Pack 14 Q2: In the next several years, scientists predict that...

Question

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
 
B. destroying infrastructure across the state and causing widespread devastation
 
C. destroying infrastructure across the state, and causing devastation across widespread areas
 
D. and destroy infrastructure across the state, causing widespread devastation
 
E. and it would destroy infrastructure across the state, cause widespread devastation

◀ Pack 14, Question 1  
 ▶ Pack 14, Question 3 
 ⏏ Question Pack Home

48 Hour Window To Win An $85 EMPOWERgmat Tuition Credit (1 Month Free!)   
Share your explanation!  The GMAT Club member with the most verified Kudos  in total on the 5 question SC Block 14 question pack will  win an $85 EMPOWERgmat tuition credit , which will entitle the winner to a full month of complete access to the EMPOWERgmat system. Even if you're not sure about your answer or your rationale, share your explanation to help boost your learning and earn a chance to win.

To be eligible, your explanation must:
 be submitted within the 48 hour window after this post was created
should explain your reasoning why the answer you chose is correct, and why the other 4 options are incorrect within 48 hours of this post

The OA and official explanation will be held until the 48 hour window has lapsed.

HoneyLemon · Answer

D  , IMO

Meaning  : scientists predict that the San Andreas Fault could experience a catastrophic earthquake and destroy infrastructure across the state . This destruction of infra could result in widespread devastation, over $200 billion in damage, and the loss of thousands of lives.
 
 Sentence Analysis  : 
 
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.

1. There is a faulty parallelism here . 
...,which  would destroy infrastructure  across the state, and  to cause  .. is not grammatically parallel

A. which would destroy infrastructure across the state, and  to cause  widespread devastation

- 1.Parallelism Error mentioned above .

B. destroying infrastructure across the state and causing widespread devastation

-- Use of ,verbing (,destroying infrastructure across the state and causing widespread devastation ) is incorrect here . It non-nonsensically give a meaning that the San Andreas Fault experience is the doer of the action destroy and cause widespread devastation . Incorrect out .

C. destroying infrastructure across the state, and causing devastation across widespread areas

-- 1. Same ,verbing error as choice B . 
2. devastation across widespread areas is distorting the meaning , since it is not same as causing widespread devastation

D. and destroy infrastructure across the state, causing widespread devastation

-- Correct Choice . 
-- San Andreas Fault could experience a catastrophic earthquake and destroy infrastructure across the state, causing widespread devastation .. Clarifying the meaning properly . 
-- Use of ,causing is correct and denotes a result of San Andreas Fault could destroy infra

E. and it would destroy infrastructure across the state, cause widespread devastation

-- Parallelism marker and is missing before cause .

D  is my ans

NiftyNiffler · Answer

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  -- parallelism is wrong here (could experience ... to cause)

B. destroying infrastructure across the state and causing widespread devastation  -- subtle meaning change by making "destroying" a participial modifier.

C. destroying infrastructure across the state, and causing devastation across widespread areas  -- same as A and "widespread" is modifying areas here wrongly.

D. and destroy infrastructure across the state, causing widespread devastation  -- CORRECT, IC with verb parallelism (could experience... and destroy...); "causing" is a participial modifier modifying the whole clause.

E. and it would destroy infrastructure across the state, cause widespread devastation  -- "it" has no unambiguous referent(earthquake/San Andreas Fault Line)

So, answer is  D

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

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  -  has a parallelism error here. 
 
B. destroying infrastructure across the state and causing widespread devastation  -  the use of present progressive tense for a hypothetical situation is not correct.  
 
C. destroying infrastructure across the state, and causing devastation across widespread areas  -  the phrase 'over $200 billion in damages' incorrectly modifies the clause presented by (C).

D. and destroy infrastructure across the state, causing widespread devastation - if you analyze the overall structure of the sentence that (D) introduces, you get: "....Scientists predict that SAF....could cause catastrophic earthquake, and destroy infrastructure...., causing widespread devastation.., and the loss of thousands of lives".

(D) has no error. Hence, (D) is the right answer choice.

(D) has no error. Hence,  (D) is the right answer choice.

E. and it would destroy infrastructure across the state, cause widespread devastation  -  the pronoun ''it'' has two possible antecedents: the fault and the earthquake.

AshutoshB · Answer

I don't think any of the choices are correct, even the most popular choice D has flaws in it. for instance: destroy is || to experience, which in my opinion is not correct

thenikhilseth · Answer

I am bit confused in this question. But I choose  B  over  D .

Area tested-  Meaning and Parallelism 
 Between B and D, I think earthquake is responsible for destruction of infrastructure, hence i choose B over D.

A. which would destroy infrastructure across the state, and  to  cause widespread devastation
'To' is not appropriate here. It is always used for intention purposes, however no such intention is shown here.
To+ Cause= Redundant

B. destroying infrastructure across the state and causing widespread devastation-  Correct

C. destroying infrastructure across the state, and causing devastation across  widespread areas 
Widespread areas is incorrect. It is indirectly conveying the category of area.

D. and destroy infrastructure across the state, causing widespread devastation.
Now Here i think that, Earthquake is responsible for destroying the infrastructure. Therefore i reject D

E. and  it  would destroy infrastructure across the state, cause widespread devastation
It reference is unlcear.

AndrewN · Answer

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.

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.

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,   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)   over $200 billion in damage   √

3)   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.

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.

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.

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    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

gvij2017 · Answer

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.

In my opinion:
San Andreas Fault is a location which experienced a earthquake. 
Now that earthquake caused mayhem.

Take choice one by one. 
A- At first glance use of which seems correct as which refers to earthquake but in later part of choice, there is parallelism error.

B.- destroying.....and causing..... are modifying the preceding clause. But still I see a little inconsistency in complete statement as how a location can destroy or cause something. The cause of destruction and devastation is earthquake. 
In my understanding comma before which in original statement must be included in underlined part.

C.- Similar though as mentioned in B. Moreover C includes redundant words "across the widespread areas".

D.- SAF could experience and destroy....Wrong logically.

E.- Parallelism error.

In sum B seems best out of given choices. However, inclusion of comma in underlined part would make it undebatable choice.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Official Explanation

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 
 B.  destroying  infrastructure across the state  and causing  widespread devastation 
 C.  destroying  infrastructure across the state , and causing  devastation across widespread areas 
 D.  and destroy  infrastructure across the state , causing  widespread devastation 
 E.  and it would destroy  infrastructure across the state , cause  widespread devastation 
 
After a quick glance over the options, we see a couple key differences we can focus on:
 1. which would destroy / destroying / and destroy / and it would destroy (Parallelism)
2. “…, and to cause” / “and causing” / “…, and causing” / “…, causing” / “…, cause” (Parallelism)
3. Overall punctuation & where to put conjunction “and” 
 
 This is a great example of a sentence that focuses on parallelism, so let’s focus our attention on that.  Each option has two actions (destroy/cause), and we need to make sure both are written using parallel structure and wording. Let’s see how each option stacks up:
 
A. which  would destroy  infrastructure across the state, and  to cause  widespread devastation
B.  destroying  infrastructure across the state and  causing  widespread devastation
C.  destroying  infrastructure across the state, and  causing  devastation across widespread areas
D. and  destroy  infrastructure across the state,  causing  widespread devastation
E. and it would  destroy  infrastructure across the state,  cause  widespread devastation
 
 We can eliminate options A & D quickly because they don’t follow parallel wording.  Now that we have things narrowed down, let’s focus on punctuation. We need to ensure that the conjunction “and” is in the most logical place and that all punctuation works with it too. To make problems easier to spot, let’s add the options back in with the non-underlined parts:
 
B. 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,   destroying  infrastructure across the state and  causing  widespread devastation , over $200 billion in damage, and the loss of thousands of lives.
 
This is  OKAY  for now. The way everything is split up makes sense:

destroying  infrastructure across the state
AND
 causing  widespread devastation, over $200 billion in damage, and the loss of thousands of lives
 
C. 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,  destroying infrastructure across the state , and causing devastation across widespread areas , over $200 billion in damage, and the loss of thousands of lives. 
 
This is  INCORRECT  because if you use a comma before “and,” the clause that comes after it MUST be independent. Since what comes after the conjunction cannot stand alone, this is wrong. Also, it’s overly wordy to say “across widespread areas” instead of just saying “widespread devastation” as in option B.
 
E. 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,  and  it  would  destroy infrastructure across the state, cause widespread devastation , over $200 billion in damage, and the loss of thousands of lives. 
 
This is  INCORRECT  for a couple reasons. First, the pronoun “it” is vague – we don’t know with 100% certainty that “it” refers to the San Andreas Fault or the earthquake. Second, by changing the punctuation to make the highlighted portion into one long list, we now have a list that isn’t parallel. The first two items include verbs, but the rest do not – and that is a major no-no on the GMAT.
 
 There you have it – option B is the correct choice!  We know that this was a tricky one for many of you, but if you focus on the key grammar issues (parallelism & punctuation), you can narrow down your options to find the correct one.
 
Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

You were very close,  DasAshishAshutosh ! Check out the explanation in the comments to see why option B is the correct choice.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

NiftyNiffler  you were close - but option B is the correct answer. Check out the explanation in the comments to see how to tackle this type of question in future GMAT SC tests!

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

jaisonsunny77  you were close - but option B is the correct choice. Check out the explanation in the comments for more details on how to tackle this question.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Thanks for your input AshutoshB ! Check out the explanation in the comments for more details on how to tackle this question.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Well done,  thenikhilseth ! You cracked the code on this one! It was a tricky question for sure, but by focusing on parallelism, you got it! Kudos to you!

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Thank you for your input,  MentorTutoring ! Your explanation, along with our own, will hopefully help students better prepare for SC questions like this!

While we always welcome expert help, please make sure that the OA is already posted first. We typically give students 48 hours to answer each question before we post the OA and expert explanations to give them time to make their best guesses. After the 48 hours is up, we'd love your input!

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Well done,  gvij2017 ! You cracked the code on this one! Kudos to you, and we're looking forward to seeing you back here for the next question, which is going love soon!

AndrewN · Answer

My apologies. I did not know the rules/requests on Expert input. (Different competitions seem to have different suggestions.) I will keep this in mind in the future and ignore Expert Reply Request submissions until after the reveal. Thank you for letting me know.

- Andrew

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Pack 14 Q2: In the next several years, scientists predict that...

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Pack 14 Q2: In the next several years, scientists predict that...

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards