The jab, a boxing technique, although not as impressive as a powerful

True, D is the answer. Chetan is on spot.

I find nothing wrong in the option A :

The jab, a boxing technique, although not as impressive as a powerful left-hook, is an underappreciated technique that preserves balance and high mobility, keeping the opponent at a distance, and compromises the other fighter's guard, providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike

Whether we can't accept these two parts, along with their highlighted adverbial phrases, as parallel :

1. preserves balance and high mobility, keeping the opponent at a distance
2. compromises the other fighter's guard, providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike

As far as adverbial phrases are concerned, they seem to be playing their role correctly :

1. The adverbial phrase "keeping the opponent at a distance" modifies the preceding clause "that preserves balance and high mobility" by answering how does it preserve.

2. The adverbial phrase "providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike" modifies the preceding clause "that compromises the other fighter's guard" by letting us know that "compromises the other fighter's guard" results in "providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike".

AjiteshArun
MentorTutoring

Experts, would you please clarify on the same ?

E not only sticks somewhat to the wrong structure of original sentence but also introduces new errors.

If, say, for a second, we take the structure of the sentence to be correct in E.
So, keeping and comprising are V-ing modifier modifying the subject Jab, let us remove modifier and we see we have two verbs/actions, preserves and provides, not attached by anything.

The jab, a boxing technique, although not as impressive as a powerful left-hook, is an underappreciated technique that preserves balance and high mobility, keeping the opponent at a distance, and compromising the other fighter's guard, provides an opportunity for a more powerful strike.

Grammatically it may be fine but it is not logical.

(A) The jab... is an underappreciated technique that preserves balance and high mobility, keeping the opponent at a distance, and compromises the other fighter's guard, providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike

"keeping the opponent at a distance", a present participle modifier modifying the previous clause, acts as an effect of "preserves balance and high mobility".
But if a technique helps you preserve balance and high mobility, an automatic effect of it is NOT that the opponent will be kept at a distance. It makes no sense. We are talking about how the technique helps you maintain balance etc. How does that lead to keeping the opponent at a distance? It doesn't. (A) is not correct.

Then "keeping the opponent at a distance" must be what the technique should be doing additionally. It should be parallel to "preserves balance etc"

(D) The jab... is an underappreciated technique that
- preserves balance and high mobility,
- keeps the opponent at a distance, and
- compromises the other fighter's guard, providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike

Now here, "providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike" does logically modify "compromises the other fighter's guard". If the other fighter's guard is compromised, it would automatically provide an opportunity for a powerful strike. It makes sense.

SC is also a lot about rationale. (D) is correct.

Hello gloomybison,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubt.

As VeritasKarishma has written, the error here is one of meaning. Option A uses the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing")" construction "keeping the opponent at a distance"; in doing so, it illogically implies that the jab preserves balance and high mobility, and in doing so keeps the opponent at a distance; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “keeping” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

If you read closely, you will see that this meaning is illogical; staying well-balanced and highly mobile cannot directly contribute to keeping the opponent at a distance.

Option D conveys a more logical meaning through the phrase "keeps the opponent at a distance, and compromises the other fighter's guard"; this construction places the verbs "preserves", "keeps", and "compromises" in one list, conveying that the jab does three separate and equal things - preserves balance and high mobility, keeps the opponent at a distance, and compromises the other fighter's guard; remember, all elements listed together play the same role in the sentence and are of equal importance.

To understand the concept of Comma plus Present Participle for Cause-Effect relationship on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

I have a problem with B that there should be no comma in “a distance, and”
Pls correct me if i’m wrong


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Initially I thought D was the answer but I don’t assume that the technique keeps the opponent at a distance but instead the preservation of balance and high motility does, hence I agree with daagh B is the correct answer. Nevertheless I am still stuck in explaning the present of the comma between keep and compromise


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

The jab, a boxing technique, although not as impressive as a powerful left-hook, is an underappreciated technique that preserves balance and high mobility, keeping the opponent at a distance, and compromises the other fighter's guard, providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike.

A. keeping the opponent at a distance, and compromises the other fighter's guard, providing

B. keeping the opponent at a distance, and compromising the other fighter's guard, providing - Not parallel with "preserves"

C. keeps the opponent at a distance, and compromising the other fighter's guard, providing - Not parallel with "preserves"

D. keeps the opponent at a distance, and compromises the other fighter's guard, providing - Correct

E. keeping the opponent at a distance, and compromising the other fighter's guard, provides


Answer D.



Thanks,
GyM

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Correct Answer: D

This sentence lists three features of the jab, which should accordingly stay consistent in parallel construction with the first descriptive phrase, ''preserves balance and high mobility''. Therefore, the phrases should follow are ''keeps the opponent'' and '...compromises the other fighter's''. Answer choice D does this properly, and is correct. Answer choices B and E also feature pronoun reference errors, as the phrase 'so that it provides' uses the singular pronoun 'it', which could refer to the opponent's guard, or to the jab itself.

it is challenging for us to find out wheather doing modify a previous clause. it is challenging to realize that "keeping" can not modify "preserves the balance".
the doing can show an action not separate from main action in the previous clause and show context, reason, effect and even method of the main clause. but it it challenging to realize weather "doing" can have meaning relation with the main clause.

I feel something is wrong with the question. Is it correct to say - "preserves balance and high mobility"?

How can one preserve balance and high mobility??

I 100 percent agree with you. There is nothing in the grammar or meaning conveyed to suggest that (A) cannot be correct. I narrowed it down to (A) and (D) before choosing the safer option in the latter, but that was only because of prior experience with these types of questions.

Original sentence (with parallel elements marked):
The jab, a boxing technique, although not as impressive as a powerful left-hook, is an underappreciated technique that preserves balance and high mobility, keeping the opponent at a distance, and compromises the other fighter's guard, providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike.

Kudos from me for thinking outside the box and explaining clearly where you were coming from.

- Andrew

Thanks indeed MentorTutoring for the confirmation and the compliment !!

Hi chetan2u,

I think it is more logical to say the jab (the subject) can do both b) keep the opponent at a distant and c) compromise the opponent's guard, not 'balance and high mobility'. Hence, i think it's not unambiguous for the V-ing modifier to modify the subject (jab). Is there any other reason to choose E over B, especially when B sticks to the original sentence more than E does? Thanks.

Sorry, my mistake. I meant the correct choice D (not E), over B

VeritasKarishma

Hi Karishma

I find nothing wrong in the option A :

The jab, a boxing technique, although not as impressive as a powerful left-hook, is an underappreciated technique that preserves balance and high mobility, keeping the opponent at a distance, and compromises the other fighter's guard, providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike

Whether we can't accept these two parts, along with their highlighted adverbial phrases, as parallel :

1. preserves balance and high mobility, keeping the opponent at a distance
2. compromises the other fighter's guard, providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike

As far as adverbial phrases are concerned, they seem to be playing their role correctly :

1. The adverbial phrase "keeping the opponent at a distance" modifies the preceding clause "that preserves balance and high mobility" by answering how does it preserve.

2. The adverbial phrase "providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike" modifies the preceding clause "that compromises the other fighter's guard" by letting us know that "compromises the other fighter's guard" results in "providing an opportunity for a more powerful strike".

ı agree with your post abhishekmayank