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

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Comparison + Pronouns + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “allowing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
• A comparison must always be made between similar things.

A: This answer choice incorrectly compares "The eyes of the elephant seal" to "any other animal"; please remember, a comparison must always be made between similar things. Further, Option A uses the redundant phrase "thus allowing it", leading to awkwardness; this usage is redundant, as both "thus" and the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "allowing" in this sentence)" construction convey a cause-effect relationship; remember, the introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “allowing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

B: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "the elephant seal" with the plural pronoun "them". Further, Option B incorrectly compares "The eyes of the elephant seal" to "any other animal"; please remember, a comparison must always be made between similar things.

C: Correct. This answer choice correctly refers to the singular noun "the elephant seal" with the singular pronoun "it". Further, Option C correctly compares "The eyes of the elephant seal" to "those of any other animal". Additionally, Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

D: This answer choice incorrectly compares "they - (the eyes of the elephant seal)" to "any other animal"; please remember, a comparison must always be made between similar things.

E: This answer choice suffers from a pronoun error, as the pronoun "it" lacks a clear referent. Further, Option E incorrectly refers to the singular noun "the elephant seal" with the plural pronoun "them".

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Comma + Present Participles for Cause-Effect Relationships" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Comparison issue....

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

The green part here -

CLAUSE + COMMA + VERB ING MODIFIER

can have 2 roles to play -

1. Presenting additional informations about the preceding clause.
2. Presents results of preceding clause..

Here results of adaptation ( hunting efficiently under the gloomy conditions ) is the result of the adaptation of the eyes..

Hence IMHO (C)

I agree C is the correct and best answer, but isn't the "it" in allowing "it" somewhat ambiguous? It's still the best choice by far, but it seems like "it" could also refer to any other animal? A lot of the new OG 2017 SC questions have some pretty weird stuff going on.

Uh, I don't understand this. I was down to (C) and (E) as they're the only options that have a parallel comparison, and I eliminated (C) because:

"The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than do those of any other animal yet tested, allowing it to hunt efficiently.."

Here, doesn't "it" seem to refer to "the eyes of the elephant"?

'it' is singular so cannot refer to eyes which is plural. However I felt the it here was still ambiguous because it could refer to elephant seal or any other animal

Pronoun ambig is a last resort though, as proper grammar takes precedence


Sent from my SM-G928T using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

In answer choice E "it" refers to the preceding action! pronouns cannot refer to actions.
" it" in answer choice E clearly refers to Elephant :D

But wouldn't that make almost every pronoun correct? When do I know if "logical" pronoun works and doesn't? The "seal" never appeared as a subject or an object in this sentence. For example:

The legacy of Obama is X and he is my best friend

I always thought "he" in this case CANNOT refer to Obama and will leave this pronoun without proper antecedent.

Please help.

Ok. We will try to use some other noun than Obama to refer to he and see how it works out.

The legacy of Obama is X and (he) Putin is my best friend. What is the point in this sentence? Does this sentence give a complete sense? Unless you indicate who that he is, the sentence remains infructious. On the contrary, if ‘he’ is seen to refer to Obama, then the semblance of disconnect and discreteness disappears in the context.

In that same fashion, try to ascribe the pronoun ‘it’ to any other animal, say a lion, and see what is the connect between the eyes of the Seal and a lion hunting efficiently. After all, there is a law of proximity in the antecedence of a pronoun and the nearest noun, even it be an object, can be referred to by the pronoun. Here it may be noted the elephant seal is the object of the preposition ‘of’

Basically, a pronoun stands for a noun already extant in the clause as the name defines, and therefore, there can never be a stand-alone pronoun in formal writing.

Finally, will you say that Tom had a pint of beer to quench his (Dick’s) thirst? Why would the seal adapt swiftly to darkness to make some other animal hunt efficiently?
Pl. ponder

Thank you!

If we have comma +ing then it should make sense with the subject of the sentence.
eyes allow it (seals) to hunt efficiently.....Am I right?

#e-gmat #daagh

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

A, B and D - Illogical comparison - the eyes of the elephant seal compared to any other animal.
E- Pronoun issue - them can't refer to singular the elephant seal . Also the pronoun "it" - is trying to refer to the eyes .

Answer c

If we compare options, we can see ‘more than’. We have comparison here. In option A, ‘the eyes of the elephant’ are compared to ‘any other animal’. Wrong comparison. Eliminate
In option B, ‘the eyes of the elephant’ are compared to ‘any other animal’. Wrong comparison. Eliminate
In option D, ‘they’ refers to ‘the eyes’. Again ‘the eyes of the elephant’ are compared to ‘any other animal’. Wrong comparison. Eliminate
In E, comparison is correct but towards the end of the option, ‘it’ refers to ‘the eyes’ . Singular pronoun cannot refer to plural noun. Eliminate.

Option C is correct.

choice C, the OA, tell us that

comma+doing can be used to show a result of main clause.

Imo C
The comparison should be between eyes .
So A B D are out
Only C and E remain
Them is ambiguous in E

Sent from my ONE E1003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

I'm still not understanding answer choice C. A pronoun can't refer to a noun in a prepositional phrase. Is answer choice C an exception to this rule? "It" is referring to "the elephant seal", but how is this acceptable?

Sentence Analysis
The sentence says that the eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than the eyes of any other animal. The sentence then presents a result of this fact using a verb-ing modifier.

There is one error in the sentence: it compares ‘the eyes of the elephant seal’ with ‘any other animal’, essentially comparing eyes with an animal.

Option Analysis
(A) Incorrect. For the error mentioned above.

(B) Incorrect. Same comparison error as in the original sentence. In this option, ‘them’ is replaced with ‘it’, this changes the intended meaning.

(C) Correct. This option corrects the only error in the original sentence.

(D) Incorrect. Same comparison error as in the original sentence.

(E) Incorrect. ‘it’ does not have an antecedent; logically, ‘it’ cannot refer to ‘elephant seal’ since elephant seal doesn’t allow the eyes to hunt efficiently.

In the OA (c), the Ving modifier "allowing it......300 and 700 meters." must make sense with the subject of the preceding clause which is "eyes". However, "it"does not agree with the subject of the preceding clause "eyes". Please explain??