zoezhuyan wrote:
mikemcgarry wrote:
Dear
zoezhuyanHaving "
because" and "
due to" in the same sentence is not necessarily redundant. It may just indicate a layered discussion of causality, with different causes discussed at different levels. The (A) & (B) have other problems, but it would be perfectly possible to have a valid and logical statement with both "
because" and "
due to."
The state is raising highway taxes because the frequent traffic delays, due to flooding, necessitate improvements in the highway drainage systems.
Nothing is redundant in that sentence. It just happens that one cause-effect discussion is nestled inside another. The GMAT loves to
nest one idea inside another.
Mike
Hi
mike,
I am back here and post a new question ,because we discussed "
because (of) " and "
due to" above and I want to further discuss a new similar phrase "result from" from GMAT exam 2, rather than discuss one case , although this question exists in other catalog of GC.
here is the question:
Since the start of space age, more and more littering has occurred in orbits near Earth, often because of the intentional discarding of lens caps, packing material, fuel tanks and payload covers.
a) more and more littering has occured in orbits near Earth, often because of
b) orbits near Earth have become more and more littered, often from
c) orbits near Earth became littered more and more, often resulting from
d) there have been more and more littering of orbits near Earth, often because of
e) there had been littering more and more of orbits near Earth, often withfrom your
article, I got the idea that "
because" modifies target action and that "
due to" modifies target noun. Well, my interpretation of "result from" is little.
like this case, I cross off C because I think that it will be better to place "
often resulting from" in front of the main clause
"orbits near Earth became littered more and more".
because "comma + participle phrase" can indicate causal relationship, if "comma + participle phrase" suggests a cause, then it will be placed in front of the main clause, if "comma + participle phrase" suggests a effect, then it will be placed at the ending of the sentence.
examples from MANHATTAN:the engineer fixed the problem,
earning himself a promotion. -- the effect is "promotion"
Slipping on the ice, she broke her ankle. -- the cause is "slipping"
back to GMAT exam 2 SC question, when
"result from" introduces a cause, I think it will be better if place
"result from" in front of the main clause.
please confirm my reasoning, and point out.
thanks in advance.
have a nice day
>_~
Dear
zoezhuyan,
How are you, my friend? I'm happy to respond.
First of all, my friend, I am going to chastise you. You are in the very bad habit of entering a thread on one question and then posting an entirely different question and asking about that. This makes the threads very disorganized and it does a disservice to the other users of GMAT Club. You originally posted this question
here, but this is the thread devoted specifically to the discussion of this GMAT Prep question. This is really where the discussion of this question should happen. GMAT Club has a certain organization and when students respect this organization, then GMAT Club can provide the highest value to all students.
I will say that while "
because" is begins a full subordinate clause, a full [noun] + [verb] clause, the construction "
because of" is a compound preposition, and the object of this will be either a noun or something playing the role of a noun (such as a gerund).
In the question you posted,
(B) is the OA and is really the best answer by far. I would say the best reason to reject (C) is that it is too wordy, longer than it has to be. (B) is much more elegant. Also, the change in verb tense ("
became") changes the meaning.
You wrote:
because "comma + participle phrase" can indicate causal relationship, if "comma + participle phrase" suggests a cause, then it will be placed in front of the main clause, if "comma + participle phrase" suggests a effect, then it will be placed at the ending of the sentence.I don't fully agree. That is too dogmatic. You are trying to be too mathematical with language. These are, at best, general tendencies, not black & white strict rules. Yes, these are often true, but not always true. They cannot be applied to all cases, irrespective of content.
I would say that having a "
resulting from" phrase at the beginning of the sentence would sound extremely awkward. This is a phrase that "belongs" after the main clause.
My friend, here's the problem. You are trying to learn grammar the way one would learn mathematics. You are trying to learn all the rules, as if there were some complete set of rules. This course of action will NOT result in SC mastery. This is an extremely left-brain approach, and SC mastery involves right-brains skills as well. The very best way to develop a sense of how "
resulting from" would be used is not to apply some abstract rule. The best way is to read extensively, and when you see this in your reading, you will have a sense of how it is used in the living language. You have to read to build the intuition for how English is used. No memorizing of rules can replace that hard-won intuition.
Does all this make sense?
Have a very good day, my friend.
Mike