GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 19 Mar 2019, 12:41

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# V11-08

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4289
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2015, 09:33
1
8
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

32% (00:46) correct 68% (00:55) wrong based on 158 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In 2007, Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, was the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region, producing 22.7 kWH of energy of which majority was Hydroelectric produced in 133 plants in Norway, 12 in Sweden and 4 in Finland and, including the subsidiaries Skagerak Energi and Trondheim Energi, which had 2100 employees.

A. In 2007, Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, was the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region, producing
B. In 2007, Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, was the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region, which produced
C. The third largest energy producer in the Nordic region in 2007 was Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, producing
D. In 2007, the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region was Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, which produced
E. Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, was the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region in 2007, produced

_________________
Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4289
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2015, 09:34
Official Solution:

In 2007, Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, was the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region, producing 22.7 kWH of energy of which majority was Hydroelectric produced in 133 plants in Norway, 12 in Sweden and 4 in Finland and, including the subsidiaries Skagerak Energi and Trondheim Energi, which had 2100 employees.

A. In 2007, Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, was the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region, producing
B. In 2007, Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, was the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region, which produced
C. The third largest energy producer in the Nordic region in 2007 was Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, producing
D. In 2007, the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region was Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, which produced
E. Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, was the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region in 2007, produced

The main purpose of the sentence is to identify Statkraft as the third largest electricity producer in the Nordic region. The sentence then states two facts (produced 22.7 kWH of energy and had 2100 employees) about the company those need to be grammatically parallel.

A. The participle producing is not parallel to the relative clause which had.

B. The antecedent for the relative pronoun which is ambiguous.

C. The participle producing is not parallel to the relative clause which had.

D. Correct: the two facts are correctly presented using two parallel relative clauses introduced by which (which produced and which had).

E. This construction results in a sentence fragment (underlined in the following text) at the end of the sentence:
Statkraft was …, produced….. and which had….

_________________
Intern
Joined: 29 Oct 2014
Posts: 24
Schools: Molson '19
GMAT Date: 12-06-2014

### Show Tags

29 Feb 2016, 16:41
Hi,
How can which refer to Skalkraft when it is near
Trondheim Energi ?Moreover there is no 'and 'connecting which produced and which had ..how can the the second cluase refer back to Skalkraft ? This question needs a review ..Experts please help !!
Intern
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 18
Location: India
Schools: IIMA (I)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.2

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2016, 04:40
parallelsim is not there betwwen modifier including and verb produced
Intern
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 18
Location: India
Schools: IIMA (I)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.2

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2016, 04:41
I don't agree with the explanation. parallelism
Intern
Joined: 26 Mar 2016
Posts: 9
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.7

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2016, 02:36
I think this is a poor-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. Shouldn't "producing" be parallel to "and, including"?. Producing is modifying Statkraft and which had is modifying the 2 subsidiaries. Why should these be parallel. Moreover, there is no conjunction connecting producing and which had.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2884
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2016, 14:20
1
1
vishnu440 wrote:
parallelsim is not there betwwen modifier including and verb produced

This question is more complex than it seems to be - the author seems to have intentionally laid the trap in which you have fallen into:

"including" and "produced" are not the parallel items. The structure is as follows:

The last part of the sentence ( "a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, which.......employees) is an absolute phrase:

structure of absolute phrase: noun + noun modifier -

noun: company
noun modifier (relative clause type): which produced ....and which had....

You would now notice that the two parallel items of the noun modifier are "produced" and "had".

Within the second item in the parrallel structure (" which had 2100 employees") an additional non-essential present participle modifier is nested ("including....Energi").

Is the structure clear now?

vishnu440 wrote:
I don't agree with the explanation. parallelism

After reading the above explanation, do you still disagree? If you do, then please mention why you do?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2884
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2016, 14:26
nipikasharma wrote:
I think this is a poor-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. Shouldn't "producing" be parallel to "and, including"?. Producing is modifying Statkraft and which had is modifying the 2 subsidiaries. Why should these be parallel. Moreover, there is no conjunction connecting producing and which had.

There is a cleverly laid trap in the sentence, and only by understanding the structure you can avoid falling into it. Please read the explanation above about parallelism:
v11-209331.html#p1706676

There is no "producing" in the correct option D. Thus I could not understand your statement "here is no conjunction connecting producing and which had". In case the above explanation is not clear, feel free to write back.
Manager
Joined: 12 Aug 2015
Posts: 118
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.38

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2016, 19:09
sayantanc2k wrote:
nipikasharma wrote:
I think this is a poor-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. Shouldn't "producing" be parallel to "and, including"?. Producing is modifying Statkraft and which had is modifying the 2 subsidiaries. Why should these be parallel. Moreover, there is no conjunction connecting producing and which had.

There is a cleverly laid trap in the sentence, and only by understanding the structure you can avoid falling into it. Please read the explanation above about parallelism:
v11-209331.html#p1706676

There is no "producing" in the correct option D. Thus I could not understand your statement "here is no conjunction connecting producing and which had". In case the above explanation is not clear, feel free to write back.

Hi, please explain why A is wrong.:

Here:

In 2007, Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, was the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region, producing 22.7 kWH of energy of which majority was Hydroelectric produced in 133 plants in Norway, 12 in Sweden and 4 in Finland and, including the subsidiaries Skagerak Energi and Trondheim Energi, which had 2100 employees.

if we remove fluff from the sentence, we will be left with:

Statkraft was...., producing........and including...

In this way, the final outcome of Statkraft was that it produced 22.7kWH of energy and had subsidiaries, thereby making it parallel.

Regards.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2884
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2016, 11:28
2
1
1988achilles wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
nipikasharma wrote:
I think this is a poor-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. Shouldn't "producing" be parallel to "and, including"?. Producing is modifying Statkraft and which had is modifying the 2 subsidiaries. Why should these be parallel. Moreover, there is no conjunction connecting producing and which had.

There is a cleverly laid trap in the sentence, and only by understanding the structure you can avoid falling into it. Please read the explanation above about parallelism:
v11-209331.html#p1706676

There is no "producing" in the correct option D. Thus I could not understand your statement "here is no conjunction connecting producing and which had". In case the above explanation is not clear, feel free to write back.

Hi, please explain why A is wrong.:

Here:

In 2007, Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, was the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region, producing 22.7 kWH of energy of which majority was Hydroelectric produced in 133 plants in Norway, 12 in Sweden and 4 in Finland and, including the subsidiaries Skagerak Energi and Trondheim Energi, which had 2100 employees.

if we remove fluff from the sentence, we will be left with:

Statkraft was...., producing........and including...

In this way, the final outcome of Statkraft was that it produced 22.7kWH of energy and had subsidiaries, thereby making it parallel.

Regards.

Notice the comma AFTER and; there would be no justification for that placement if producing and including were parallel.

If producing and including were to be parallel, the comma should be BEFORE and.

However if which produced and which had are parallel, then the comma after and indicates start of a non-essential modifier ( including the subsidiaries Skagerak Energi and Trondheim Energi). (option D)
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2013
Posts: 67
Location: United States (HI)
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.56

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2016, 06:54
What is the second "which" referring to? The Statkraft or Trondheim Energi?
If it is referring to Statkraft, isn't the second "which" too far from its antecedent?
Intern
Joined: 14 Mar 2014
Posts: 20
Schools: HBS '17

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2016, 07:03
tae808 wrote:
What is the second "which" referring to? The Statkraft or Trondheim Energi?
If it is referring to Statkraft, isn't the second "which" too far from its antecedent?

the structure is Noun....., which.................... and which.......................

so even if the second which is too far from the Noun it refers to, parallel structure eliminates the ambiguity.

Had it been not parallel, the second which could have referred to other nouns.

I hope it helps
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2013
Posts: 67
Location: United States (HI)
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.56

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2016, 07:06
Lastlap2016 wrote:
tae808 wrote:
What is the second "which" referring to? The Statkraft or Trondheim Energi?
If it is referring to Statkraft, isn't the second "which" too far from its antecedent?

the structure is Noun....., which.................... and which.......................

so even if the second which is too far from the Noun it refers to, parallel structure eliminates the ambiguity.

Had it been not parallel, the second which could have referred to other nouns.

I hope it helps

Thanks.
I did not know that you could construct a parallelism sentence with "which" as its usage is very strict.
Intern
Joined: 14 Jun 2015
Posts: 16

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2016, 03:36
I think this the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. Hi,

what does ' including the subsidiaries Skagerak Energi and Trondheim Energi' modify? Pls help me understand relation of this sentence with the overall sentence..
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2884
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2016, 02:15
Saurav Arora wrote:
I think this the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. Hi,

what does ' including the subsidiaries Skagerak Energi and Trondheim Energi' modify? Pls help me understand relation of this sentence with the overall sentence..

It is quite a complex sentence. First consider this:

Including the subsidiaries Skagerak Energi and Trondheim Energi, Statkraft had 2100 employees.

The present participle modifier ("including....Trondheim Energi") refers to the entire succeeding (independent) clause ("Statkraft had 2100 employees").

Option D uses relative pronoun "which" instead of "Statkraft". Thus the present participle modifier ("including... ") is nested within another relative clause modifier ("which had....) and refers to the entire (dependent) clause "which had 2100 employees" .
Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Posts: 37
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2016, 13:31
I think this is a high-quality question and I agree with explanation.
Intern
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Posts: 8

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2016, 00:41
I think this is a poor-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. Here the parallel list seems to be ....producing 22.7KWH...and including (verb) the subsidiaries....
'which had 2100 employees'- which refers to the subsidiaries i suppose.
"...., which produced... and,which had 2100 employees including (adjective) the subsidiaries...." doesnt make sense. the subsidiaries cannot be examples or part of the 2100 employees. Kindly correct me if I am wrong in my understanding. Thanks
Intern
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 41
Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.9

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2017, 06:01
can any expert tell me how is which had at the end referring back to the company not its subsidies which are closest major noun to 'which'??
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2884
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2017, 08:53
smanujahrc wrote:
can any expert tell me how is which had at the end referring back to the company not its subsidies which are closest major noun to 'which'??

"Which" cannot refer to the subsidiaries, because in that case the sentence would be incomplete. The basic structure of the sentence is as follows:

The 3rd largest producer was Statkraft, which produced and which had.
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2016
Posts: 262
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 4
WE: General Management (Other)

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2017, 09:01
souvik101990 wrote:
In 2007, Statkraft, a Norwegian state-owned electricity company, was the third largest energy producer in the Nordic region, producing 22.7 kWH of energy of which majority was Hydroelectric produced in 133 plants in Norway, 12 in Sweden and 4 in Finland and, including the subsidiaries Skagerak Energi and Trondheim Energi, which had 2100 employees.

Shouldn't we have a Comma before the -> and <- highlighted above. That is a list of 3. Additionally, isn't this list "not"-parallel. I mean, the underlined part should say

133 plants in Norway, 12 plants in Sweden and 4 plants in Finland

to be parallel.
_________________

I'd appreciate learning about the grammatical errors in my posts

Please hit Kudos If my Solution helps

My Debrief for 750 - https://gmatclub.com/forum/from-720-to-750-one-of-the-most-difficult-pleatues-to-overcome-246420.html

My CR notes - https://gmatclub.com/forum/patterns-in-cr-questions-243450.html

Re: V11-08   [#permalink] 06 Jun 2017, 09:01

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 27 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# V11-08

Moderators: chetan2u, Bunuel

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.