Last visit was: 17 Jul 2025, 22:11 It is currently 17 Jul 2025, 22:11
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
User avatar
gmexamtaker1
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2018
Last visit: 13 Feb 2023
Posts: 210
Own Kudos:
76
Given Kudos: 261
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 210
Kudos: 76
The emerging field of architectural climatology centers on t 23 Dec 2020, 12:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello experts,
I was wondering if somebody could help me with answer choice B, specifically I want to make sure that I have understood why the second part (after the semi-colon) is not considered an independent one.

My analysis is that, "could prevent" could be considered the verb of "that" , so artificial reefs remain without a verb, thus the sentence is not an independent one.
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,380
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,380
 [1]
The emerging field of architectural climatology centers on t 23 Dec 2020, 12:54
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
UNSTOPPABLE12
Hello experts,
I was wondering if somebody could help me with answer choice B, specifically I want to make sure that I have understood why the second part (after the semi-colon) is not considered an independent one.

My analysis is that, "could prevent" could be considered the verb of "that" , so artificial reefs remain without a verb, thus the sentence is not an independent one.
That is exactly right, UNSTOPPABLE12. The subject of the second supposed clause, artificial "reefs," lacks a verb.

for example, artificial "reefs" of precisely shaped marine platforms that could prevent hurricanes from forming

From of on is an extended prepositional phrase, and the embedded that clause takes its own verb: [platforms] could prevent hurricanes from forming. Although it would make sense to say that the reefs could prevent the same, we would then be left with a that clause marker that would need to be deleted.

for example, artificial "reefs" of precisely shaped marine platforms that could prevent hurricanes from forming

Since you cannot negotiate the that, you know that the part after the semicolon is not an independent clause. Well done.

- Andrew
User avatar
gmexamtaker1
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2018
Last visit: 13 Feb 2023
Posts: 210
Own Kudos:
76
Given Kudos: 261
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 210
Kudos: 76
The emerging field of architectural climatology centers on t 23 Dec 2020, 13:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN
UNSTOPPABLE12
Hello experts,
I was wondering if somebody could help me with answer choice B, specifically I want to make sure that I have understood why the second part (after the semi-colon) is not considered an independent one.

My analysis is that, "could prevent" could be considered the verb of "that" , so artificial reefs remain without a verb, thus the sentence is not an independent one.
That is exactly right, UNSTOPPABLE12. The subject of the second supposed clause, artificial "reefs," lacks a verb.

for example, artificial "reefs" of precisely shaped marine platforms that could prevent hurricanes from forming

From of on is an extended prepositional phrase, and the embedded that clause takes its own verb: [platforms] could prevent hurricanes from forming. Although it would make sense to say that the reefs could prevent the same, we would then be left with a that clause marker that would need to be deleted.

for example, artificial "reefs" of precisely shaped marine platforms that could prevent hurricanes from forming

Since you cannot negotiate the that, you know that the part after the semicolon is not an independent clause. Well done.

- Andrew

ANDREW first of all thank you for your prompt reply and the superb explanation ,

Just to make sure that I have completely understood the role of "that" in this sentence, so basically "that" in our case could refer to either "platforms" or "reefs" (of precisely shaped marine platforms is the modifier of reefs so "that" could modify reefs remotely) . If, that modifies "platform" then "could prevent" would be the verb of the sentence and the sentence would not be independent, but if somehow we knew that "that" modifies reefs (and in that case I suppose the existence of "that" would be optional , or even needs to be deleted to not make the sentence ambiguous ) then the sentence could be considered independent?
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,380
 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,380
 [2]
The emerging field of architectural climatology centers on t 23 Dec 2020, 13:55
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
UNSTOPPABLE12
AndrewN
UNSTOPPABLE12
Hello experts,
I was wondering if somebody could help me with answer choice B, specifically I want to make sure that I have understood why the second part (after the semi-colon) is not considered an independent one.

My analysis is that, "could prevent" could be considered the verb of "that" , so artificial reefs remain without a verb, thus the sentence is not an independent one.
That is exactly right, UNSTOPPABLE12. The subject of the second supposed clause, artificial "reefs," lacks a verb.

for example, artificial "reefs" of precisely shaped marine platforms that could prevent hurricanes from forming

From of on is an extended prepositional phrase, and the embedded that clause takes its own verb: [platforms] could prevent hurricanes from forming. Although it would make sense to say that the reefs could prevent the same, we would then be left with a that clause marker that would need to be deleted.

for example, artificial "reefs" of precisely shaped marine platforms that could prevent hurricanes from forming

Since you cannot negotiate the that, you know that the part after the semicolon is not an independent clause. Well done.

- Andrew

ANDREW first of all thank you for your prompt reply and the superb explanation ,

Just to make sure that I have completely understood the role of "that" in this sentence, so basically "that" in our case could refer to either "platforms" or "reefs" (of precisely shaped marine platforms is the modifier of reefs so "that" could modify reefs remotely) . If, that modifies "platform" then "could prevent" would be the verb of the sentence and the sentence would not be independent, but if somehow we knew that "that" modifies reefs (and in that case I suppose the existence of "that" would be optional , or even needs to be deleted to not make the sentence ambiguous ) then the sentence could be considered independent?
The that in the sentence at hand must refer to marine platforms; otherwise, there is an extraneous that in the sentence. But, of course, this creates a problem with semicolon usage: a phrase cannot be placed in the slot of a second independent clause in this construct. If the word in question were deleted, then yes, could prevent would reach back to artificial "reefs," and there would be no problem whatsoever. Since you have to go by what is on the screen, you know that that cannot be ignored, and that means that the second "independent clause" is actually incomplete, and the use of the semicolon is incorrect.

- Andrew
User avatar
miko2010
User avatar
Joined: 26 Nov 2022
Last visit: 26 Jun 2024
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 22
Posts: 37
Kudos: 1
The emerging field of architectural climatology centers on t 07 Apr 2023, 06:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
can someone please explain why the first sentence is an IC ?
User avatar
GMATmona07
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2022
Last visit: 13 Sep 2023
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 79
Posts: 24
Kudos: 3
The emerging field of architectural climatology centers on t 19 Jun 2023, 20:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN will you please explain the non underlined portion of the sentence, I'm unable to understand it's meaning & find the verb also.

Thanks
User avatar
GmatKnightTutor
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Last visit: 17 Jul 2025
Posts: 5,023
Own Kudos:
1,525
Given Kudos: 18
Posts: 5,023
Kudos: 1,525
The emerging field of architectural climatology centers on t 19 Jun 2023, 20:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The emerging field of architectural climatology centers on the potential of as-yet-undeveloped architecture and landscaping to alter, redirect, or dissipate weather systems; for instance, hurricanes prevented from forming by artificial "reefs" of precisely shaped marine platforms.

The field of climatology CENTERS on the potential of architecture to alter weather systems.

CENTERS - > Verb
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,380
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,380
 [1]
The emerging field of architectural climatology centers on t 20 Jun 2023, 04:03
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATmona07
AndrewN will you please explain the non underlined portion of the sentence, I'm unable to understand it's meaning & find the verb also.

Thanks
Well, GMATmona07, since a non-AndrewN felt the need to jump in and point out verbs, I will say on that point that centers is, in fact, the verb. As for the non-underlined portion, how about we see if we can break it down? I will include the word systems at the end for clarity.

Quote:
The emerging field of architectural climatology centers on the potential of as-yet-undeveloped architecture and landscaping to alter, redirect, or dissipate weather systems.
The sentence describes a new field of study, architectural climatology, and what that field is interested in achieving: essentially, changing the weather. How so? By using architecture and landscaping techniques that have not yet been developed. That is the gist of the sentence, which is not the easiest to follow.

Thank you for thinking to ask, and good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7359 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts