Stimulants, such as caffeine, can eliminate pain and fatigue and enhan

Question

Stimulants, such as caffeine, can eliminate  pain and fatigue and enhance alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods, can cause users to develop tolerance and even addiction .

(A) pain and fatigue and enhance alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods, can cause users to develop tolerance and even addiction

(B) pain, fatigue, and enhanced alertness; if used continuously for long periods, though, users can develop tolerance and even addiction to them

(C) pain, fatigue, and enhance alertness; people having used them continuously for long periods, though, can develop tolerance and even addiction to them

(D) pain and fatigue while enhancing alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods, users can develop tolerance and even addiction to them

(E) pain and fatigue, and also enhancing alertness; however, people using them continuously for long periods can develop tolerance and even addiction

blueseas · Accepted Answer

here is OE

The sentence juxtaposes certain positive and negative effects of stimulants. There are two positive effects cited—(a) the elimination of pain and fatigue, and (b) the enhancement of alertness. On the other hand, negative effects—the development of tolerance and/or addiction—are also cited.
 
The two positive effects should appear in a parallel structure. The sentence should also use a proper transition to express the contrast between the positive and negative effects. Finally, the sentence must use modifiers accurately; specifically, “if used continuously…” must properly refer to the stimulants themselves, not to their users.
 
(A) CORRECT. This choice may at first appear to have an unusual structure—specifically, it may appear to be of the form x or y or z—but, on closer inspection, that’s not the construction at work here. Instead, this choice properly places two positive effects of stimulants—eliminate pain and fatigue and enhance alertness—in parallel. The first “and” connects pain and fatigue within the first of the two parallel structures, while the second “and” connects the two parallel structures themselves; therefore, both instances of “and” are necessary.

The modifier if used… properly refers to the subject of the clause, i.e., stimulants. Finally, can cause… is the second half of a compound verb (can eliminate… but… can cause…), whose subject is stimulants as required by context.
 
(B) In this choice, pain, fatigue, and enhanced alertness are all placed in parallel. This construction is nonsense, as it suggests that stimulants can eliminate all three of these phenomena. (In context, it is clear that stimulants produce, rather than eliminate, enhanced alertness.) Additionally, the modifier if used continuously for long periods… illogically describes the subject of the following clause, which is users. In context, that modifier should describe stimulants, not users.
 
(C) The nouns pain and fatigue are not parallel to the verb enhance. Additionally, the modifier having used… is illogical here. It is the process of using the stimulants themselves—not the retrospective fact of having used them—that leads to tolerance or addiction.
 
(D) The modifier if used continuously for long periods… illogically describes the subject of the following clause, which is users. In context, that modifier should describe stimulants, not users.
 
(E) Eliminate and enhancing are not parallel.

HOPE IT HELPS

fameatop · Answer

Stimulants, such as caffeine, can eliminate  pain and fatigue and enhance alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods, can cause users to develop tolerance and even addiction.

a) pain and fatigue and enhance alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods, can  cause users to develop  tolerance and even addiction
 Very tricky option in that the error is subtle. 
" Stimulants can cause users to develop tolerance and even addiction " - Indirect way to say. Stimulants do not cause USER but the use of stimulants that cause problems X &Y
" Users can develop tolerance and even addiction to them " - Direct way to say.
Incorrect

b) pain, fatigue, and enhanced alertness;  if used continuously for long periods, though, users can develop tolerance and even addiction to them 
 Use of Semicolon creates a fragment. Incorrect

c) pain, fatigue, and enhance alertness; people  having used  them continuously for long periods, though, can develop tolerance and even addiction to them
 "Having used" changes the meaning of the sentence as it means if anyone used stimulants even once, the effect will present forever. Incorrect

d) pain and fatigue while enhancing alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods, users can develop tolerance and even addiction to them
 Clearly conveys the meaning. Correct

e) pain and fatigue, and also  enhancing  alertness; however, people using them continuously for long periods can develop tolerance and even addiction
 Gerund Enhancing is not parallel to verb Eliminate. Incorrect

PrateekDua · Answer

The answer will be "A".

Option "B" and "C" are eliminated because of the same reason:-
They used "pain, fatigue, and enhance alertness" which means "Stimulants can-eliminate pain, eliminate fatigue and eliminate enhance alertness" which is obviously wrong.

Option "D" is eliminated because it uses "pain and fatigue while enhancing alertness" which means "elimination and enhancement" are always simultaneous effects.

Option "E" is eliminated because it uses "and also enhancing alertness" which produces redundancy.

chetan2u · Answer

This is from MGCAT.

Stimulants, such as caffeine, can eliminate pain and fatigue and enhance alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods, can cause users to develop tolerance and even addiction.

A pain and fatigue and enhance alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods, can cause users to develop tolerance and even addiction 
B pain, fatigue, and enhanced alertness; if used continuously for long periods, though, users can develop tolerance and even addiction to them
C pain, fatigue, and enhance alertness; people having used them continuously for long periods, though, can develop tolerance and even addiction to them
D pain and fatigue while enhancing alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods, users can develop tolerance and even addiction to them 
E pain and fatigue, and also enhancing alertness; however, people using them continuously for long periods can develop tolerance and even addiction

A is correct answer

hi,
firstly, the choices leave with no option but to mark A as the answer..
now onto your question.. If you look into the question stem, you realize the modifying clause refers directly to stimulants.
there is nothing between the clause and stimulants, to which clause can refer back..
so Yes it can refer to something slightly away if it unambigiously refers to that noun...

Success2015 · Answer

In option A, we have this
Stimulants can eliminate ...., but, if used continuously for long periods,  (stimulants)  can cause
hence 'if used continuously for long periods' is modifying  (stimulants) .

However in option D,
Stimulants can eliminate ..., but, if used continuously for long periods, users can 
here stimulants is not repeating and thus 'if used continuously for long periods' is modifying  users .

Hope this understanding is correct

PrakharGMAT · Answer

Hi Experts /  chetan2u  /  daagh ,

First, I would like to share explanation given by MGMAT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sentence juxtaposes certain positive and negative effects of stimulants. There are two positive effects cited—(a) the elimination of pain and fatigue, and (b) the enhancement of alertness. On the other hand,  negative effects —the  development of tolerance  and/or addiction—are also cited.
 
The two positive effects should appear in a parallel structure. The sentence should also use a proper transition to express the contrast between the positive and negative effects. Finally, the sentence must use modifiers accurately; specifically, “if used continuously…” must properly refer to the stimulants themselves, not to their users.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) how could the " development of tolerance " be the negative effect. IMO its positive effect
If a person has good tolerance power than I think it a good thing..... Please correct my reasoning if wrong.

I would like to discuss between A and D
I opted for wrong option D

A. pain and fatigue and enhance alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods, can cause users  to develop  tolerance and even addiction.
D. pain and fatigue while enhancing alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods, users can develop tolerance and even addiction to them.

After opted for wrong option D, I realized that word  eliminate  and  enhance  must be parallel. So we are only left with option A and C.

Apart from this I want to discuss the usage of  can develop  VS  to develop 
I eliminated A because of usage  to develop

to develop ---> shows INTENTION. It means users are drinking coffee for long periods as they  WANT  to develop tolerance and even addiction.
IMO, this should not be the intended meaning of sentence, that's why I eliminated A.

Please assist, why  to develop  is correct.

daagh · Answer

Prakhar
Hi

To develop tolerance is not a positive factor. Tolerance here does not mean patience or forgiveness. In medical terms, tolerance means immunity or resistance. Therefore developing tolerance is a negative factor. 
Secondly, causing something to develop does not mean intention. It is simply a cause and effect. So we should not disconnect to develop from the causal agent. Further, development of a negative trait cannot logically be by an intention. It is a side effect that occurs in tandem, whether one wants it or not. For example, consider this: If people consume high-fat food, it may lead them to suffer a heart attack. – This does not mean that people consume high-fat food in order to undergo a heart attack.

Therefore, I feel ‘to develop’ is correct in this context.

As regards D, in addition to parallelism, a fatal flaw is that the modifier - if used continuously for long periods,- modifies the users, meaning as though the users are used long periods.

HTH

PrakharGMAT · Answer

Hi  daagh ,

Thank for quick reply. However I still want to discuss one more thing. If in medical terms, tolerance means  immunity  or resistance than also it should be a good thing.
Eg- Eating basil leaves improves immunity.

If a person's  immunity = tolerance  is getting developed than it should be good.

Please assist.

daagh · Answer

Perceptions will differ, but we should take MGMAT's thinking as the final.

EducationAisle · Answer

Hi Prakhar,

i) Immunity to/from a good thing - Bad news (For example, immunity to antibiotics - Bad news)
ii) Immunity to/from a bad thing - Good news (For example, immunity to disease - Good news)

Here, the sentence is talking about  Immunity to a good thing  ( caffeine :  good  because it eliminates pain and fatigue and enhances alertness). Hence here,  immunity  is  bad news  and not  good .

EducationAisle · Answer

Not really. There is no  enhance  in D. It uses  enhancing  and that's fine.

However, as daagh has already mentioned, the big issue with D is that the Participial phrase  if used continuously for long periods  modifies  users , erroneously implying that  users  are used continuously for long periods!

Skywalker18 · Answer

Isn't the usage of 'comma+ but' in option A incorrect?

Comma+ FANBOYS is used to separate two independent clauses.

1. I went home, and then I slept- Correct
2. I went home, then I slept - Run-on
3. I went home and slept - Correct; here 2 verbs are added, not two clauses
4. I went home, and slept - Incorrect

OA- A seems analogous to case 4 above.

AjiteshArun  ,  GMATNinja  ,  MagooshExpert  ,  GMATGuruNY  ,  VeritasPrepBrian  ,  MartyMurray  ,  DmitryFarber  ,  daagh  ,  generis  , other experts - please enlighten

AjiteshArun · Answer

Some  people would consider the use of a comma in  I went home, and slept  incorrect. This is not a strict rule and such commas are used frequently by even the best writers.

Because the GMAT does not test it, we should avoid applying this "rule".

GMATNinja · Answer

As  AjiteshArun  correctly notes, almost every comma "rule" can be violated.

In general, the more stuff we cram into a sentence, the more useful it might be to include some commas to make things clearer to a reader. Consider a simple example:

"Zoe loves her pet poodle but would rather not clean up after him."

This is conventional usage, since I'm not introducing a list or a new clause. But ultimately, the question of whether to include a comma after "poodle" is up to the writer's discretion. To me, this sentence seems clear enough as it is.

But now take a more complicated version of the same sentence:

"Zoe loves her pet poodle and pet cockatiel and enjoys pitting them against each other in games of Twister, but hates cleaning up after them."

There's no rule dictating that I absolutely NEED that comma after "Twister," but because I've included another object (the cockatiel) and another verb (enjoys), the sentence is just harder to read without the comma, which allows the reader to take a much-needed pause.

The takeaway: there are very few ironclad rules involving commas, and the GMAT rarely uses punctuation as a decision point, so try to find more definitive reasons for eliminating answer choices.

I hope that helps!

Kritisood · Answer

daagh   AjiteshArun

Should there not be an "it" before "can cause":

Stimulants, such as caffeine, can eliminate pain and fatigue and enhance alertness, but, if used continuously for long periods,  it  can cause users to develop tolerance and even addiction.

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi  Kritisood ,

Good question. There are a couple of issues we should look at:

1. Let's take all the extra stuff out.
 Stimulants , such as caffeine,  can eliminate pain and fatigue... but , if used continuously for long periods,  can cause users to develop tolerance....

Stimulants (1)  can eliminate  A and B... but (2)  can cause  Y.

The  enhance  complicates things a bit, but doesn't lead to any major changes in our analysis.

2. The subject is  stimulants  (plural), so we would not really want to use an  it  (singular).
  Stimulants  , such as caffeine,  can eliminate pain and fatigue, but  it  can cause users to develop tolerance.

To summarize: adding a  they  would not hurt, but is not necessary. The sentence is clear enough in its current form (a  they  may in fact confuse the reader: does the  they  refer to  stimulants  or to  pain and fatigue ?).

Krishchamp · Answer

AjiteshArun  ,  GMATNinja  ,  MagooshExpert  ,  GMATGuruNY  ,  VeritasPrepBrian  , @MartyMurray ,  DmitryFarber  ,  daagh  ,  generis   VeritasKarishma   egmat

Hi, I just want to ask why in option D 'used' cant refer back to stimulants? How should one decide what is 'used' modifying (users or stimulants)? Please guide me. Thanks in advance.

GMATGuruNY · Answer

D:   Stimulants, such as caffeine, can eliminate pain and fatigue while enhancing alertness , but,  if used continuously for long periods, users can develop tolerance and even addiction to them .  
Here,  but  serves to connect the blue clause to the red clause.
Each of these clauses is INDEPENDENT: each has a subject and verb and thus must be able to stand on its own as a complete sentence.
The red clause, on its own:
  If used continuously for long periods, users can develop tolerance and even addiction to them .  
Here,  used  seems to modify  users , implying that USERS are USED CONTINUOUSLY.
This meaning is nonsensical. 
Eliminate D.

Generally, if a conjunction serves to connect two independent clauses: 
Any modifier in the first clause must refer to a word in the first clause.
Any modifier in the second clause must refer to a word in the second clause.

razorhell · Answer

GMATNinja  / AjiteshArun

I am actually confused whether  "If used continuously...."  is in the simple past tense. If yes then shouldn't the "then-clause" be either in simple past or follow would + verb structure?

Ex - I used to be good at English grammar. This is a simple past, but what tense is followed in the if clause in choice A? Could you please help to clarify my doubt?

Moreover, if we are referring to a condition that never occurred in past. We use  if + had + condition, then + would + have (present perfect)  construction. Is my understanding correct here?

Thanks,
Razor!

Stimulants, such as caffeine, can eliminate pain and fatigue and enhan

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Stimulants, such as caffeine, can eliminate pain and fatigue and enhan

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards