pranjalpathak07 wrote:
Hello Experts
MartyTargetTestPrep,
GMATNinja,
GMATGuruNY,
AjiteshArun,
generis, @MentorTutoring, @EducationAisle;
In
OG, it says that: "consequence" is wrongly assigned to the extra flying time rather than
to the ending of the exemption -- a logical prediction error.
I am confused because when you consider the participle phrase, "long-standing exemptions... airlines fly", to me, it seems to be referring to the entire event.
Will you please help.
Hello,
pranjalpathak07. I think you are referring to the original sentence, which I will quote below for reference.
Quote:
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.
Let me say right away that I am no fan of the
OG "logical predication" label. I can think of zero cases in which I have ever approached a question with "logical predication" in mind; neither have I seen any other Expert on this site explain a question in such terms, except when quoting the
OG. That said, we do have to ask ourselves whether the
with prepositional phrase is meant to comment on the entire sentence up to that point or on just the tail-end of it, specifically the comparison centered on monthly flying hours. Consider:
1) Some pilots fly more than others, with the consequence that...
2) Regulators may end certain exemptions, with the consequence that...
Since the prepositional phrase is closer to the comparison, we cannot ignore the first interpretation above and simply say that we prefer the second. Notice how (E) sidesteps the issue. The prepositional phrase has been replaced by an adverb,
consequently, that is understood to comment on the entire clause, similar to framing a sentence with
basically or
typically. Still, if you have trouble wrapping your head around the role
consequently may be playing, you could temporarily remove it from the sentence to see how the larger pieces fit together:
(E)
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.The second independent clause follows the first seamlessly, with or without the adverb—regulators will probably do something, and some carriers may react a certain way.
One final point I would like to mention is that, as is often the case in SC questions, this one presents several points of consideration that can be used to reduce the answer pool. Other Experts have drawn attention to such considerations in their posts above. I would simply like to point out that you need not fixate on any given split if another, perhaps easier, target presents itself elsewhere (e.g., the
as much as versus
as many as split, which could help you eliminate the original sentence prior to the prepositional phrase in question).
I hope that helps address your concerns. Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew (formerly known as MentorTutoring)
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.