gurudabl
The potential hazards of nuclear power, which include health hazards of radiation and improperly disposed toxic nuclear waste, were studied in-depth.
A.which include
B. including
C. which is inclusive of
D. which includes
E. which are inclusive of
The answer to this question is ???B???. However, can anyone tell me why should option ???A??? be eliminated?
Since, it has ???which??? that is followed by a plural verb ???include??? doesn???t it agree with ???potential hazards??? instead of ???nuclear power??? therefore, modifying its preceding clause correctly?
Help please!
gurudabl .this slight distinction is unlikely to show up on the GMAT.
I cannot recall a similar official question.
Here is the distinction: Option A tells us about the potential hazards of nuclear power
generally, as if we were being given some information
not connected to an in-depth study.
Option B tells us which potential hazards in particular that
this study focused on.
(A) The potential hazards of nuclear power, which include health hazards of radiation and improperly disposed toxic nuclear waste, were studied in-depth.
Option A, same meaning, rewritten: The potential hazards of nuclear power,
which CAN include health hazards of radiation and improperly disposed toxic nuclear waste, were studied in-depth.
-- the study focused on some potential hazards of nuclear power. It might or might not have focused on the two listed.
(B) The potential hazards of nuclear power,
including health hazards of radiation and improperly disposed toxic nuclear waste, were studied in-depth.
-- the study focused on potential hazards of nuclear power, certainly focused on the two listed, and may have focused on more hazards than are listed.
-- the two listed hazards are "includED" in what gets studied, a fact that we know because the linking verb WERE tells us so.
Including is an exception to the [comma + ___ing] structure and function.
Including is usually listed as a preposition and does not have to modify the previous clause.
Including means
used for saying that a [] thing is part of a particular group. HEREFrom option B we know for sure which hazards the study focused on.
In option A, we know THAT the things listed are hazards, but it is not as clear that those listed hazards are the ones that the study focused on.
Not a great question. Try not to worry about it. (I may archive this question.)
Does that distinction make sense?