As a result of record low temperatures, the water pipes on the third

I saw the official explanation for this question. And it looks like, they are not stressing on the error "which". Here which is not used properly and this will help to eliminate 3 choices.
Any idea why?

I am agree to gmatgrl .


If possible and if it is allowed, can you post the exact official explanation? It will help us understand the official line of thinking.

This sentence describes a causal sequence of events leading to flooded second-floor offices. One of the steps, sprinkler heads bursting, was presumably simultaneous with the release of torrents of water, so it is best to present these events as actions attached to the same subject (heads of the sprinkler system). The sentence as given attempts to explain the sequence in a chain of relative clauses, using the pronoun which to introduce successive steps. The precise reference of his relative pronoun is somewhat obscure-it appears to refer to the entire preceding clause- and the sequence separates the simultaneous bursting of heads and releasing of water into two temporally separate events.

A) The reference of the second which is obscure, and the sentence implausibly separates bursting heads and releasing of torrents into two temporally separate events.

B) Joining the relative pronouns with the conjunction and makes the freezing of the water pipes the subject of both caused .... and released ... Thus, it seems to indicate, somewhat implausibly, that the freezing of the pipes directly released torrents of water independently of its causing the sprinkler heads to burst.

C) The passive verb were... released obscures the causal sequence behind the releasing of torrents of water. The introduction of a new independent clause without a conjunction is ungrammatical and makes this version a run-on sentence.

D) As in (B), the structure of this version makes the freezing of the pipes the subject of both causing... and releasing... The introduction of the sequential marker then divides the bursting of heads and releasing of torrents of water into two separate events in the sequence. It indicates, implausibly, that the pipes' freezing directly released torrents of water after it had also caused the sprinkler heads to burst.

E) Correct. The elimination of the relative pronoun clarifies the causal sequence of events, and the double infinitives to burst and (to) release underscores the simultaneity of these events.

- Which is a noun modifier. from the intended meaning of the sentence it is clear that we need to show the result of the event "the water froze" -> hence we should use V-ing modifier (which modifies the preceding clause - and specifically can modify the result of the action in the preceding clause).
A/B/C - are out.

D/E - from the context it is clear that "burst" & "release" happens at the same time. E conveys that perfectly. In addition "then..." is not properly connected to the sentence and it is not clear what it modifies.
=> D is out.

E is correct.

As a result of record low temperatures, the water pipes on the third floor froze, which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, which released torrents of water into offices on the second floor.

Issues: Modifier | Parallelism

Analysis:
1. ", which" is a non-essential modifier and "which" is used to modify the noun right before comma. In the sentence, the usage of "which" refers to the whole clause and that is incorrect.

A) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, which released torrents of water
- Incorrect usage of "which"

B) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst and which released torrents of water
- Incorrect usage of "which"

C) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, torrents of water were then released
- Incorrect usage of "which"

D) causing heads of sprinkler system to burst, then releasing torrents of water
- "then releasing.." is a run on as a conjunction is missing

E) causing heads of the sprinkler system to burst and release torrents of water

Answer: (E)

As a result of record low temperatures, the water pipes on the third floor froze, which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, which released torrents of water into offices on the second floor.

What caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst? The event of water pipes getting frozen. "which" is incapable of referring to this. Thus, option A, B, and C are gone.
A) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, which released torrents of water

B) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst and which released torrents of water

C) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, torrents of water were then released

D) causing heads of sprinkler system to burst, then releasing torrents of water
"causing heads of sprinkler system to burst" shows the result of the event. "then" brings in the sense of sequence and so we must need an "and". Moreover, if we go by the meaning, as the "causing" and "releasing" are parallel, the sentence conveys the meaning that the event of water pipes getting frozen causes the heads of sprinkler system to burst and then the same event releases the torrents of water whereas the logical meaning should be the sprinkler system bursts and it releases the torrents of water.

E) causing heads of the sprinkler system to burst and release torrents of water

Thus, option E.

Hi Expert,

I agree that choice E is the best choice among all and it correctly shows the result of previous clause.

However, I have a difficulty in understanding how "cause" is making sense with the subject of the previous clause.

Mohan was hit by the bus, dying instantly.

Here "dying" make sense with the subject-- Mohan died

In the given sentence-- the water pipes caused heads of sprinkler system to burst--

how does this make sense? Probably there is a gap in my understanding. Please help !

A present participle modifier may be used as a noun modifier or a verb modifier. It is alright to use comma + present participle modifier as a verb modifier referring to the action of the previous clause - it is not mandatory that the modifier refer to the subject of the previous clause.

In this case it is not required that the present participle modifier "causing ...." refer to "water pipes". Here the present participle modifier correctly refers to the action ("froze") of the previous clause.

In your example as well, it is alright to consider that the modifier "dying instantly" refers to "hit", not "Mohan".

A) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, which released torrents of water --> which cannot be used as it is modifying a verb where as it should modify a noun or a pronoun.
B) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst and which released torrents of water --> first which has same error as in A, second which is redundant.
C) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, torrents of water were then released --> first which has same error as in A and the 2nd part of the sentence is wordy.
D) causing heads of sprinkler system to burst, then releasing torrents of water --> burst and releasing not parallel.
E) causing heads of the sprinkler system to burst and release torrents of water --> this is correct.

As a result of record low temperatures, the water pipes on the third floor froze, which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, which released torrents of water into offices on the second floor.

A) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, which released torrents of water - COMMA + which must be immediately preceded by a NOUN.
B) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst and which released torrents of water - same as A
C) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, torrents of water were then released - same as A
D) causing heads of sprinkler system to burst, then releasing torrents of water - The agent of a COMMA + VERBing modifier must be the PRECEDING SUBJECT.
Here, the agent of releasing seems to be water pipes, implying that the FROZEN PIPES were RELEASING torrents of water.
The intended meaning is that the SPRINKLER SYSTEM THAT BURST released torrents of water.
E) causing heads of the sprinkler system to burst and release torrents of water - Correct
Here, the main verb is froze.
Conveyed meaning:
When the pipes FROZE, they were responsible for CAUSING the heads of the sprinkler system to burst and release torrents of water.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1.In option D, we have 2 Verb-ing modifiers(causing and then releasing) in a sequence. Shouldn't these modifiers be connected by AND? I read that two modifiers in a sequence without proper connectors (AND) is incorrect?

2. In the above question, option D will be incorrect even if we add AND because neither the pipes themselves nor the action of freezing of pipes caused the release of water?
causing heads of sprinkler system to burst, AND then releasing torrents of water -- adding AND makes the sentence better grammatically (though still incorrect logically)


3.In option E,
causing heads of the sprinkler system to burst and release torrents of water
The pipes froze CAUSING 2 things -->
* heads of the sprinkler system to burst
* release torrents of water

But isn't the release of water a consequence of bursting of the heads of the sprinkler system? But here we have put these two in parallel ?



AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , sayantanc2k, DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , daagh , other experts- please help

when comma +ing modifier is used, the subject is the doer of the modifier.
In the given sentence-- the water pipes caused heads of sprinkler system to burst--
This doesn't make sense.Hence we use noun+noun modifier.
Can someone clarify?

Posted from my mobile device

The missing of the 'and' between causing and releasing is a fatal error in D. They are two separate actions and not co-ordinates that can be interchanged in their order of occurrence. The second is a corollary of the first. As such, D fails the grammar test.

A question from the sentence correction "ask me anything" thread:


You might be overthinking the sequence just a little bit. Sure: technically speaking, the sprinkler bursts before the water is released. But in reality, don’t both things happen in the blink of an eye, and appear to be simultaneous?

More importantly, it seems completely reasonable for the two actions (“burst” and “release”) to be in a parallel structure. When the water pipes froze, it caused the heads of the sprinkler system to do two things: burst and release torrents of water. Seems OK to me, since both actions were caused by the freezing of the water pipes.

Here's the full sentence again, with (D) punched in:


So what’s wrong with (D)? The use of “releasing” is confusing and problematic. “Releasing” seems to be a modifier here (and no, it’s definitely NOT a verb; more on that issue in this article), but I can’t quite figure out what it’s modifying. It’s hard for me to understand how “then releasing torrents of water” could possibly modify or describe “causing the heads of the sprinkler system to burst."

(E) is much, much clearer, since it vividly describes the two consequences that occurred when the water pipes froze. So it's our winner.

I hope this helps!

Request Expert Reply:
Hi Honorable Experts,
MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, GMATGuruNY, AjiteshArun, VeritasPrepHailey, BrightOutlookJenn,
According to grammar structure, releasing modify what actually? Does it modify the highlighted part or the blue part? Shouldn't it modify the highlighted part?

Thanks in advanced...

By using the word "then," the sentence indicates that two actions were performed by the same actor. That actor performed one main action and, through performing that one action, "froze," first caused heads to burst and "then" released torrents of water.

The only logical purpose of the presence of "then" in the sentence is to convey that meaning. If the agent of "releasing" were "heads of the sprinkler system," there not be any reason to have "then" there.

So, since the sentence is written in this way, it clearly indicates that the same actor is the agent of "causing" and "releasing."

So, that actor, "water pipes," is found in the blue portion of the sentence.

OE:
Logical predication; Grammatical construction
This sentence describes a causal sequence of events leading to flooded
second-floor offices. One of the steps, sprinkler heads bursting, was
presumably simultaneous with the release of torrents of water, so it is
best to present these events as actions attached to the same subject
(heads of the sprinkler system). The sentence as given attempts to
explain the sequence in a chain of relative clauses, using the pronoun
which to introduce successive steps. The precise referent of this relative
pronoun is somewhat obscure—it appears to refer to the entire preceding
clause—and the sequence separates the simultaneous bursting of heads
and releasing of water into two temporally separate events.
A. The referent of the second which is obscure, and the sentence
implausibly separates bursting heads and releasing of torrents into
two temporally separate events.
B. Joining the relative pronouns with the conjunction and makes the
freezing of the water pipes the subject of both caused . . . and
released. . . . Thus, it seems to indicate, somewhat implausibly, that
the freezing of the pipes directly released torrents of water
independently of its causing the sprinkler heads to burst.
C. The passive verb were . . . released obscures the causal sequence
behind the releasing of torrents of water. The introduction of a new
independent clause without a conjunction is ungrammatical and
makes this version a run-on sentence.
D. As in (B), the structure of this version makes the freezing of the
pipes the subject of both causing . . . and releasing. . . . The
introduction of the sequential marker then divides the bursting of
heads and releasing of torrents of water into two separate events in
the sequence. It indicates, implausibly, that the pipes’ freezing
directly released torrents of water after it had also caused the
sprinkler heads to burst.
E. Correct. The elimination of the relative pronouns clarifies the
causal sequence of events, and the double infinitives to burst and
(to) release underscores the simultaneity of these events.
The correct answer is E.

(A) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, which released torrents of water I dont like the structure of 'which' after 'which'. Also 'which' isnt attached to a noun. So it cancels out A,B and C as well. but lets check them anyway

(B) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst and which released torrents of water this changes the meaning as structure suggests that the frozen floor caused torrents of water. Which it didnt, rather the sprinkler system bursting did

(C) which caused the heads of the sprinkler system to burst, torrents of water were then released sounds like a list of actions but no marker

(D) causing heads of sprinkler system to burst, then releasing torrents of water same problem as B, what caused the release of torrents of water?

(E) causing heads of the sprinkler system to burst and release torrents of water Best! very clear better than A