The North American moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through

(A) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing it must leap or go around them - Incorrect. 'leap over' is preferred.

(B) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing them must leap or go around - Incorrect. 'them' - Pronoun error.

(C) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods and to step easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing them must leap over or go around them - Incorrect. Same error as in B.

(D) moose has long legs, enabling it to move quickly through the woods and to stop easily over downed trees while predators pursuing them must leap or go around - Incorrect. Same error as in B.

(E) moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing it must leap over or go around them - Correct.

Answer: E

The North American moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing it must leap or go around them.

(A) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing it must leap or go around them - no logical antecedent for pronoun it ; Verb-ing modifier stepping easily over downed trees does not make sense

(B) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing them must leap or go around - no logical antecedent for pronoun it ; Verb-ing modifier stepping easily over downed trees does not make sense

(C) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods and to step easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing them must leap over or go around them - no antecedent for pronoun it ; the first instance of them refers to long legs and the second instance of them refers to downed trees - pronouns in the same clause that refer to two different things is incorrect

(D) moose has long legs, enabling it to move quickly through the woods and to stop easily over downed trees while predators pursuing them must leap or go around - Pronoun them here should logically refer to Moose not its long legs .

(E) moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing it must leap over or go around them - Correct

Answer E

Hi CrackVerbalGMAT,

Have a query in option D?
Option D also has a ,+V-ing Modifiew "enabling it ..". That would refer to the subject moose as per the current structure of the sentence. But, I guess as per the meaning of the sentence, it should refer to legs. Hence, I feel the comma before the V-ing modifier must be removed to fix this so that then it will refer to legs.

Is this understanding correct? Please let me know later.

Thanks in advance!

snjainpune When we have a present participle (-ing word) preceded by a comma, this is typically an adverbial modifier, not a noun modifier. In other words, "enabling" doesn't modify any noun in the sentence! Rather, it modifies the preceding clause ("The moose has long legs"). It's showing a result of the preceding idea.

Similarly I might say, "She earned a million dollars on the stock market, enabling her to quit her job and start her own company." What enabled her to do this? Not the stock market itself, but the fact that she earned a million dollars on the stock market. Again, this is an adverbial modifier showing a result. (Compare this to the word "showing" that I used just now. There's no comma, so "showing" modifies the noun "modifier.")

Hello SidJainGMAT,

Yes, your analysis is absolutely correct. The moose does not enable itself to move quickly through the woods. It his longs legs that do so. Hence, use of comma + enabling is incorrect in Choice D.



Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

The North American moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing it must leap or go around them.

(A) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing it must leap or go around them - Verb+ing modifier stepping is incorrectly modifying moose's long legs . Also them is incorrectly referring to mlong moose's long legs

(B) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing them must leap or go around - Same as A

(C) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods and to step easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing them must leap over or go around them - Here them is referring to moose's long legs instead of moose itself hence incorrect

(D) moose has long legs, enabling it to move quickly through the woods and to stop easily over downed trees while predators pursuing them must leap or go around - Here them has no logical antecedent

(E) moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing it must leap over or go around them - CORRECT as it is referring correctly to North American Moose and not the long legs and them is referring to woods

Hi Shraddha/Other Experts
Let me first thank you for your numerous explanations across posts. They are really helpful.

I have a doubt in regards to this explanation, comma + present participle modifies the preceding clause and applies to the subject of the preceding clause modifying the how/why. In D does "enabling" not modifey the entire preceding clause "Moose has long legs" and thereby correctly applies to the subject Moose and tells how having long legs enable it to move quickly.

Thanks in advance for your reply!

The North American moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing it must leap or go around them.

(A) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing it must leap or go around them

(B) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing them must leap or go around- Pronoun issue- no referent for pronoun 'them'

(C) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods and to step easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing them must leap over or go around themPronoun issue- no referent for pronoun 'them'- pursuing them; parallelism issue- to step should not be parallel to move quickly through the woods

(D) moose has long legs, enabling it to move quickly through the woods and to stop easily over downed trees while predators pursuing them must leap or go around- same as C;

(E) moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing it must leap over or go around them- Correct

1. In option E, the verb-ing modifier 'stepping easily over downed trees' modifies the previous that clause?
that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees --->
If the verb-ing modifier modifies the preceding 'that' clause, is there any difference between options A and E?

2. I understand that (possessive poison guideline) is not a rule and thus cannot be used to decisively eliminate options A-C.

3. In option D, does the usage of verb-ing modifier 'enabling' make sense with preceding clause 'moose has long legs'?


AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , MagooshExpert , GMATGuruNY , VeritasPrepBrian , MartyTargetTestPrep , DmitryFarber , VeritasKarishma , generis , jennpt , VeritasPrepErika , other experts - please enlighten

Skywalker18 I hope you dont mind if i try to resolve your doubts :


(A) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing it must leap or go around them

(E) moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing it must leap over or go around them

- moose has long legs ...these long legs enable it to move quickly... HOW??? when we ask the question HOW we need a clause to refer back to !!! whenever we ask the question HOW we need to have a verb !! it cannot refer back to NOUN "long legs" ...can we say " HOW LONG LEGS" ?? we have to have a VERB : long legs ENABLE (HOW?? - by helping the moose step over bla bla bla) . Assuming you know this lets move on to the primary doubt

Difference between A and E

in A (speciifically talking about the modifier part ) : (comma) syepping over...(comma) but predators : Here when we put a comma before "but" we are separating the HOW PART ..We have to tell HOW the moose has an advantage so it is preffered that the entire modifier be in one part and not two diffefrent ones. Additionally, (Comma) stepping(Comma) makes it look like a non essential modifer

In E : we get a whole part ...HOW is the moose at advantage w.r.t long legs ?? stepping ....while predators pursuing .... (one complete modifieier explaining the HOW part ) no comma nothing

- Indeed it isnt a rule BUT GMAT SC is all about BEST ANSWER... if there is a better CLEARER referrent then why choose something we need to INFER???
this gives us liberty to eliminate A and C

- NO it does not... Moose has long legs - does this factt enable it to move quickly or the feature "long legs " does... moose has long legs... NOW WHAT DO WE GET FROM LONG LEGS??? enablement of bla bla... long legs enable ...we are asking the question WHAT ..WHAT enables??? ..when we ask the question WHAT we need a NOUN referrent !!!

OPTION D IN THE SENTENCE:

(D) The North American moose has long legs, enabling it to move quickly through the woods and to stop easily over downed trees while predators pursuing them must leap or go around [the fallen trees].

Hi MAnkur , Part #1 of your question:
In D does "enabling" not modifey the entire preceding clause "Moose has long legs"

Slightly rewritten in the affirmative: In D, does "enabling" modify the entire preceding clause moose has long legs?

Yes. enabling modifies the entire preceding clause [the] moose has long legs.
comma + present participle (comma + verbING) typically IS a modifier of the entire previous clause.

Part 2 of your question, slightly rephrased:
[Because enabling modifies the entire previous clause, does enabling] thereby correctly apply to the subject Moose and tell how having long legs enables it to move quickly?

• Let's get rid of "thereby correctly apply to the subject Moose"
A participial phrase that modifies an entire clause is adverbial.

That kind of modifier is not a noun modifier.
A modifier that modifies an entire clause does not modify a specific noun.
enabling . . . does not modify moose.

Rather, enabling indicates a result of the whole previous clause.
This notion is hard to convey in English, but I will try,
The fact that the moose has long legs enables it to move quickly and step over trees.
enabling X and Y is a result of the moose has long legs
Animals with short legs cannot move quickly through the woods or step easily over fallen trees.

• the second part of this part 2 is circular: does enabling tell how having long legs enables it to move quickly?
No. enabling it to move quickly is a result of its having long legs.
The previous clause does not mention moving quickly.
This enabling phrase is a result phrase, not a how phrase.

HOW does a moose have long legs? In what way does a moose have long legs?
That question does not really make sense.
(HOW does a moose have long legs? Well, the genes of a moose tell it to have four legs. )

Are you under the impression that a participial modifier must modify both the subject and the verb of the previous clause?
If so, that impression is not accurate.

I am fairly sure that Dmitry Farber already addressed your question in THE POST ABOVE, HERE.

Is there something about that answer that does not make sense?

The first part of your question is accurate.
This __ING phrase modifies the entire previous clause.
But that phrase does not modify the subject or the verb.
It modifies the whole clause. Participial phrases are often used to indicate results, as is the case in this question.

Hope that helps.

Skywalker18 , I will change the order of your questions in order to make answering the A v. E question easier.


Possessive poison is indeed a guideline [i.e. it is not an ironclad rule] and as you say, should not be used decisively.

At the same time, we can be on the lookout for a rather uncommon pronoun antecedent.
If two options seem equally correct and one does not use a possessive noun as an antecedent for a regular pronoun but the other does, then choose the option without the possessive noun antecedent.
Most importantly, I qualify my conclusion about GMAC's position on the possessive poison guideline with this condition: as long as meaning is clear.
The phrasing in option A is not as clear as that in option E.

From GMAC's point of view, arguably in (A) it's not clear whether stepping easily over downed trees modifies the subject the moose's long legs or the pronoun it
-- logically, we understand.
-- but E is much clearer

Option E is explicit about the causal linkage between a characteristic of the moose (its long legs) and the moose's ability to move quickly.
E names the subject, moose, and then gives an essential characteristic of the moose:
The moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly

This that-clause clarity, in turn, makes it easy to see that stepping easily over downed trees refers to the pronoun it, the moose.

(E) is absolutely clear and (A) theoretically contains ambiguity. (E) is better.

You asked only about the enabling modification. Option A uses leap (trees). Option E uses leap over trees.

Finally, if we can avoid the use of weird pronoun antecedents, we should do so.
Stated differently, if another option is crystal clear about the pronoun reference and is correct in every other aspect, that option is the better or best one.


Yes.
See my post above, HERE, in which I explain that enabling is a result of the entire previous clause.

One result of having long legs is that the moose is enabled to (can) move quickly and step over trees.
Participial phrases (comma + verbING) frequently modify the entire clause and present a result of that clause.

Correct: The woman had a spirited personality, enabling her to make friends easily.

Hope that helps.

I have doubt regarding pronoun ambiguity. Is there any criterion for judging the antecedent of "them"......
I mean doesn't it necessary that them should refer back to only one plural noun in sentence.
for example, In option B “them” can refer back to moose's long legs, the woods or even downed trees. That’s the reason its ambiguous.
(E) moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing it must leap over or go around them
Why is option E there is no pronoun ambiguity. “them” can refer back to moose's long legs or the woods

Please help
BKimball mikemcgarry carcass GMATNinja chetan2u daagh

Smit



Let's please remember this eternally.

As far as pronoun reference is concerned, wordly-wiseness and logic are the ultimate deciders to pronounce the eligible antecedent.
The best way to know this is to actually apply a replacement test, in which you can substitute the various contenders and see which one them rationally fits in.

Let's do the replacement test now in the context by replacing the contested pronoun 'them".

1. Moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing it must leap over or go around the moose's long legs.

2. Moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing it must leap over or go around the woods.

3. Moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing it must leap over or go around the downed trees.

4. Moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing it must leap over or go around the predators.

You might see, only the third option fits in logically.

HTH

Though I have marked E as the correct answer, I have a doubt regarding the point E (OA).

Pursuing is used after 'while' so it seems that predators require a bonafide verb. I am not being able to understand why the use of pursuing (present participle) is correct here?
If you kindly elaborate.

Hi Tamal, that bonafide verb is must leap/must go.

pursuing it is just a modifier, modifying predators.

Pronoun theory establishes that in order to use a pronoun in its subject or object case (i.e. "it"), we must have a referent. Choices A, B, and C, have a pronoun "it" but do not have a referent. It is important to notice that the referent must be a noun, and in the phrase "the moose's long legs", the noun is "legs", not "moose".

In summary

(A) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing it must leap or go around them --- Pronoun "it" has no referent. It needs to refer to "the moose" but it is nowhere to be found in the sentence.

(B) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing them must leap or go around --- Pronoun "it" has no referent. It needs to refer to "the moose" but it is nowhere to be found in the sentence.

(C) moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods and to step easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing them must leap over or go around them --- Pronoun "it" has no referent. It needs to refer to "the moose" but it is nowhere to be found in the sentence.

(D) moose has long legs, enabling it to move quickly through the woods and to step easily over downed trees while predators pursuing them must leap or go around --- Eliminating this one is tougher. The meaning here is incorrect. First, this choice makes "to step" and "to move" parallel, but it doesn't make sense. The long legs do not "enable" the moose "to step" easily over trees. That's not what the story is trying to say. Stepping over trees is the way the moose "moves", so it must modify "to move" rather than be parallel to it. Additionally, we need to have "go around them". Otherwise, we don't know what the moose goes around.

(E) moose has long legs that enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees while predators pursuing it must leap over or go around them --- CORRECT

In the correct option, how does the last 'them' refer to plural trees and not the plural 'predators'?

Posted from my mobile device