It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 07:55

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

V11-08

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4484

Kudos [?]: 17016 [0], given: 1963

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2015, 09:33
Expert's post
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

36% (00:45) correct 64% (00:57) wrong based on 114 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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Kudos [?]: 17016 [0], given: 1963

Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4484

Kudos [?]: 17016 [0], given: 1963

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2015, 09:34
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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….

Answer: D
_________________

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Kudos [?]: 17016 [0], given: 1963

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2014
Posts: 25

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 6

Schools: Molson '19
GMAT Date: 12-06-2014
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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 !!

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 6

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 24

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 28

Location: India
Schools: IIMA (I)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.2
GMAT ToolKit User
Re V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jul 2016, 04:40
parallelsim is not there betwwen modifier including and verb produced

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 28

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 24

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 28

Location: India
Schools: IIMA (I)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.2
GMAT ToolKit User
Re V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jul 2016, 04:41
I don't agree with the explanation. parallelism

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 28

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2016
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.7
Reviews Badge
Re V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3157

Kudos [?]: 3303 [1], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jul 2016, 14:20
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
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?

Kudos [?]: 3303 [1], given: 22

Expert Post
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3157

Kudos [?]: 3303 [0], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 3303 [0], given: 22

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Aug 2015
Posts: 133

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 76

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.38
Reviews Badge
Re: V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Please advise, if I am correct.

Regards.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 76

Expert Post
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3157

Kudos [?]: 3303 [0], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jul 2016, 11:28
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.

Please advise, if I am correct.

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)

Kudos [?]: 3303 [0], given: 22

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2013
Posts: 72

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 11

Location: United States (HI)
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.56
Re: V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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?

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 11

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2014
Posts: 21

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 41

Schools: HBS '17
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 41

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2013
Posts: 72

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 11

Location: United States (HI)
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.56
Re: V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 11

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2015
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 46

Re V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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..

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 46

Expert Post
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3157

Kudos [?]: 3303 [0], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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" .

Kudos [?]: 3303 [0], given: 22

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Posts: 48

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 309

GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
GMAT ToolKit User
Re V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2016, 13:31
I think this is a high-quality question and I agree with explanation.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 309

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 85

Re V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 85

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 62

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 64

Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.9
Reviews Badge
Re: V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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'??

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 64

Expert Post
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3157

Kudos [?]: 3303 [0], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 3303 [0], given: 22

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 18 Jun 2016
Posts: 268

Kudos [?]: 178 [0], given: 102

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Olin '19 (A)
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.7
WE: General Management (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: V11-08 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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

Rest of the Notes coming soon.

Kudos [?]: 178 [0], given: 102

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

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 26 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

V11-08

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: Bunuel, Vyshak



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.