Scientists have observed large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits

"Which" jumps out at me here. It seems to be suggesting that the sediments are consistent with the growth of industrial activity, and that really doesn't make sense. I suppose you could try to argue that this is some sort of violation of the "touch rule", and the phrase "which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity" reaches all the way back to "large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper twenty centimeters of Baltic Sea sediments"... but holy crap, that's a stretch. I'm not buying it.

Plus, "there" isn't very clear. The nearest location is the "upper twenty centimeters of Baltic Sea sediments", and that's not where the growth of industrial activity happened. Eliminate (A).


The problem is similar to that of (A): "where" seems to be modifying "sediments", and that makes no sense. Eliminate (B).


The pronoun "its" jumps out at me here, in keeping with our advice in this week's long-winded Topic of the Week. The only singular noun it could refer back to is "Baltic Sea" -- so "the Baltic Sea's growth of industrial activity"?? That doesn't make sense, either. Eliminate (C).


OK, this is pretty nice. It's clearer with the repetition of the word "findings", and "in the area" clarifies that the industrial activity is around the Baltic Sea, not in it. Keep (D).


The only real issue for me here is the word "there." The only location that it could plausibly refer back to is the Baltic Sea, and again, that's not where the growth of industrial activity is happening.

So (D) is better than (E).
_________________

This is a good modifier question: You may view video solution below. This contains detailed explanation of why original choice is wrong and why other incorrect choices are incorrect.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXah1HdaiV0[/youtube]


You ask a very good question about the correct answer choice. It is a very good practice to thoroughly review the structure of the correct answer choice. The correct answer choice in this case utilizes a modifier that is called as Noun + Noun Modifier. Here "findings" is the noun part and "consistent with..." is the noun modifier of this noun. I suggest you review the article here for more details on this modifier. It would present a lot more clarity.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Payal
_________________

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that scientists have observed large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper twenty centimeters of sediments from the Baltic Sea, and these observations are findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Modifiers + Pronouns

• "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.
• "where" is only used to refer to a physical location.

A: This answer choice suffers from a pronoun error, as the pronoun "there" lacks a logical referent. Further, Option A incorrectly refers to "Baltic Sea sediments" with the phrase "which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity", illogically implying that the Baltic Sea sediments are consistent with the growth of industrial activity; the intended meaning is that the scientists' observations regarding large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits are consistent with the growth of industrial activity; please remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.

B: This answer choice incorrectly refers to "Baltic Sea sediments" with "where"; please remember, "where" is only used to refer to a physical location.

C: This answer choice suffers from a pronoun error, as the pronoun "its" lacks a logical referent.

D: Correct. This answer choice avoids the pronoun errors seen in Options A, B, C, and E, as it employs no pronouns. Further, Option D uses the phrase "findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area", conveying the intended meaning - that the scientists' observations regarding large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits are consistent with the growth of industrial activity.

E: This answer choice suffers from a pronoun error, as the pronoun "there" lacks a logical referent.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Which, Who. Whose, and Where" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

IMO D

(A) Baltic Sea sediments, which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity there

which refers to sediments. The sediments cannot be consistent with the growth of industrial activity. out

(B) Baltic Sea sediments, where the growth of industrial activity is consistent with these findings

where refers to sediments which are not a place. out

(C) Baltic Sea sediments, findings consistent with its growth of industrial activity
its has no clear antecedent, perhaps Baltic Sea? can a sea have growth of industrial activity? out

(D) sediments from the Baltic Sea, findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area
correct

(E) sediments from the Baltic Sea, consistent with the growth of industrial activity there
consistent seems to modify the previous clause. In addition there has no clear reference. It can refer to Baltic Sea but as It's already been said the sea has not growth of industrial activity.

Scientists have observed large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper twenty centimeters of Baltic Sea sediments, which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity there.

A. Baltic Sea sediments, which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity there “,which” implies that “Baltic Sea sediments” are consistent with the growth of industrial activity. The original sentence is referring to “large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits”

B. Baltic Sea sediments, where the growth of industrial activity is consistent with these findings “,where” implies that “Baltic Sea sediments” are consistent with the growth of industrial activity. The original sentence is referring to “large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits”

C. Baltic Sea sediments, findings consistent with its growth of industrial activity Unclear what “its” refers to.

D. sediments from the Baltic Sea, findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area The intended meaning is clear.

E. sediments from the Baltic Sea, consistent with the growth of industrial activity there It is not clear what “there” refers to.

- Nitha Jay

Baltic sea sediments is a wrong usage.It should be sediments from Baltic sea..

similar examples-I talked to the Indian soldier(Too Short)
I talked to the soldier from India(Better)

ural mountain ore ore from the ural mountain
Aegean sea salt salt from Aegean sea

Ergo A,B,C is not correct.

so now it is between D and E.
E is wrong because of "there"

Ergo D is the answer..

Scientists have observed large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper twenty centimeters of Baltic Sea sediments, which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity there.

(A) Baltic Sea sediments, which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity there
First, I disagree with some previous posters. I believe the prepositional phrases should be disregarded and which refers to concentrations.

**EDIT (Oct 13, 2012): using are after which refers the reader to the most recent plural noun (sediments). In my original comment, I misspoke. The way the sentence is originally stated (and in option choice A), which are refers to sediments, but this isn't logical and it's understood that it wasn't the author's intent. The author intends to refer to the scientists' observation, which commands a singular verb (in other words, we need which is). Note that although the scientists observed concentrations (plural), their observation (singular) is what the relative clause beginning with which refers to.**

The phrase which are consistent with the growth doesn't match large concentrations. Growth cannot be consistent with concentrations (nor can it be consistent with sediments, centimeters, or deposits, for that matter). Also, Baltic Sea sediments isn't perfectly clear because Baltic Sea is a noun, not an adjective. In conversational speech, we often use nouns as adjectives, but it's not proper.

(B) Baltic Sea sediments, where the growth of industrial activity is consistent with these findings
Baltic Sea sediments is not a place, so where has no application here. Also, the ending is awkwardly worded. Findings are consistent with facts, not the other way around. Again, Baltic Sea sediments is improper.

(C) Baltic Sea sediments, findings consistent with its growth of industrial activity
its has no logical referent. Again, Baltic Sea sediments is improper.

(D) sediments from the Baltic Sea, findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area
This sounds all right.

(E) sediments from the Baltic Sea, consistent with the growth of industrial activity there
Scientists observing concentrations can't be consistent with growth.
_________________

This is one of those booby traps that the GMAT folks try to trick you on.

The general rule is that an -ING verb positioned there modifies the subject.

But do we have an -ING verb?

Initially, it might LOOK like an -ING verb---but actually it's used as a NOUN.

The key is to notice the 's' at the end of FINDINGS. This tells us that we are dealing with a noun here.

Also, if you flip it - it doesn't make sense:

"Findings consistent with the growth of X, scientists have observed..." - it does not make sense for the descriptive phrase to modify the subject SCIENTISTS. Therefore, we know this is not the -ING verb that modifies the subject.

So keep in mind - look out for -ING verbs as possible descriptive phrases modifying the subject - but also be wary of booby traps--cases in which the -ING word is NOT used as a descriptive phrase. In this case, it's used as a noun that further describes what the scientists have observed.

it is difficult for me to understand why B is wrong?

The easiest way to eliminate B is that where is used to modify a place. Baltic Sea sediments is not a place; it is a thing (in lack of better word).

The way where is used in this sentence, it is a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns have many characteristics that are tested on GMAT. For example, the relative pronouns that and which cannot modify people and many other things.

p.s. These have been discussed in detail in our book. If you can PM me your mail id, I can send the corresponding section to you.
_________________

I am elaborating choice D in full:
Scientists have observed large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper twenty centimeters of sediments from the Baltic Sea, findings (findings is an appositive modifier standing for large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits) (that are) consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area. The highlighted portions are required to be understood.
_________________

Expert,

I went through all the posts but I am unable to find clear answers for my doubts below.

1. In the original sentence, "which" refers to??
-- I think which refers to "concentrations of deposits" because we have a long prepositional modifier after concentrations.
Please confirm if my understanding is correct. I find this to be inconsistent with e-gmat solution where they mentioned that "which" refers to "Sediments".

2. Whats the real difference between "Baltic sea sediments" and "Sediments from baltic sea" ??

1. It does not matter, what "which" refers to. In either case ("concentrations of deposits" / "sediments") the sentence is wrong. The finding is consistent, not concentrations of deposits or sediments. However to answer your question, ideally "which" refers to "sediments" (modifier touch rule).

2. Both mean the same.

Indeed not much difference in terms of meaning. From a Grammar perspective, in the phrase Baltic sea sediments, the word Baltic sea is used as an adjective. In other words, Baltic sea (in the phrase Baltic sea sediments) seems to depict a type of sediment.

This is what tilts the balance against it; we can have coarse sediment, alluvial sediment etc. but not Baltic sea sediments (Baltic sea is not an attribute but a place that the sediments are from).

Again, this is not something that you should be phenomenally concerned about (and GMAT is actually flexible also on this front).

However, since a vertical scan of choices does show this split in this sentence, it's one of the factors you could use to finalize the write answer.
_________________

Hello RMD007,

Thank you for posting the query.

In a sentence that contains a noun modifier, we first check the noun immediately preceding the noun modifier to check if the modifier makes sense in modifying the immediate preceding noun entity. If the immediate preceding noun fails to make sense with the noun modifier, then we look for a far away noun to see if a far away noun makes sense with the modifier.

In the said official sentence, neither the immediate preceding noun sediments makes sense with which nor the far away noun large concentrations. Hence, it is not incorrect to say that which does not make sense with sediments because the far-away noun also does not make sense with this modifier.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hi egmat

As per the link given in solution regarding noun+noun modifier, this modifiers usually modifies
noun, the placement of which is context dependent.

At first glance seeing a coma, I immediately discarded this choice using HOW/WHY aspect of coma +
verb-ing form. However, as explained by Payal the word functioning acts a a noun here.

I still have query regarding sentence structure here:

Scientists have observed
(scientists have observed two things which needs to be parallel)

large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper twenty centimeters of Baltic Sea sediments,
findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area.

As per logic in the article, the findings should ideally modify noun sediments, but it still does not make sense.
Did I understand correctly that findings modify the verb observed?
_________________

Hello adkikani /Arpit,

Thanks for sending the PM for this one.

It seems you have lot of gaps in your understanding at various levels.



This is not correct. A Noun + Noun Modifier can modify either a noun in the preceding clause or the entire preceding clause. The modification depends on the context and the intended meaning of the sentence. This official sentence is the example in which the Noun + Noun modifier findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area. The modifier is not meant to modify the sediments. It is meant to present more description about the scientists have found.



There is nothing in this sentence that needs to be parallel.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hi adkikani, I believe you're referring to the following structure:

findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area

This is an absolute modifier construct and as you rightly mentioned, the structure is: noun (in this case findings)+noun modifier (in this case consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area)

Absolute modifiers are quite flexible in what they modify.

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

Hello Arpit, adkikani,

Just pay attention to the structure. The word findings has been followed by an adjective consistent that describes findings. So obviously we have a Noun + Noun modifier here.

That will not be the case with comma + verb-ing modifier.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________