Despite the fact that the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset

Question

Despite the fact that the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, have been shown to be neutral, at best—research indicates that it may actually increase  the number of car accidents occurring on the Monday after the clocks spring forward—some countries do not observe it.
 
A - Despite the fact that the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, have been shown to be neutral, at best—research indicates that it may actually increase
 
B - Even though the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, has been shown to be neutral, at best—research indicates that it actually increases

C - Since the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, has been shown to be neutral, at best—research indicates that it actually increases
 
D - Because the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, has been shown to be neutral—at best, research indicates that it may actually result in an increase in
 
E - Because Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, has been shown to have a neutral impact, at best—research indicates that it may actually result in a possible increase in

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi  tadada50 ,

Pronoun ambiguity is usually not a major issue. That is, we should look for other, more reliable splits before taking a call on the basis of pronoun ambiguity. Although the  it  in the correct option  could  refer to  impact , option C remains the best of the five options given to us.

archanam9449 · Answer

Hi Experts,

Could you please tell me why C is a better option that B? Doesn't it intend to communicate the meaning that it is shown to be neutral but it increases ?

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi  archanam9449 ,

You may want to take a look at  this post .

anurag2402 · Answer

I don't get why B should be incorrect.

Even though the metric system of measurement is known to be unambiguously superior, some countries do not adopt it.

This sentence is known to be factually correct. In my head I had taken the same line of reason. Please help.

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi anurag2402 , Option B leads to "even though DST has been shown to be ~not useful , some countries do not observe it". The contrast introduced by even though doesn't make any sense here. It would work if we were looking at something useful (like the metric system!), but this sentence says that DST is not useful. Acceptable alternatives: a. Even though DST has been shown to be ~ useful , some countries do not observe it. b. Because DST has been shown to be ~ not useful , some countries do not observe it. So true!

Ssj30 · Answer

Can  since  be used in place of  because ? As per my understanding, since is a time marker and is only used to show time references. It cannot be used to show causality. This was the reason I eliminated C.

Is my understanding correct or am I missing something?

VeritasKarishma   generis   GMATNinja   AjiteshArun

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi  Ssj30 ,

Since  is commonly used in English to mean "because". Here is  an official question  that does the same thing.

Soham68 · Answer

Don't we use Since with Time such as SINCE 1990,
Isn't BECAUSE will be the right fit in option C?

Also, can somebody explain the structure of the sentence. I thought if we remove anything between two dashes/commas, it will still hold the same meaning, but if I remove the part, meaning gets bit weird.

Despite the fact that the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, have been shown to be neutral, at best— research indicates that it may actually increase the number of car accidents occurring on the Monday after the clocks spring forward —some countries do not observe it.

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi  Soham68 ,

Since  can be used to introduce the reason for something. You may want to go through  this post .

We can't expect to be able to do that unless there are a lot of redundant elements in the sentence. We can remove modifiers between two commas to check the structure of the rest of the sentence, but it's very unlikely that removing parts of the sentence will not affect the sentence in some way.

vv65 · Answer

The original sentence (that you quote) has a weird meaning anyway. The "DESPITE" does not fit this sentence. If the impact is neutral at best, we do not expect anyone to observe daylight savings time. So we need a cause-and-effect transition such as "SINCE" or "BECAUSE", not a contrast.

The meaning does not get weird if we remove the portion between the dashes. 
We are told that the impact is 'neutral at best'. After that, the portion between dashes gives us an example of possible negative impact --  research indicates that it may actually increase the number of car accidents occurring on the Monday after the clocks spring forward . 
The sentence works even without the example. The meaning does not change if the example is removed.

Hope this helps!

Posted from my mobile device

gurugmat · Answer

Despite the fact that the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, have been shown to be neutral, at best—research indicates that it may actually increase  the number of car accidents occurring on the Monday after the clocks spring forward—some countries do not observe it.

A - Despite the fact that the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, have been shown to be neutral, at best—research indicates that it may actually increase
 The subject of the first clause (subordinating clause) is 'impact', which is a singular noun. so we need a singular verb but this option has a plural verb 'have'. Moreover usage of 'despite' is wrong as the sentence doesn't show a contrast. 
B - Even though the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, has been shown to be neutral, at best—research indicates that it actually increases
 same issue that we saw in the first option. SVA problem 
C - Since the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, has been shown to be neutral, at best—research indicates that it actually increases
 no SVA problem. pronoun 'it' refers to the subject in the first clause 'impact'. so no grammatical error. since is used to show a reason.so no meaning issues in the sentence. 
D - Because the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, has been shown to be neutral—at best, research indicates that it may actually result in an increase in
 This sentence doesn't convey the meaning effectively. it should be  'research indicates that it actually increases'  not  research indicates that it may actually result in an increase in'  GMAT prefers a verb over noun(VAN principle,verb,adjective,noun) 
E - Because Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, has been shown to have a neutral impact, at best—research indicates that it may actually result in a possible increase in 
 'may' and 'possible' conveys same idea, so redundant.

toyesh30 · Answer

KarishmaB

Can you please clarify if the "it" refers to "DST" or "the impact". To my knowledge, "it" should refer to "the impact" and "of DST" modifies "the impact".
But that won't make sense "Some countries do not observe the impact"

KarishmaB · Answer

Logically, 'it' refers to DST. It cannot refer to the impact hence we have no ambiguity here. A problem arises when 'it' can logically refer to either and the statement becomes ambiguous. 
 
A sentence I like to give often to explain this is:

Take the pizza out of the box and throw it before the garbage gets collected.

What does 'it' refer to? Likely the box but we could be talking about the pizza too (if the pizza has gone bad and the box is actually a nice glass case in which we were going to serve it). 
The point is that here the sentence is ambiguous because the directions are not clear. But in our original question, there is no doubt on what the antecedent of 'it' is.

Elite097 · Answer

generis   egmat   GMATNinja   KarishmaB  im actually not clear on this sentence as idk how the fact that the research indicating that it leads to accidents an example of the fact that DST is neutral. Also, how is there a reasoning drawn with the rest of the sentence when we are shown the research is negative- why would they not observe it if it is negaive impact? If the impact is negative oviously one should track it  avigutman

KarishmaB · Answer

The meaning of 'observe it' here is 'follow it'. That is, some countries do not follow it; they do not set their clocks forward by an hour. Observe doesn't mean 'watch.' It doesn't make sense to say that we should watch DST. We do not observe DST means we do not use it in our country. We do not set our clocks forward by an hour in summers.

The sentence says the impact is neutral, at best (which means that there are indications of some negative impact). The aside given "research indicates that it may actually increase the number of car accidents occurring on the Monday after the clocks spring forward" is the negative impact. 
So it says that the impact is neutral at best - it could be slightly negative.

Look at the whole sentence to understand each word in context.

augustus021 · Answer

Could someone help explain me why "research indicates that it may actually increase the number of car accidents occurring on the Monday after the clocks spring forward" is NOT a contradiction of "the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, has been shown to be neutral", then B with "Even though" is wrong?

I have read all the comments and still haven't got it

I have read all the comments and still haven't got it

RenB · Answer

Hello  AjiteshArun ,
Can the  impact   -> result in an increase in the number of accidents ?
I felt that DST may probably result in something but not the impact. Can you please help me understand the logical gap?

Also  bb   CrackverbalGMAT   KarishmaB  Kindly help

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi RenB,

I don't see the logical gap. That is, I read the sentence as you did:

1.   Since the impact of DST has been shown to be neutral—research indicates that  it  ( DST ) increases the number of car accidents—some countries don't observe  it  ( DST ).

Is there a reason you think  it  must refer to  the impact of DST ? Keep in mind that  DST  is singular.

KarishmaB · Answer

'Impact of DST' IS the increase in the number of accidents. 'Impact' cannot RESULT in an increase. Think about it - what is the impact then that results in an increase? 'research indicates that it may actually increase the number of car accidents occurring on the Monday after the clocks spring forward' is a parenthetical expression separated from the sentence by hyphens. So it is not a part of the natural structure of the sentence hence we cannot apply any rules such as if 'it' acts as the subject of the clause then it should ideally refer to the subject of the previous clause etc. The logical referent of 'it' is DST and we will go with that. Also check: https://gmatclub.com/forum/despite-the- ... l#p3108692 It gives you an example of the kind of usage that is a problem.

Aishyk97 · Answer

Hi,

I know many people have already responded to this post but I wanted to put everything together in a single response. Instead of having to go through each response.

This is honestly one of the trickier questions in SC because understanding the meaning at first glance takes a bit of time.

First, meaning clarity 
The original sentence says that:
"Despite the fact that the impact of Daylight Saving Time,  at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour,  have been shown to be neutral, at best  —research indicates that it may actually increase the number of car accidents occurring on the Monday after the clocks spring forward— some countries do not observe it.

If you're not careful like me you will think that this makes sense. But actually, you have to think that even if the impact is neutral at best why would countries follow it? Countries would abandon the practice altogether. You only practice something when it adds some benefit.
The sentence will make sense had it read:

"Despite the fact that the impact of Daylight Saving Time,  at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour,  have been shown to be neutral, at best  —research indicates that it may actually increase the number of car accidents occurring on the Monday after the clocks spring forward— some countries  do not   still  observe it.

So the first part of the sentence is a reason that some countries do not observe it. That's why you can eliminate A and B.
Option A also has a subject-verb agreement error. The impact of DST has not have.

Second, Redundancy 
Option E :

E - Because Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, has been shown to have a neutral impact, at best—research indicates that it  may  actually result in a  possible  increase in

The use of may and possible is redundant.

Third, Pair of dashes:  Works exactly like how brackets work
Eg: The world's three most populous countries - China, India, and the United States - contribute to approximately 40 percent of the total human population.

Any information between the two dashes is removable. Between options C and D:

C - Since the impact of Daylight Saving Time,  at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour,  has been shown to be neutral, at best  —research indicates that it actually increases the number of car accidents occurring on the Monday after the clocks spring forward—   some countries do not observe it.
 
D - Because the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset of which clocks are set forward by an hour, has been shown to be neutral  —at best, research indicates that it may actually result in an increase in the number of car accidents occurring on the Monday after the clocks spring forward—  some countries do not observe it.

Option D changes the meaning of the sentence to say that at best research indicated that DST may actually result in an increase in car accidents, rather than saying the impact of DST has been neutral at best.

So eliminate D and choose C.

This is one of those questions that really test your ability to understand the meaning of the sentence and quickly be able to recognize the subtle but important changes in the construction.

Hope this helps!

Despite the fact that the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Despite the fact that the impact of Daylight Saving Time, at the onset

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards