Scientists have observed large cracks that go on for miles in gigantic

Scientists have observed large cracks that go on for miles in gigantic Antarctica icebergs, which are consistent with the predictions of global warming.


• which must refer to a noun but the logical antecedent word observations [of large cracks] is never actually articulated
→ which probably refers to icebergs, could refer to large cracks, but in any case, lacks an antecedent.
Icebergs are not consistent with predictions of global warming; what the scientists observe about large cracks in the icebergs is consistent with global warming

• "Antarctica icebergs" is inferior to "icebergs in Antarctica" and is sort of "squashed" or "collapsed."
This usage is similar to the construction that I discussed in this OE, here.
ELIMINATE A

• I see no errors
• findings consistent with the predictions of global warming is a modifier of the idea presented in the previous clause
• findings correctly refers back to the observations of the scientists; we are allowed to rename the idea contained in the previous clause.
→ this kind of modifier is called a summative modifier and is a special kind of appositive
We use a word that summarizes the idea from the previous clause (hence "summative") and give more detail about that clause.

•the icebergs are best described as gigantic icebergs in Antarctica, not gigantic Antarctica icebergs.

• findings consistent actually means findings that are consistent
→ findings consistent is called a "reduced relative clause"
→ we "reduce" the relative clause findings that are consistent by
(1) removing the relative pronoun (that), and
(2) removing the TO BE verb
You absolutely do not need to know the grammar terms that I am using here.
But you do need to understand what a reduced relative clause is, because you will see them frequently on the GMAT.
→ I have explained them quite a few times; one such post is here, especially in the footnote, which links you to a short and effective article about reduced relative clauses.
KEEP

• consistent with the predictions of global warming is problematic:
→ to what, exactly, does this phrase refer?
→ similar to the problems with which in option A, this modifier needs a noun (such as findings), but no such noun exists in the first clause
ELIMINATE C


• icebergs are not the logical where, and whatever is agreeing with what does not happen on the iceberg, but rather in the scientists' observations
• meaning issue: saying that predictions agree with findings is slightly off, meaning-wise.
→ If anything, we would say that the findings agree with the predictions.
→ We could say that predictions anticipated the findings, but to say that the predictions agree with the findings is out of sequence and syntactically odd.
• (D) is not as good as (B)
ELIMINATE D

[/quote]
• icebergs in Antarctica is better than this option's Antarctica icebergs
• the word the is incorrect.
→ the indicates particular global warming predictions, but we have not heard anything about particular predictions.
If we have not heard of these particular predictions, why are we referring to them?
→ that is, we use "the" to introduce a noun about which we have already heard
ELIMINATE E

AntrikshR , welcome to SC Butler.

I think that this question is really hard if you rely on grammar alone.
Actually, I think that this question is just hard.

Answers here range from good to excellent. Kudos to all. Well done.