The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any

GMATNinja, egmat
I am a but confused here.
Please provide some insights on the Verb+ing usage.
Please clarify whether V+ing modifier must make sense with the subject of the preceding clause or not?



_________________

Hi gmatacer40, indeed and that is the case here.


There is no requirement for the pronouns in the participial phrase (allowing...) to agree with the subject of the preceding clause. For example, following is a correct sentence:

Teacher showered students with gifts, surprising them.

Here, them does not have any reason or requirement to agree with teacher, the subject of the preceding clause.
_________________

Hello gmatbusters,

Thank you for the query.


The answer to your question is "yes". The action denoted by the comma + verb-ing modifier must make sense with the doer of the modified action. It is so because every action must be accounted for, i. e., it must have a doer.

Please review the our popular article that delves deep into the topic. The article is replete with relevant details and official examples to make the concept easy to understand:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/usage-of-verb-ing-modifiers-135220.html


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hi GMATNinja , mikemcgarry any other expert reading this

please explain how does "it" in option C clearly refers to seal , why does not "it" refer to animal

I choose A over C.
And In C
found "than do those" in C bit wordy.
expert help needed.

Hello Everyone!

Let's take a closer look at this question to narrow it down to the correct answer. First, here is the original question with the main differences between the 5 options highlighted in orange:

The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, thus allowing it to hunt efficiently under the gloomy conditions at its feeding depths of between 300 and 700 meters.

(A) The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, thus allowing it
(B) The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, allowing them
(C) The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than do those of any other animal yet tested, allowing it
(D) Because they adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, the eyes of the elephant seal allow it
(E) Because the eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than do those of any other animal yet tested, it allows them

While the 5 options have a lot of differences, here are just 2 that we can focus on for now. Each of these items will eliminate 2-3 options, which will hopefully leave us with only one option left:

1. "any other animal" vs. "do those of any other animal" (parallelism & comparisons)
2. "it" vs. "them" (pronoun-antecedent agreement)

Let's begin with #1 on our list: "any other animal" vs. "do those of any other animal." We can see that in the original sentence, these phrases are part of a comparison:

The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, thus allowing it to hunt efficiently under the gloomy conditions at its feeding depths of between 300 and 700 meters.

What are the two things being compared here? The one part of this comparison that remains constant among all 5 options is "the eyes of the elephant seal." Remember that the two things being compared MUST be parallel. This means that the sentence MUST compare the eyes of elephant seals to the eyes of other animals! Let's see which sentences do this correctly, and eliminate those that aren't parallel:

(A) The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, thus allowing it --> NOT PARALLEL (compares eyes to any other animal)
(B) The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, allowing them --> NOT PARALLEL (compares eyes to any other animal)
(C) The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than do those of any other animal yet tested, allowing it --> PARALLEL ("those of" is referring to the eyes of other animals, so we're comparing eyes to eyes, which is parallel)
(D) Because they adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, the eyes of the elephant seal allow it --> NOT PARALLEL ("they" is referring to the eyes of the elephant seal, which is still comparing eyes to any other animal)
(E) Because the eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than do those of any other animal yet tested, it allows them --> PARALLEL ("those of" is referring to the eyes of other animals, so we're comparing eyes to eyes, which is parallel)

We can eliminate options A, B, & D because the comparisons made in each sentence are not parallel in type. Instead of comparing the eyes of the elephant seal to the eyes of other animals, they compare the eyes of the elephant seal to the entire bodies of any other animals, which isn't parallel.

Now that we're left with only 2 options, let's tackle #2 on our list: it vs. them. This is an issue of pronoun-antecedent agreement! We need to look closely to determine what each pronoun is referring back to, and make sure they match up:

(C) The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than do those of any other animal yet tested, allowing it

This is CORRECT! The singular pronoun "it" is referring back to the singular antecedent "the elephant seal."

(E) Because the eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than do those of any other animal yet tested, it allows them

This is INCORRECT for a couple reasons. First, the singular pronoun "it" in this sentence is actually referring back to the plural "eyes," which isn't parallel. Also, the plural pronoun "them" is referring back to the singular "elephant seal," which is also not parallel. To fix this, the phrase would have to say "they allow it."

There you have it - option C is the correct choice! It's the only option that uses parallelism correctly throughout the entire sentence! By focusing on two main difference between the options, we were able to narrow down the options quickly to find the correct choice.


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
_________________

GMATNinja
Hi GmatNinja,

In option C here, could you help explain why we need to have "do" after than? Can we eliminate it? I dont really understand why we have to include "do" here

Also, if we need to have "do", shouldn't it be placed as "more quickly than those of any other animal yet tested DO"?

Thanks a lot.

Excellent question! The only time you need "do" is if the sentence is unclear or ambiguous without it.

For example, "Jen owns more puppies than Jack and Diane." This sentence could be interpreted two ways:

1) that Jack and Diane are puppies Jen owns, but they're not her only dogs, or
2) that the number of puppies Jack and Diane own is greater than the number of puppies that Jen owns.

If we want to make it clear that we prefer the second interpretation, we'd write, ""Jen owns more puppies than Jack and Diane do." (Or, to address your second question, we could write "Jen owns more puppies than do Jack and Diane." Changing the placement of "do" doesn't alter the meaning of the sentence.)

Otherwise, it's up to the discretion of the writer. In (C), if you were to remove "do," there still only seems to be one sensible way to interpret the sentence, so I think that construction would be fine. Fortunately, the other four answer choices all have definitive comparison errors in which eyes are compared to animals, so there's no need to waste your energy worrying about the use of "do" here.

Put another way, the GMAT would never ask you to choose between "The eyes of a seal move faster than do those of any other animal" and "The eyes of a seal move faster than those of any other animal." Both are fine, so we'd have to look for other decision points.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Can somebody please explain 'than do those of' in option C. Shouldn't it be 'than those of'

Posted from my mobile device

When do is used in place of a verb the way it has in option C, we can change the normal order in which the subject and verb occur.

The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than do those of any other animal yet tested...

is another way of saying

The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than those of any other animal yet tested do...
or
The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than those of any other animal yet tested adapt to darkness...

Adding the do makes the sentence clearer. Take a look at what happens if we drop the do (if that is what you were asking):

The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than those of any other animal yet tested...

This is not wrong, but it could be interpreted as "X adapts to A more quickly than B".
_________________

The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, thus allowing it??to hunt efficiently under the gloomy conditions at its feeding depths of between 300 and 700 meters.

(A) The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, thus allowing it

(B) The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, allowing them

(C) The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than do those of any other animal yet tested, allowing it

(D) Because they adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, the eyes of the elephant seal allow it

(E) Because the eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than do those of any other animal yet tested, it allows them



hi team,??



in the above questions, option A states that -:

The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than [the eyes] any other animal yet tested.

my first question -:

1. why doesn't the elipses work in this case? 'the eyes' is already stated in the first part of the sentence and it can be considered in the second part.

2. according to one of the posts on E-gmat, an example sentence was -:

" John cooks better piza than his wife"

the only intended/logical comparison could be between john and his wife and hence the comparison is correct.


similarly in the prompt, the only logical comparison could be between the eyes of the elephant and the eyes of any other animal.??

we can't logically compare the eyes of the elephant to any other animal.??

hence, to add "those of" makes it redundant.??

kindly validate my thinking process and let me know where i am going wrong.

Good question! For the e-gmat example, it ultimately comes down to whether there's a viable alternative meaning.

For the sentence "John cooks better pizza than his wife [does]," there's only one possible meaning: the pizza John cooks is the better than the pizza his wife cooks. No one would read that sentence and wonder if the pizza John cooks is better than the wife John cooks. (Which is exactly why Cannibal John keeps getting away with his hideous crimes. ) Because there's no ambiguity, this example is fine. The omitted word, "does" is implied.

However, if I write "John loves pizza more than his wife," there'd be two viable interpretations:

1) John loves pizza more than his wife loves pizza, or
2) John loves pizza more than he loves his wife.

If one interpretation of a sentence leads to a family ordering Mexican food for dinner, and the other leads to divorce, that's a problem.

So that's one difference. The other difference is that in the e-gmat example, the helping verb, "does," is omitted. In the elephant seal example a pronoun is omitted. It would be very hard to interpret the meaning of any sentence if the reader had to consider the possibility that shadow pronouns had been left out, but implied.

Take another look at one of the faulty comparisons:

"The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested."

The most straightforward way to read this sentence is that the eyes of the seal are being compared to other animals. Is it possible one might compare eyes to, say, a tiger? I suppose. But the context here makes it far more logical for the eyes of one animal to be better at adjusting than the eyes of another. Because "those" makes this comparison clearer and more logical, it's better.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Thanks sir,
Seal here is part of prepositional phrase "of the elephant seal". I understand only noun can be antecedent of pronoun.
Is this okay.

Hello Rishikesh92,

Although your question is not directed to me, here is my explanation for the same.

A noun in a prepositional phrase cannot act as a subject of a clause. This is the only restriction on a noun in a prepositional phrase.

A pronoun or a noun modifier can very well refer to/modify a noun in a prepositional phrase. Hence, in the correct answer choice, the pronoun it correctly refers to the noun the elephant seal. Even if the elephant seal is preceded by a preposition, it itself is a noun entity.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hi experts / egmat / EducationAisle,

I got this right, but wanted to make sure that my understanding of why ellipsis can't be used here is right as well.

Original question: The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than any other animal yet tested, thus allowing it to hunt efficiently under the gloomy conditions at its feeding depths of between 300 and 700 meters.

In this case, the reason we can't use ellipsis of the format (The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than the eyes of any other animal yet tested, thus allowing it to hunt efficiently under the gloomy conditions at its feeding depths of between 300 and 700 meters) is because omitting the eyes of in the above sentence can potentially make the meaning of the statement ambiguous. There is a real possibility of the sentence comparing the adaptability of elephant's eyes with the adaptability of another animal. If there were no such possibility of comparison, use of ellipsis in the above statement would have been fine.

Is my understanding right? Thank you!

Correct analysis Soubhik.

Since there is ambiguity, we have to explicitly mention eyes in the second half of the sentence, to remove the ambiguity.
_________________

In C, I have a doubt - "allowing it" is a verb-ing modifier which should refer back to the doer which is "eyes" . Though "it" is referring back to elephant seal as per the intended meaning but the doer is "eyes" so isn't this sentence grammatically incorrect? Can anybody explain this query?
GMATNinja

Consider the following example:

"The billionaire opened part of her mansion to the public, allowing visitors to gawk at the grotesque display of wealth."

The "-ing" modifier ("allowing...") describes the entire preceding clause in this case. It doesn't just modify the billionaire -- instead, it modifies the action taken by the billionaire. What allowed visitors to gawk? The fact that the billionaire opened part of her mansion to the public.

The opening of part of the mansion allows something to happen. And the subject of that something clearly does NOT have to be the billionaire herself.

The same is true in choice (C). The fact that the eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly {...} allows something to happen. The subject of that something does NOT have to be the subject of the preceding clause. In this case, the action described in the preceding clause allows the elephant seal to hunt efficiently.

As discussed in this post, the "it" is admittedly a bit ambiguous. But there is nothing unambiguously WRONG with (C), and it's better than the other four options.

I hope that helps!
_________________

for those whose native language is not English, let me introduce this is an elephant seal ))))))

_________________