akshayk wrote:
haardiksharma wrote:
Researchers explain, being very eager to have constant access to food and secure backup from stronger members if they get caught in a fight, that baboons groom higher-ranking individuals in their group early in the day.
A) explain, being very eager to have constant access to food and secure backup from stronger members if they get caught in a fight, that baboons
B) explain that, being very eager to have constant access to food and secure backup from stronger members if they get caught in a fight, baboons
C) explain that because they are very eager to have constant access to food and secure backup from stronger members if they get caught in a fight, so baboons
D) explain, very eager to have constant access to food and secure backup from stronger members being caught in a fight, baboons
E) explain that baboons are very eager for constant access to food and backup from stronger members in a fight, they therefore
I was confused between B & E, and picked B. And the answer is E.
The thing that put me off about E was an entire clause followed by a comma, and then another clause without a conjunction. Therefore, comes after 'they' and I thought that was odd -> which we know by now is a mistake on the GMAT. But any other insights into E?
The only thing I can think of is that the non-restrictive modifier is actually necessary to showcase the meaning of the sentence.
In my opinion option E is wrong. The construction of the sentence is as follows:
Independent clause 1:
Researchers explain that baboons are very eager for constant access to food and backup from stronger members in a fight.
Independent clause 2:
They therefore groom higher-ranking individuals in their group early in the day.
There are two ways to join two independent clauses:
a. comma + conjunction
OR
b. semicolon
Here just a comma is used, making the construction wrong. The correct construction could be:
...... in a fight, AND they therefore...
or,
...... in a fight; they therefore....