GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 18 Aug 2018, 07:53

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# QOTD: Over the next few years

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5121
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
QOTD: Over the next few years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2017, 14:59
2
9
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

77% (01:04) correct 23% (01:23) wrong based on 504 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 125: Sentence Correction

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

Over the next few years, increasing demands on the Chattahoochee River, which flows into the Apalachicola River, could alter the saline content of Apalachicola Bay, which would rob the oysters there of their flavor, and to make them decrease in size, less distinctive, and less in demand.

(A) which would rob the oysters there of their flavor, and to make them decrease in size,
(B) and it would rob the oysters there of their flavor, make them smaller,
(C) and rob the oysters there of their flavor, making them decrease in size,
(D) robbing the oysters there of their flavor and making them smaller,
(E) robbing the oysters there of their flavor, and making them decrease in size,

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1909
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
QOTD: Over the next few years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2017, 15:00
6
2
There’s a lot of funny-sounding stuff in this one: two consecutive “which” modifiers in some answer choices, plus it’s really, really hard to quickly say “oysters there of their flavor” five times in a row. But by now, you don’t care about “sound” on SC… right?

Quote:
(A) which would rob the oysters there of their flavor, and to make them decrease in size,

The first thing that jumps out at me is the underlined “which” modifier. I don’t think that it makes a whole lot of sense: “Apalachicola Bay” certainly doesn’t “rob oysters there of their flavor”, and neither does “the saline content of Apalachicola Bay.” The alteration of the saline content robs oysters of their flavor – but that’s a verb here (“could alter”), and “which” generally doesn’t modify a verb on the GMAT.

The parallelism is also a huge problem here. The phrase “to make” follows the “and”, so we’d need another infinitive verb earlier in the sentence. But I don’t see anything that could possibly work.

So we can eliminate (A).

Quote:
(B) and it would rob the oysters there of their flavor, make them smaller,

Hopefully, the word “it” jumps out at you whenever you see it. You’re looking for a singular referent, but in this case, I don’t see a lot of great options: we have the saline content, Apalachicola Bay, or a couple of different rivers, but none of those are really performing the action of robbing oysters of their flavor. It’s the alteration of the saline content – caused by increasing demands on the Chattahoochee River – that rob the oysters of their flavor. So the pronoun “it” is wrong.

Plus, we have some funky parallelism stuff going on here: “rob the oysters there of their flavor, make them smaller, less distinctive, and less in demand.” I’d be OK if there was an “and” before “make”: that way, “smaller”, “less distinctive”, and “less in demand” could all be parallel to each other.

But in this case, the list makes no sense: it’s a hodgepodge of verbs (“rob” and “make”) and modifiers (“less distinctive” and “less in demand”). (B) is definitely out.

Quote:
(C) and rob the oysters there of their flavor, making them decrease in size,

This one is tricky! It looks like “rob” is parallel to the verb “could alter”, and I guess that’s OK: “… increasing demands on the Chattahoochee River… could alter the saline content… and rob oysters there of their flavor…” That doesn’t sound too bad, but we could argue that the alteration of the saline content is the thing that robs the oysters of their flavor, not the “increasing demands on the river” – so the two verbs “rob” and “could alter” probably shouldn’t be parallel to each other. That’s awfully subtle, and you shouldn’t feel badly if you didn’t notice that there’s a problem with it.

The other issue with (C) is the parallelism at the end of the sentence: “making them decrease in size, less distinctive, and less in demand.” So “less in demand” and “less distinctive” are both modifiers. Fair enough. But then “decrease in size” is a verb phrase, which can’t be parallel to those two modifiers.

Nasty stuff, in my opinion. (C) is gone.

Quote:
(D) robbing the oysters there of their flavor and making them smaller,

This sounds weird. “Robbing the oysters there of their flavor and making them smaller…” Hm, that’s a mouthful. Say it five times fast, and you probably won’t want to choose it as your answer.

But it’s right. “Robbing the oysters there of their flavor” is now a modifier, giving us more information about the entire previous clause about increasing demands on the river, and alterations of the saline content. That makes perfect sense: the entire, long-winded situation – beginning with the “increasing demands” on the river – robs oysters of their flavor, so the “-ing” modifier is perfect.

And the parallelism at the end of the sentence is great, too: “making them smaller, less distinctive, and less in demand.” Three parallel modifiers, all describing what happens to the oysters.

Let’s keep (D).

Quote:
(E) robbing the oysters there of their flavor, and making them decrease in size,

The comma after “flavor” is a minor issue. In general, the GMAT doesn’t spend a lot of time testing us on the subtleties of comma usage, but there’s no real need for the comma here, since “robbing” and “making” are very nicely parallel with each other. Don’t lose sleep over this, since it’s rarely – if ever – a deciding factor on these questions.

The bigger issue is the parallelism error at the end of the sentence: just as in (C), “decrease in size” isn’t parallel to “less distinctive” and “less in demand,” since “decrease” is a verb. And that’s the best reason to eliminate (E), and settle for (D).
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

##### General Discussion
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1322
Location: Malaysia
Re: QOTD: Over the next few years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2017, 17:31
souvik101990 wrote:
Over the next few years, increasing demands on the Chattahoochee River, which flows into the Apalachicola River, could alter the saline content of Apalachicola Bay, which would rob the oysters there of their flavor, and to make them decrease in size, less distinctive, and less in demand.

(A) which would rob the oysters there of their flavor, and to make them decrease in size,
(B) and it would rob the oysters there of their flavor, make them smaller,
(C) and rob the oysters there of their flavor, making them decrease in size,
(D) robbing the oysters there of their flavor and making them smaller,
(E) robbing the oysters there of their flavor, and making them decrease in size,

First glance

The sentence has a comma just before the start of the underline and the answer choices open with which, and, or robbing. Comma which and comma –ing are both Modifier markers. And is a Parallelism marker and can also factor into Sentence Structure.

Issues

(1) Modifier: which

Which is a noun-modifier marker, while comma –ing is an adverbial-modifier marker. Is this part of the sentence referring to a noun or to the main clause (the main subject and verb)?

A change in the saline content, not the mere existence of saline content, would rob oysters of their flavor. One level of saline content does give oysters their flavor; a different level could then rob them of their flavor. Therefore, the modifier should be referring to the full clause: increasing demands could alter the saline content. The comma which construction, a noun-only modifier, is not appropriate to use in this sentence. Eliminate answer (A).

(2) Parallelism / Meaning: X and Y
Parallelism: X, Y, and Z

The original sentence uses and twice. Here is the first instance:

“which would rob the oysters of their flavor and to make them decrease”

The Y element of the X and Y construction is the infinitive verb to make. An infinitive verb must be parallel to another infinitive verb, but, in answer (A), the prior verb is would rob, which is not in the infinitive (the infinitive form would be to rob). No other choices repeat this particular error; eliminate answer (A).

Answers (D) and (E) both have proper parallelism for this element: robbing and making. Answers (B) and (C) both change the sentence structure. The word and is no longer between robbing and making; instead, it has moved earlier in the sentence. Is that okay?

(B) Increasing demands could alter the saline content and it would rob the oysters…

(C) Increasing demands could alter the saline content and rob the oysters…

In choice (B), what is the antecedent for the pronoun it? Increasing demands is plural, so that can’t match with the singular it. Could it refer to saline content? This is tempting, but it’s a trap—the same one that made comma which wrong! The fact that there is saline content is not what robs the oysters of flavor. Rather, the fact that the saline content alters, or changes, robs oysters of their flavor.

Choice (C) removes the pronoun, but the X and Y parallelism now requires that the subject increasing demands apply to rob the oysters of flavor. The increasing demands do not do this; rather, the fact that the saline content changes does. Eliminate choices (B) and (C) for illogical meaning.

Finally, the original sentence finishes off with a 3-item list:

“decrease in size, less distinctive, and less in demand”

The Y and Z elements (less distinctive, less in demand) are not underlined. These two elements are descriptions of what would happen if the oysters lost flavor: the oysters would be less distinctive; the oysters would be less in demand. The first item in the list should be in this same form, but it’s not appropriate to say that the oysters would be decrease in size. Eliminate answers (A), (C), and (E) for making this error.

Correct answer (D) employs a comma –ing modifier to refer to the full action: increasing demands could alter the saline content, and this event could cause the oysters to lose their flavor. This choice also correctly makes robbing and making parallel, and provides a parallel list to finish the sentence: the oysters could become smaller, less distinctive, and less in demand.
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Intern
Joined: 06 Nov 2016
Posts: 31
Re: QOTD: Over the next few years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2017, 17:42
souvik101990 wrote:

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 125: Sentence Correction

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

Over the next few years, increasing demands on the Chattahoochee River, which flows into the Apalachicola River, could alter the saline content of Apalachicola Bay, which would rob the oysters there of their flavor, and to make them decrease in size, less distinctive, and less in demand.

(A) which would rob the oysters there of their flavor, and to make them decrease in size,
(B) and it would rob the oysters there of their flavor, make them smaller,
(C) and rob the oysters there of their flavor, making them decrease in size,
(D) robbing the oysters there of their flavor and making them smaller,
(E) robbing the oysters there of their flavor, and making them decrease in size,

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

Going with D here.

increasing demands alter the saline content of Apalachicola Bay, resulting in oysters loosing the flavor and making them smaller.

Decrease in size is awkward and not parallel to less demand and less distinctive.
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 346
Location: Pakistan
GPA: 3.76
Re: QOTD: Over the next few years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2018, 01:49
1
Hi GMATNinja

Thanks for such a detail explanation, i have one question regarding option B. Is the use of would right in B.

GMATNinja wrote:
There’s a lot of funny-sounding stuff in this one: two consecutive “which” modifiers in some answer choices, plus it’s really, really hard to quickly say “oysters there of their flavor” five times in a row. But by now, you don’t care about “sound” on SC… right?

Quote:
(A) which would rob the oysters there of their flavor, and to make them decrease in size,

The first thing that jumps out at me is the underlined “which” modifier. I don’t think that it makes a whole lot of sense: “Apalachicola Bay” certainly doesn’t “rob oysters there of their flavor”, and neither does “the saline content of Apalachicola Bay.” The alteration of the saline content robs oysters of their flavor – but that’s a verb here (“could alter”), and “which” generally doesn’t modify a verb on the GMAT.

The parallelism is also a huge problem here. The phrase “to make” follows the “and”, so we’d need another infinitive verb earlier in the sentence. But I don’t see anything that could possibly work.

So we can eliminate (A).

Quote:
(B) and it would rob the oysters there of their flavor, make them smaller,

Hopefully, the word “it” jumps out at you whenever you see it. You’re looking for a singular referent, but in this case, I don’t see a lot of great options: we have the saline content, Apalachicola Bay, or a couple of different rivers, but none of those are really performing the action of robbing oysters of their flavor. It’s the alteration of the saline content – caused by increasing demands on the Chattahoochee River – that rob the oysters of their flavor. So the pronoun “it” is wrong.

Plus, we have some funky parallelism stuff going on here: “rob the oysters there of their flavor, make them smaller, less distinctive, and less in demand.” I’d be OK if there was an “and” before “make”: that way, “smaller”, “less distinctive”, and “less in demand” could all be parallel to each other.

But in this case, the list makes no sense: it’s a hodgepodge of verbs (“rob” and “make”) and modifiers (“less distinctive” and “less in demand”). (B) is definitely out.

Quote:
(C) and rob the oysters there of their flavor, making them decrease in size,

This one is tricky! It looks like “rob” is parallel to the verb “could alter”, and I guess that’s OK: “… increasing demands on the Chattahoochee River… could alter the saline content… and rob oysters there of their flavor…” That doesn’t sound too bad, but we could argue that the alteration of the saline content is the thing that robs the oysters of their flavor, not the “increasing demands on the river” – so the two verbs “rob” and “could alter” probably shouldn’t be parallel to each other. That’s awfully subtle, and you shouldn’t feel badly if you didn’t notice that there’s a problem with it.

The other issue with (C) is the parallelism at the end of the sentence: “making them decrease in size, less distinctive, and less in demand.” So “less in demand” and “less distinctive” are both modifiers. Fair enough. But then “decrease in size” is a verb phrase, which can’t be parallel to those two modifiers.

Nasty stuff, in my opinion. (C) is gone.

Quote:
(D) robbing the oysters there of their flavor and making them smaller,

This sounds weird. “Robbing the oysters there of their flavor and making them smaller…” Hm, that’s a mouthful. Say it five times fast, and you probably won’t want to choose it as your answer.

But it’s right. “Robbing the oysters there of their flavor” is now a modifier, giving us more information about the entire previous clause about increasing demands on the river, and alterations of the saline content. That makes perfect sense: the entire, long-winded situation – beginning with the “increasing demands” on the river – robs oysters of their flavor, so the “-ing” modifier is perfect.

And the parallelism at the end of the sentence is great, too: “making them smaller, less distinctive, and less in demand.” Three parallel modifiers, all describing what happens to the oysters.

Let’s keep (D).

Quote:
(E) robbing the oysters there of their flavor, and making them decrease in size,

The comma after “flavor” is a minor issue. In general, the GMAT doesn’t spend a lot of time testing us on the subtleties of comma usage, but there’s no real need for the comma here, since “robbing” and “making” are very nicely parallel with each other. Don’t lose sleep over this, since it’s rarely – if ever – a deciding factor on these questions.

The bigger issue is the parallelism error at the end of the sentence: just as in (C), “decrease in size” isn’t parallel to “less distinctive” and “less in demand,” since “decrease” is a verb. And that’s the best reason to eliminate (E), and settle for (D).

_________________

Push yourself again and again. Don't give an inch until the final buzzer sounds. -Larry Bird
Success isn't something that just happens - success is learned, success is practiced and then it is shared. -Sparky Anderson
-S

Intern
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 27
Re: QOTD: Over the next few years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2018, 01:44
1
GMATNinja wrote:
There’s a lot of funny-sounding stuff in this one: two consecutive “which” modifiers in some answer choices, plus it’s really, really hard to quickly say “oysters there of their flavor” five times in a row. But by now, you don’t care about “sound” on SC… right?

Quote:
(A) which would rob the oysters there of their flavor, and to make them decrease in size,

The first thing that jumps out at me is the underlined “which” modifier. I don’t think that it makes a whole lot of sense: “Apalachicola Bay” certainly doesn’t “rob oysters there of their flavor”, and neither does “the saline content of Apalachicola Bay.” The alteration of the saline content robs oysters of their flavor – but that’s a verb here (“could alter”), and “which” generally doesn’t modify a verb on the GMAT.

The parallelism is also a huge problem here. The phrase “to make” follows the “and”, so we’d need another infinitive verb earlier in the sentence. But I don’t see anything that could possibly work.

So we can eliminate (A).

....saline content of Apalachicola Bay, which would rob ....

I had a question on the use of which, even though the use of which is wrong here ..........
Can which modify Apalachicola Bay ?? i.e noun in a preposition phrase ?
OR
Should it always refer to the subject of the Preposition Phrase ? (saline Content)
OR
Does it depend on the meaning ?

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4525
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: QOTD: Over the next few years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2018, 08:24
2
Top Contributor
What makes the oysters lose the original flavor is neither the bay nor the saline content. Per se, the alteration of the saline content robs the flavor. One can see that there is no such noun as 'alteration' in the passage. Therefore, 'which' has no logical referent
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2017
Posts: 60
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V35
QOTD: Over the next few years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2018, 22:13
I just don't get why D is right
the present participle "robbing" seems to modify Apalachicola Bay . It is the exact reason that we eliminated A !

So my general question :
As a general rule , a noun modifier should touch its noun .
When we consider the modifier modifying the "whole action " : and in this case we allow the modifier not to touch the noun ( I think that is the case in D )
, and when we consider the modifier as noun modifier , in this case it must touch the modifier . ( as in A )

thanks
_________________

Hope this helps
Give kudos if it does

Director
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 976
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: QOTD: Over the next few years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2018, 03:55
I just don't get why D is right
the present participle "robbing" seems to modify Apalachicola Bay .

Hi foryearss, the present participle robbing is preceded by a comma in D.

Such Participial phrases modify the subject of the preceding clause. In this case, the preceding clause is:

Chattahoochee River could alter the saline content of Apalachicola Bay

The subject of this clause is Chattahoochee River. So, the present participle phrase robbing the oysters there of their flavor..... is correctly modifying Chattahoochee River.

Quote:
It is the exact reason that we eliminated A !

That's correct.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Present Participial Phrases, their application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2017
Posts: 60
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V35
Re: QOTD: Over the next few years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2018, 04:24
Quote:
Hi foryearss, the present participle robbing is preceded by a comma in D.

Such Participial phrases modify the subject of the preceding clause. In this case, the preceding clause is:

Chattahoochee River could alter the saline content of Apalachicola Bay

The subject of this clause is Chattahoochee River. So, the present participle phrase robbing the oysters there of their flavor..... is correctly modifying Chattahoochee River.

robbing does not modify Chattahoochee River. , it modifies the whole action . That is why i am confused .

Official explanation :
The sentence claims that demands for river water may
change the saline content of the bay, possibly altering
the ﬂavor and size of oysters there and diminishing the
oysters’ marketability

I started a discussion about this type of present participle modifier , when it should refer to the previous subject ? or the second noun ? or to the whole action ?
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-correct- ... 67466.html
_________________

Hope this helps
Give kudos if it does

Director
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 976
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: QOTD: Over the next few years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2018, 06:38
1
Hi foryearss, such participial phrases will always modify the subject of the preceding clause. Period.

Let me know any exception that you've noticed.

Coming to your post, your last post mentioned that robbing modifies Apalachicola Bay, to which my response was that robbing would modify the subject of the preceding clause.

I did mis-read the sentence though. The preceding clause is:

increasing demands on the Chattahoochee River could alter the saline content of Apalachicola Bay

So, robbing would modify the subject of this clause: increasing demands on the Chattahoochee River.

In addition, such participial phrases should be either a result of or a description of the previous clause.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Re: QOTD: Over the next few years &nbs [#permalink] 08 Jun 2018, 06:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.