The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce

Dear GMATGuruNY

Why can't "creating" in C. jump over "an individual" to modify "emotional reactions" as A. does?

As you explain, we know that "creating" cannot modify "an individual" anyway.
So "creating" must jump over the middle word to create logical meaning.

Here's (C1) as it, with the comma added.
The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual, creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses.
Here, it's clear that the participle does not apply to the noun "individual." That much is clear. Here, we could interpret the participle as a verb-modifier modifying the action of the preceding clause, or we could view it as a noun-modifier modifying the subject of the clause, "lying." In fact, there's not a sharp distinction in meaning between these two, so this distinction is not helpful. Overall, this could be a plausible correct answer, but the question doesn't give us this.

Dear GMATGuruNY

According to your post here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/?href=.html

Why is it illogical if I were to added COMMA + VERBing (before "creating") in C.?

IMO, the COMMA + VERBing could modify the preceding clause by showing the RESULT.
In other words, the production of emotional reactions (by lying) creates or leads to physiological responses.
After all, lying instigates this whole chain. So, I think it is not wrong to say lying creates physiological responses.

I can see the reasons why the others are incorrect, but isn't the 'that' and its placement next to 'individual' problematic?

E properly exercises the idea that 'who' is used for people (although I can see why creates is wrong in E).

The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses.

Can "individual" take "that" as restrictive clause ? We don't use "that" and "which" in humans, and use "who" or "whom"?

Why can option C not be a possible answer choice ?

Everyone is saying that the modifier is touching the noun individuals.

In this question that "jumps" over individuals to modify emotional reactions. Similarly why can't "creating" modify emotional reactions ?

The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses.

(A) that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses
(B) that creates unconscious physiological responses in turn
(C) creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses
(D) to create, in turn, physiological responses that are unconscious
(E) who creates unconscious physiological responses in turn

The easiest place to start is probably with the create/creates split. What "create(s)...responses"? The emotional reaction. (Strictly speaking the subject of the verb "create" is the pronoun "that." More on this issue later.) Since "emotional reactions" is plural, we want a plural verb, "create." That eliminates B and E. "Creating" in C is a present participle, and "to create" in D is an infinitive, so neither of these is either singular or plural.

Next we might consider which form of the verb "create" is appropriate, the verb "create," the present participle "creating," or the infinitive "to create." A verb-form split usually signals either an idiom problem or a problem with parallelism, but not in this case. Rather, neither C nor D captures the original meaning. Answer C: A present participle (-ing word) immediately preceded by a noun (no comma separating them) attributes action to that noun. So C means that "an individual" creates responses. Answer D: Here, "to create" suggests that the goal of producing emotional reactions is to create physiological responses.

That leaves A, the correct answer.

Addendum 1. I began by asking "What creates responses?" This common-sense question is usually adequate to match a verb to its subject. Sometimes you'll have a couple of reasonable answers, and you'll have to look more closely at the grammar. The verbs in relative clauses--noun-modifying clauses that start with "that" or one of the "wh-" words, "which," "who/m," "when," "where"--actually modify the relative pronouns that precede them, but those relative pronouns are themselves singular or plural depending on the nouns to which they refer. The long and short of it is that you're probably better off with the common-sense question than with the subtle grammatical question here.

Addendum 2. With few exceptions, relative clauses modify the nouns or noun phrases they touch. In this question, "that...create...responses" touches the noun "individual," but it also touches the noun phrase "emotional reactions in an individual," that is, the noun "reactions" plus the adjective "emotional" plus the prepositional phrase "in an individual." That whole phrase, or if you prefer the noun at its heart, is modified by the relative clause. Frankly, I think that it's a little clumsy here, and I might have had a bit of trouble had I started with the modifier issue.

Do we agree that C would be right if there were a comma before creating ?

Thanks

do we accept two consecutive adjectives in the GMAT world?

This is the main reason I eliminated (A) and chose (D), as I found the phrase "unconscious physiological responses" in (A) less ideal than "physiological responses that are unconscious" in (D).

But, after practicing the Australian embryologists question (whose correct answer uses "to suggest" to modify evidence without implying any intent)I

Hi GMATNinja GMATGuruNY and other experts,

I am to ask a question that was not discussed before..... do we accept two consecutive adjectives in the GMAT world?
This is the main reason I eliminated (A) and chose (D), as I found the phrase "unconscious physiological responses" in (A) less ideal than "physiological responses that are unconscious" in (D).

Meanwhile, I considered (D) acceptable, despite its use of "to create." I know that the use of infinitive usually implies intent, which is not the case here. But, after practicing the Australian embryologists question (whose correct answer uses "to suggest" to modify evidence without implying any intent), I changed my mind and thought that maybe the use of infinitive was more flexible.

Can we ignore the issue of consecutive adjectives? Thanks!

https://gmatclub.com/forum/australian-e ... 84981.html

A it is. Emotional reactions in an individual that - here emotional reactions is followed by a prepositional phrase so that will not modify the noun in prepositional phrase but will modify whatever comes before prepositional phrase.