use will impact the environment less.


(A) whose use will impact the environment less

This answer choice makes correct and unambiguous use of the possessive relative pronoun whose to refer to the use of non-food crops:

non-food crops' use == use of non-food crops --> non-food crops whose use

This answer choice also concisely expresses the meaning of the sentence by using the verb impact and the adverb less.


(B) the use of which will have a lesser impact on the environment

Incorrect.

This answer choice is stylistically flawed. The phrase the use of which will have a lesser impact is wordy. Look for an answer choice that is more concise.


(C) having less of an impact on the environment if used

Incorrect.

This answer choice is stylistically flawed.

It unnecessarily makes use of the conditional (if used) within the modifying clause having less of an impact. This construction also creates ambiguity, as it is not clear what if used refers to - the environment or non-food crops.

Similarly, the use of the participle clause having less of an impact is ambiguous as it could refer to analysts, bio-fuels, or non-food crops.

Normally a Ving modifying phrase provides a result of the previous clause or gives further information about the previous clause (the subject and verb); however, that is not the case here, as the having would not logically make sense if it referred to a majority of analysts believe.


(D) lessening the impact of its use on the environment

Incorrect.

This answer choice is grammatically incorrect. The pronoun its does not agree with the plural noun it is meant to refer to - non-food crops.


(E) with lower environmental impacts of using them

Incorrect.

This answer choice is stylistically flawed. The use of the pronoun them is ambiguous, as it could refer to bio-fuels, or non-food crops.

In addition, the use of the preposition with is also awkward and confusing, as it is not clear what with refers to.
_________________

(A) whose use will impact the environment less
The possessive relative pronoun whose correctly refer to the 'non-food crops', reducing the ambiguity and wordiness.
Hence the correct choice is A.

(B) the use of which will have a lesser impact on the environment
The phrase the use of which will have a lesser impact is wordy and awkward. Eliminate.

(C) having less of an impact on the environment if used
The clause, 'having less of an impact', is confusing. What is it referring to? Is it analysts, or bio-fuels, or non-food crops? Having does not make sense if it referring to a majority of analysts believe. Condition, 'if used', is unnecessary.


(D) lessening the impact of its use on the environment
Pronoun error, 'Its' does not agree with the plural noun, "non-food crops". Eliminate

(E) with lower environmental impacts of using them
Preposition 'With' is confusing. What is it referring to?
Pronoun error with 'Them'. what is it referring to? Is it referring to bio-fuels, or non-food crops?
Eliminate

While some economists propose that agricultural land be used to help solve the energy crisis by converting arable land from foods to bio-fuel, a majority of analysts believe that bio-fuels should be produced only from non-food crops, whose use will impact the environment less.


(A) whose use will impact the environment less --> "whose" modify "non-food crops" --> wrong meaning

(B) the use of which will have a lesser impact on the environment --> "which" modify "bio-fuels" -> correct

(C) having less of an impact on the environment if used --> dangling modifier. Who/what have less of impact?

(D) lessening the impact of its use on the environment --> dangling modifier. Who/what lessen the impact?

(E) with lower environmental impacts of using them --> ambiguitily modify its precede noun


==> IMO: B

Correct Option : A

Sentnece exam on :
- Pronoun
- SV Agreement
- sentence structure
- use of While - time specific highlighter indicates cause and effect in the sentence

Let's break the sentence and check its structure :

While some economists propose
that agricultural land be used to help solve the energy crisis by converting arable land from foods to bio-fuel,
Subject : agricultural land - singular
Verb : used - singular
Object : Land - singular

a majority of analysts believe that bio-fuels should be produced only from non-food crops, whose use will impact the environment less.
Subject : non-food crops - singular
Verb : produced - singular
Possessive Pronoun : (, Whose) show possession of (followed before noun)non-food crops - singular
Pronoun Verb : use - singular
Object : Environment - singular

Option A has no or less flaws and convey sentence intended meaning


Reason for other option to be wrong:

(B) the use of which will have a lesser impact on the environment
- the use of which creates ambiguity, as which without comma is not pronoun, it is a conjunction used to highlight contrast other side of the cause, and use OF makes it prepositional phrase, which must be indicated to direct noun, but here it's is refer to "Impact"(noun)
- word lesser has no issues, it's a comparison indicator, but it demean the importance of "will" and "impact"

(C) having less of an impact on the environment if used
- having is a plural form, wrongly presented to singular subject Biofuel.
It can be corrected by use of proper word "Has" singular without use of comma before it.
- less is the comparison indicator, used to modify Impact
- use of IF brings a conditional cause, which is redundant as initially already "while" is used. With word used leads to mis direction, about to whom it is refer is doubtful

(D) lessening the impact of its use on the environment
- lessening is a comparison indicator in form of verb-ing, used to compare impact with ITS, pronoun here it's location in sentence creates ambiguity to whom it is refer to.

(E) with lower environmental impacts of using them
- use of with is a used when things are done along with some, We need a verb here.
- them is a objective (used for - to be verb) pronoun, need to be used before object in the sentence, word environment, use of it at the end creates ambiguity and intended meaning purpose is not solved

Posted from my mobile device

While some economists propose that agricultural land be used to help solve the energy crisis by converting arable land from foods to bio-fuel, a majority of analysts believe that bio-fuels should be produced only from non-food crops, whose use will impact the environment less.


(A) whose use will impact the environment less--> wrong meaning

(B) the use of which will have a lesser impact on the environment => the use of non-food crops => Correct

(C) having less of an impact on the environment if used --> wrong meaning

(D) lessening the impact of its use on the environment --> wrong meaning

(E) with lower environmental impacts of using them --> "them" mention what? --> ambiguity modify

IMO B
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________