I'm happy to help with this.

First of all, when we say someone "remains concerned", this implies they have been concerned for a while and are still concerned. Adding the word "still" contributes absolutely no new information. The construction "still remains" is 100% redundant and always wrong. Therefore, right away, (B) & (D) are out.

This is a subtle grammar point. A proposition can have as its object an ordinary noun. A preposition can also have as its object the -ing form know as a gerund. In terms of the GMAT SC, it is illegal to have the construction: [preposition] + [noun] + [-ing form of verb]. For example, in answer choice (A),
...there are few signs of increasing energy prices driving up the cost of other goods so far
We are trying pack action into a prepositional phrase. If we want to describe action, we need a bonafide clause. This is why (A) is wrong.

(C) changes the meaning --- by saying "... few signs of higher energy prices are driving up the cost of other goods..." , it is suggesting that the "signs" are driving up the cost of the other goods. What the original sentence says, and what makes logical sense, is that the "higher energy prices" are driving up these costs. In swapping around the grammatical forms, (C) changes it something that is both different in meaning and illogical. (C) is wrong.

We have rejected the first four answers, so we hope (E) works! Fortunately, it does.
(E) Policy makers remain concerned about the prospect of inflation, despite the dearth of signs thus far that increasing energy prices are driving up the cost of other goods.
The action that (A) tried to cram into a prepositional phrase here appears correctly in a "that" clause with a full bonafide [noun] + [verb] structure: "that increasing energy prices are driving up the cost of other goods.
Everything is correct in this option.

Does all this make sense?

Mike
_________________

Has to be "E" in this case.

First thing to note is that "prospect OF inflation" is idiomatically correct so a few choices wade away quite early. The second part has a lot to do with the intended meaning of the sentence. We want to show "a lack of indicators" of inflation. Only option E addresses the intended meaning correctly. Also the action "Driving" has to be a gerund because of the time frame we are talking about. It is a continual action.

First off, I eliminated any answer choice that had "as yet" because "as yet" sounds awkward. So B and C are out.

I didn't like A because "although" is usually used at the beginning of a sentence. Usually, you use "even though" in the middle of a sentence.

So now we are left with D and E. I initially wanted to pick E but was worried that the introduction of the word "dearth" would be bad. E wins out because the policymakers are concerned about the prospects of inflation, not inflation (has not happened yet).

Thanks for describing your approach but there are couple of things that I would like to mention.

Not to offend buddy

1. Don't remove any choice because of as yet --
Idiom:
as yet
Up to the present time; up to now.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/as+yet

2. Although can come later part of sentence

3. E wins out because the policymakers are concerned about the prospects of inflation, not inflation - In each choice author is talking about prospects of inflation and not inflation.

Here what i have found.

Still remain is redundant so option B and D is out.

A is out because preposition + noun + ving modifier is wrong construction.

Between C and E. I feel issue is meaning.
Author intends to say that "Policy makers remain concerned about the prospect of inflation, although there are few signs of increasing energy prices " are driving up the cost of other goods so far" is main verb of few signs not the modifier.

Please correct me if I am wrong at any place, it will help me to improve my knowledge.

I think macjas has more than adequately brought out the fine points of this issue. Big kudo to him I may just like add a few word about choice B
Apart from currently being redundant, there is another issue regarding the construction of the sentence. There are two ICs separated by a semicolon and they are no doubt related. But the first portion is a little grey. It says that the policy makers are still concerned, but their being still concerned, is in spite of having only feeble signs. Such a paradox can be clearly expressed only by a clear contrasting conjunction such as though, although, even though etc;
_________________

The subtle errors in this question are on tenses, concision and redundancy. Tough to answer and even tougher to explain.

The sentence intends to say that the increasing energy prices are driving up the costs of other goods, but the policy makers remain concerned about the prospect of inflation.

a. remain concerned about the prospect of inflation, although there are few signs of increasing energy prices driving up the cost of other goods so far

The placement of the participle "driving" is incorrectly modifying "energy prices" indicating that these are the energy prices that drive the cost of other goods, this makes less sense. Using it as a verb will make more sense "energy prices are driving up the costs", this will correctly mean that the cost of goods is driven up by the "increasing energy prices". The placement of "so far" is not the major issue here; however, its placement next to "the signs" will make the meaning more clear.

b. still remain concerned about the prospects of inflation; there are as yet few signs that increasing energy prices are currently driving up the cost of other goods

This jumbled up construction does not express the intended meaning of the sentence. Use of "as yet" seems awkward. Even if we consider "as yet" as correct, it creates a redundancy with "currently"

c. remain concerned about the prospect for inflation, even though as yet few signs of higher energy prices are driving up the cost of other goods so far

The most significant error is changing "increasing" to "higher". Apart from changing the meaning, the use of "higher" is also incorrect; a comparative (higher in this case) asks for the use of "than" i.e. "higher" than what. "increasing" would mean that that the prices are continuously increasing, whereas "higher" means that the prices ars higher than something.

d. still remain concerned about inflation, even though there are currently few signs that increasing energy prices drive up the cost of other goods.

Using both "still" and "remain" creates redundancy. Moreover, (D) is changing the meaning of the sentence. The original sentence mentions "concerned about prospect of inflation" and (D) changes it to "concerned about inflation". Using simple past "drive" makes it a generally true fact that "increasing energy prices" drive up the cost of other goods.


e. remain concerned about the prospect of inflation, despite the dearth of signs thus far that increasing energy prices are driving up the cost of other goods.

Looks the least bad among all the answer choices. Though not very beautifully written, (E) correctly places "thus far" next to signs. No other meaning or tense errors.

Hope this helps,

Vercules
_________________

Hi eski ,




No it is not redundant, the use of both "still remain" and "even though" is redundant. The use of "currently is incorrect", the intended meaning is that of "so far"/ "till now"/ or "thus far". Using currently means just the current signs but we are concerned about the signs "so far". The major recognizable error in this choice is the use of "drive", a simple past form.



If we start the the "that" clause with "increase" then we will change the meaning of the sentence.

"that the increase in energy prices is" --> It would mean that the prices have increased and this increase is driving the prices of other goods.

"that the increasing energy prices are" --> It means that prices are increasing, but the increasing prices are driving up the prices of other goods.

Moreover, "increasing" is not acting as a gerund (-ing acting as a noun), but instead it is acting as a participle (-ing as an adjective). Increasing is modifying "energy prices". Note that the verb in the second sentence is "are" which agrees with the plural "energy prices", the noun.




A does sound tempting and in but (E) is better; in the absence of (E), (A) would have been the best answer.


Hope this helps,

Vercules
_________________

"still remain" is redundant !! when u say someone remain concerned then the notion of "still" is embedded into that fact
in other words either would have been ok individually :1) they remain concerned
2 ) he is still concerned

Can we say below

Despite X, Y in which X is a noun and Y is a clause/independent statement. Shouldnt X & Y be parallel.

But in this case, X doesn't have any verb i.e. despite the lack of signs thus far
Y is a clause/

Please clarify

still remain - redundant.
in A - so far - what does it refer to? so far what? no
B - still remain - redundant. are currently driving - present progressive + currently - redundant again
C - still remain - out. prices drive up - we need a progressive tense so no.
D - still remain - out. concerned about inflation - suspicious. drive up in present simple - same as in C.
E = thus far is near the signs, so the signs so far are that increasing energy prices are driving the costs.. so ok with this one.