Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig

GMATNinja

Please explain why c is wrong.

which can only be used as a non-essential modifier is not the correct reason in my view.
Anyone in conflict please go through this.

https://gmatwithcj.com/articles/sc-misc ... formation/

Hi AashishGautam,

I haven't gone through your sources, but the usage of which is definitely a problem in option C.

The main problem in your reasoning is this bit: "which can only be used as a non-essential modifier is not the correct reason in my view". The debate over whether which can be used in a restrictive sense is not really relevant here, as it has been used in a nonrestrictive sense in option C. What you're thinking would apply to a situation like this:

1. The book that I read... ← If the intended meaning is correct, a restrictive that is not a problem.
2. The book which I read... ← This is a restrictive which, and we need to be careful here. Don't mark an option that uses which this way unless you know what you're doing.

Option C uses neither of these structures. Instead, which is clearly set off using commas, which means that we're looking at the nonrestrictive interpretation.

I eliminated the choices A and B on the ground of wrong equation: Debacle = Fault.

I am not becoming mathematical here. But Debacle is Fault doesn't look parallel, in which "IS" is parallel marker. There should be "due to" or "because of" to make this sentence work

Expert kindly dive in to address the issue. Thanks in advance.

Hello abhishekmayank,

We hope this finds you well.

To provide a bit of clarity on this issue, "A is the fault of B" is simply an idiom that conveys that B is responsible for A.

We hope this helps.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Hi abhishekmayank,

Both debacle and fault are nouns. The structure used in B is just this: {something} was (not) {something else}.

Thanks again to ExpertsGlobal5 and AjiteshArun for quick response !!

Still not convinced how is option C incorrect. Is anyone able to help?

Wondering if you had a chance to go thru this post by GMATGuruNY.

Basically, "essential vs non-essential" modifiers have a role to play here.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses "essential vs non-essential" modifiers, their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

D usage of being is wrong here and E construction is strange. Both out.
C is wrong because it places a important information between comma, thus making this important information secondary. It distorts the meaning. And if you try the sentence by removing what's between the 2 commas (counted as extra info on GMAT so optional) the sentence dont makes sense anymore. C out

Between A and B. I prefer B because using 'by' here explains the HOW the CEO defused the situation. How did she defuse the situation ? BY doing X

Also A can be confusing with the usage of 'with' which here can have a double meaning

B winner

Have a few doubts:

Option D: "the debacle not being Smith's fault":
1) What kind of a structure is this? Is it a clause
2) What is the function of "being"? Is it used as a verb (the past progressive form of "is" in passive voice construction)
3) Is it permissible to use a clause after "about"? Public statement about X(noun/ clause?)

Option E: "debacle not to have been Smith’s fault":
1) What does this phrase mean exactly and is it incorrect. If yes, why is it incorrect?
Is it because we have a simpler way of saying the same thing(debacle was not Smith's fault) and we don't want to highlight any sequencing of actions

Hello toothless123,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your queries, in the phrase "the debacle not being Smith's fault", "being" is a present participle ("verb+ing"); this construction is a participle phrase that refers to the action of the debacle not being Smith's fault.

In Option E, the phrase "stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault" is incorrect, as it does not convey any coherent meaning.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

AjiteshArun AndrewN,

I hope you are doing good.

I have a small doubt to discuss. Although I chose option (B) as the correct choice, one thing that threw me off was the placement of comma + by stating.... As per my understanding, a "present participle phrase" or a "verb-ing modifier" acts as an action modifier that modifies its preceding action.
Here, the sentence is, So, does not "verb-ing modifier" modify the just preceding action "that was tense" here? Logically it should refer to the first action, but the placement of the "comma" does bring up that room for ambiguity in my opinion, what do you think about this? I have read Charles' explanation on why "comma" does not necessarily make this option incorrect, but I feel that it does make it a bit ambiguous.

Regards

Hi PyjamaScientist,

Good question. I'm not sure how you normally look at present participles, but by publicly stating is a prepositional phrase. It tells us how she defused a tense situation.

That said, other experts may be in a better position to help you with this. I generally avoid taking calls on comma usage (with the exception of issues like comma splices, the GMAT doesn't seem to be too interested in testing commas). For what it's worth, as far as I know, using commas with adverbials like this one doesn't involve any hard and fast rules.

Hello, PyjamaScientist. Thank you for the well wishes and for doing me the honor of requesting my input alongside AjiteshArun. I am not exactly sure why, but your query reminded me of this question and my response to someone on a concern about a comma + verb-ed modifier. Because many comma conventions, especially those involving single commas, are flexible in written English, I find it less useful to project onto a given sentence what I think should be true based on an understanding of modifiers. Rather, I ask myself whether the modifier can reasonably modify what I think it does—i.e. without my forcing an interpretation. In the sentence at hand, the embedded that clause is clearly modifying the situation, but is it clear without the comma that that relative clause has wrapped up, that the description of the situation has resolved? I suppose if you read fast enough, you would have little problem connecting the by modifier with the main clause, but consider:

a situation that was quite tense by...

Is it inconceivable that the description of the situation would continue? No. Now, I am not by means going to argue that the comma is compulsory. In fact, I think the sentence would be readily understandable without the comma. But I am guessing that the question-writer wanted to make it absolutely clear that the relative clause had resolved, so the comma entered the picture.

Regarding ambiguity, I have a hard time grasping how the by modifier could be commenting on the situation specifically, rather than on the main clause, because quite tense does not seem to work in conjunction with the CEO providing a public exoneration. I would expect a finger of blame to be pointed instead to support such an interpretation.

So, in short, I agree with your own assessment: logically [the modifier] should refer to the first action. Trust logic, not some mechanical input-output understanding.

- Andrew

The reason why D and E are wrong is that you have to use quite+a+adj+n.

Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

Test: modifier, meaning
A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
- "with" is usually problematic in GMAT
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
- comma before "which" makes this an non-essential modifier, changing the original meaning
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
- eliminate due to "a quite tense situation" - Meaning error
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault
- eliminate due to "a quite tense situation" - Meaning error

GMATNinja

Thank you for this helpful response.

I would be so appreciative for further clarification on the comments above in that you cannot say "she solved a quite tough question". Is this an idiomatic issue? What is the rule behind this? Thank you for all of your insights.