Stock levels for domestic crude oil are far lower than in past years

Can somebody explain why we needn’t repeat ‘to’ second time?
Thanks in advance.

'to' isn't needed because its implied, since it applies to both parts of the 'x and y' statements.

Also, as a general tip, usually when you see 'being' on the GMAT, the choice will be the wrong choice.

The word 'being' is an issue in Option A.

Eliminate (D) and (E) since stock levels result in the fact is quite awkward.
eliminate (C) since usage of as was does not have tense agreement
with the current statement.
(A) is eliminated since it says growth is prompted by colder than normal .I believe it should be demad is prompted by colder than normal temp. Again might be usage in (B) is better than possibly prompted

Question implies the following :

Lower stock levels of domestic crude oil - leave oil prices vulnerable to - hints of oil supply disruptions in Middle East, (or) unexpected growth in (possible) consumer demand

Keeping this in mind, lets move on to the answer choices

A. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies being disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected consumer demand growth possibly - 'being disrupted' indicates ongoing disruption by someone. 'possibly prompted' - awkward
B. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supply disruptions in the Middle East or any unexpected growth in consumer demand that might be - usage of 'might be' rightly leads on the possibility intended. 'hints of oil supply disruption in' is concise and straightforward.
C. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies that are disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected growth in consumer demand as was possibly - as was possibly is wrong tense . also possibly again introduces same awkwardness as in choice A
D. resulting in the fact that domestic oil prices are vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies being disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected consumer demand growth possibly - errors similar to option A
E. resulting in the fact of domestic oil prices that are vulnerable to any hints of oil supply disruptions in the Middle East or to any unexpected growth in consumer demand that might be - 'resulting in the fact of' is improper and awkward construction


IMO B

Stock levels for domestic crude oil are far lower than in past years, leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies being disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected consumer demand growth possibly prompted by colder-than-normal temperatures.

A. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies being disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected consumer demand growth possibly
Being -> Normally indicates something which is happening right now

B. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supply disruptions in the Middle East or any unexpected growth in consumer demand that might be - Looks correct

C. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies that are disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected growth in consumer demand as was possibly

That are disrupted ->Modifies oil supplies . The oil supplies are not disrupted yet but there might be a speculation that oil supplies might get disrupted
Possibly prompted by Colder Temp -> acts as an adverbial modifier which explains growth in consumer demand. "was as " -> Doesn't make sense

D. resulting in the fact that domestic oil prices are vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies being disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected consumer demand growth possibly
resulting in the fact that -> Can be expressed succinctly as Option A/B/C. That is one of the primary functions of participle modifier
being -> Currently happening -> Usage is incorrect.

E. resulting in the fact of domestic oil prices that are vulnerable to any hints of oil supply disruptions in the Middle East or to any unexpected growth in consumer demand that might be
resulting in the fact that -> Can be expressed succinctly as Option A/B/C. That is one of the primary functions of participle modifier

Stock levels for domestic crude oil are far lower than in past years, leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies being disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected consumer demand growth possibly prompted by colder-than-normal temperatures.

A. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies being disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected consumer demand growth possibly
B. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supply disruptions in the Middle East or any unexpected growth in consumer demand that might be
C. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies that are disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected growth in consumer demand as was possibly
D. resulting in the fact that domestic oil prices are vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies being disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected consumer demand growth possibly
E. resulting in the fact of domestic oil prices that are vulnerable to any hints of oil supply disruptions in the Middle East or to any unexpected growth in consumer demand that might be

AD: Wrong; we need "unexpected growth in consumer demand" not "unexpected consumer growth"
ACD: Wrong; we need "hints of oil supply disruptions" not "hints of oil supplies"
E: Wrong; wordier than B
B: Correct

Takeaway: Follow the meaning and scan like crazy.

Three factors are inherent here.

1. Being is certainly a modifier here. Ask what is being disrupted. It gives the answer that it is the oil supplies, so it is a modifier. On the contrary, a progressive tense will always involve a linking verb such as is, are, was, were, has been, and have been etc, and a host of many other forms that are derivatives of the base verb ‘be’.
2. The oil supply disruption is one of the future possibilities and hence the disruptions are not occurring at the present.
3. Resulting is a current happening, while ‘leaving to vulnerable’ denotes a future event.


A. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies being disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected consumer demand growth possibly -- being is a modifier; hence wrong.

B. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supply disruptions in the Middle East or any unexpected growth in consumer demand that might be – correct choice.

C. leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies that are disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected growth in consumer demand as was possibly --- that are disrupted denotes that the disruption has already occurred. – This is an altered intent.

D. resulting in the fact that domestic oil prices are vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies being disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected consumer demand growth possibly --- ‘resulting’ is wrong in addition to the ‘being’ which is a modifier.

E. resulting in the fact of domestic oil prices that are vulnerable to any hints of oil supply disruptions in the Middle East or to any unexpected growth in consumer demand that might be -- resulting is wrong. Plus the unconcise and unidiomatic ‘resulting in the fact of'

Since the main doubt is between A and B, let me focus on why A is wrong

unexpected consumer demand growth possibly prompted by colder-than-normal temperatures.

Possibly is an adverb, it is modifying prompted.

So it's saying " This thing" is possibly prompted by this ... there is no doubt that there will be growth in consumer demand, one possible reason is colder than normal temp.

This is wrong!!! We need to talk about the possibility that this scenario might occur ... not the possible reasons why this will occur. Therefore possibly prompted is wrong here.

B clearly clarifies that it is the scenario that might occur!!!

Clear B

Please explain the exact difference between A and B. When to use "to x or to y"

devikeerthansr There's no absolute rule about when to say "to X or to Y" vs. "to X or Y." The simplest answer is that we use the former when it's needed to make the meaning clear. If the meaning is clear enough without that added structure, we can drop the extra "to," but that doesn't make its use incorrect.

This applies broadly to any preposition that is "distributed" across parallel terms. For instance, I can say "I am a fan of jazz and rock" or "I am a fan of jazz and of rock." The extra "of" in the second sentence seems awkward and formal, but there's nothing grammatically wrong with it. It just isn't helping the meaning. However, what if I say something more complicated?

I am a fan of jazz that incorporates elements of classical music and of rock that features extensive improvisation.

The second "of" makes it clear that I like two different kinds of music--a certain kind of jazz and a certain kind of rock--rather than jazz that incorporates everything else that follows in the sentence. For this reason, "of" is essential to a clear reading of the sentence.

So how do we choose between A and B? Both of the parallel terms in A are bad. It's not good to say "supplies being disrupted" when we can use the more direct "supply disruptions." (Beware of that word "being," which is often used awkwardly in SC.) We also don't want to say "possibly prompted." Blackfoot1992 goes into some detail on this above.

daagh
In B How the two part are parallel
the first part to... is phrase where the other part is clause

teaser



B. Stock levels for domestic crude oil are far lower than in past years, leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supply disruptions in the Middle East or any unexpected growth in consumer demand that might be prompted by colder-than-normal temperatures.

The correct way to parse this sentence is:

1. Stock levels for domestic crude oil are far lower than in past years, leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to

2. any hints of oil supply disruptions in the Middle East or any unexpected growth in consumer demand that might be prompted by colder-than-normal temperatures.

You can see that "any hints… The Middle East", a noun phrase joined by a conjunction 'or', is parallel to "any unexpected growth in consumer demand that might be prompted by colder-than-normal temperatures", another noun phrase nested with a relative clause. The clue lies in both the phrases starting with 'any hint' and 'any unexpected growth

"hint of oil supplies " is wrong. after "hint of" , a noun can be used , but the noun must be an action noun, but not now showing entities.

"hint of discruption" is correct because discruption is an action noun.

similarly, "the fact of prices" is wrong in choice E.

Hi,

(A) leaving domestic oil prices vulnerable to any hints of oil supplies being disrupted in the Middle East or to any unexpected consumer demand growth possibly

above we have two modifiers:

''oil supplies being disrupted'': 'being'' acting as noun modifier. Whats wrong in it?

''consumer demand growth possibly promted by'': ed verbal modifying noun. Whats wrong here?

"Hint of" has to introduce a noun. It makes far more sense to write that there are "hints of disruptions," which is what we get in (B), than to write that there are "hints of oil supplies," which is what we see in (A).

So "being" can modify "oil supplies," but having "oil supplies" as the main noun in the construction is illogical. That's a problem.

I hope that clears things up!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.