Discovering the methane output of fossil fuels has been vastly underes

Question

Pack 11, Question 1 of 5:

Discovering the methane output of fossil fuels has been vastly underestimated,  restrictions on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more than they had  previously thought.
 
A. restrictions on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more than they had
B. restrictions on methane emissions by researchers determined the positive impact on our environment more than had been
C. researchers have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than
D. researchers have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than that which was
E. researchers have determined which restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than that

◀ Pack 10, Question 5  
 ▶ Pack 11, Question 2 
 ⏏ Question Pack Home

48 Hour Window To Win An $85 EMPOWERgmat Tuition Credit (1 Month Free!)   
Share your explanation!  The GMAT Club member with the most verified Kudos  in total on the 5 question SC Block 11 question pack will  win an $85 EMPOWERgmat tuition credit , which will entitle the winner to a full month of complete access to the EMPOWERgmat system. Even if you're not sure about your answer or your rationale, share your explanation to help boost your learning and earn a chance to win.

To be eligible, your explanation must:
 be submitted within the 48 hour window after this post was created
should explain your reasoning why the answer you chose is correct, and why the other 4 options are incorrect within 48 hours of this post

The OA and official explanation will be held until the 48 hour window has lapsed.

Mo2men · Answer

I'm confused by this question. is no it run on sentence?

'Discovering the methane output of fossil fuels has......' is independent clause. Every choice is another independent clause.

so how come they are arranged without any connector?

NischalP · Answer

IMO C

A & B shift the meaning of the sentence by placing the wrong modifier "Restrictions"
Restrictions are not the subject of this clause. It should be researchers who determine.

Discovering the methane output of fossil fuels has been vastly underestimated, restrictions on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more than they had previously thought.

A.  restrictions  on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more than they  had  -  Unnecesary passive voice and other errors stated above 
B. restrictions on methane emissions by researchers determined the positive impact on our environment more than had been -  Unnecesary passive voice and other errors stated above 
C. researchers have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than
D. researchers have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than that  which was  - past "was" shifts the meaning. verb tense error ( Could/was)
E. researchers have determined which restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than that. - We cannot use non essential modifier "which", That holds the meaning of the sentence strong.

For the above reasons I believe IMO is C.

sauravleo123 · Answer

Discovering the methane output of fossil fuels has been vastly underestimated, restrictions on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more than they had previously thought.

A. restrictions on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more than they had
B. restrictions on methane emissions by researchers determined the positive impact on our environment more than had been
C. researchers have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than
D. researchers have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than that which was
E. researchers have determined which restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than that

A. The opening modifier should modify the researchers. Incorrect
B. Same as A
C. Correct
D. More than that which was- does not make sense. Terrible construction, confusing and redundant.
E. Which resyrictions changes the meaning completely.
C is correct

Posted from my mobile device

arvind910619 · Answer

Imo C

An easy question to sail through if you go by 3/2 splits
Now coming back to the question.

Meaning analysis - Restrictions on methane were not put by researchers as the original sentence seems to suggest. Researchers were studying the impact of the restrictions on methane.

A is out as per or analysis above. This suggests that restrictions were unknown or hidden and they have been discovered
B is also out. This suggest that restrictions determined the positive impact. The meaning illogical.
C This is correct
D " that which was " is not correct.
E No this is not the intended meaning. There was no demarcation between types of restrictions. There are all treated as one. Out.

Parikshit07 · Answer

Hi Expert,

Though I chose option C as it was better than any other choice, I am skeptical about the grammatical correctness of the sentence as both the sentences separated by a comma are independent clause so a coordinating conjunction should have been used here. Please help me understand this.

Thanks,
Parikshit

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi  Parikshit07 ,

You could try  the official question that this question is based on .

Raxit85 · Answer

Discovering the methane output of fossil fuels has been vastly underestimated, restrictions on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more than they had previously thought.

Discovering some'g has been underestimated, (who discovered/what discovered???) restrictions................ A and B out.

A.  restrictions  on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more than they had - Incorrect as per above reason (modifier error)
B.  restrictions  on methane emissions by researchers determined the positive impact on our environment more than had been - Incorrect as per above reason (modifier error)

Discovering some'g has been (vastly) underestimated, researchers have determined that restrictions (on methane emissions) could (positively) impact our environment more than previously thought. - Seems first part of sentence is clause starting with gerund (-ing modifier) and the main subject is researchers. No error but still hold it.
C. researchers have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than - seems the weird grammatical structure (especially punctuation rules), but hold it. 
D. researchers have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than that which was  - two consecutive relative pronouns (fatal error).
E. researchers have  determined which restrictions  on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than  that  - Incorrect usage of which (non-essential modifier but here the following information is crucial as a part of main clause) which changes the meaning and usage of that is additional.

Imo. C

EMPOWERgmatVerbal ,

Is here in option C, does 'that....' act as relative clause?? I am sure but can you please confirm my thought as it's possible to correct the 'independent clause, independent clause' by converting any of the independent clause into phrase or relative clause.

Mo2men · Answer

Dear  EMPOWERgmatVerbal

Again, my question to you. How 2 independent clauses are separated by comma only?

Can you revisit the question? I hope you do not ignore this question as others are skeptical of the question

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

We will get to it after the 48 hour waiting period is expired,  Mo2men  - no way we'll leave you hanging!

With each question in our kudos contest, we give you 2 days to answer it for yourself, then we'll come back with the official explanation and address any questions you have!

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Official Explanation

Discovering the methane output of fossil fuels has been vastly underestimated,  restrictions on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more than they had  previously thought.
 
 A.  restrictions  on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more  than they had  
 B.  restrictions  on methane emissions by researchers determined the positive impact on our environment more  than had been  
 C.  researchers  have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more  than  
 D.  researchers  have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more  than that which was  
 E.  researchers  have determined which restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more  than that  
 
After a quick glance over the options, there are a couple places we can focus on to narrow down our choices:
 
 1. restrictions / researchers (Modifiers)
2. than they had / than had been / than / than that which was / than that (Comparisons & Idioms) 
 
 Since #1 on our list is a pretty easy “either/or” split, let’s start there.  We need to look more carefully at the modifier in the beginning to determine whether it’s referring to the restrictions or researchers:
 
 Discovering the methane output of fossil fuels has been vastly underestimated ,  restrictions on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more than they had  previously thought.

(NOTE: The non-underlined clause is meant to act as an -ing modifier, but I do see where it could be mistaken as an independent clause. Since it's not underlined, you still need to find the best answer of the 5 given to complete the sentence. You cannot do anything about the non-underlined portion - you can only focus on the underlined parts, and try to find the best option.) 
 
WHO made the discovery? Can restrictions make discoveries? No. But researchers can! Let’s see how our options stack up:
 
A.  restrictions  on methane emissions by researchers have been determined that could positively impact our environment more than they had
B.  restrictions  on methane emissions by researchers determined the positive impact on our environment more than had been
C.  researchers  have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than
D.  researchers  have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than that which was
E.  researchers  have determined which restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than that
 
 We can eliminate options A & B because the noun immediately after the modifier doesn’t make sense.  Now that we have it narrowed down to 3 options, let’s tackle the comparison at the end of each option. To make problems easier to spot, we’ll add in the end of the sentence because it’s the other side of the comparison.
 
 C. researchers have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more  than previously thought. 
 
This looks  OKAY  for now. There aren’t any vague pronouns to confuse readers, and it’s clear that we’re comparing what we used to think with what we currently think, which are parallel.
 
 D. researchers have determined that restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than  that which was previously thought. 
  
This is  INCORRECT  because it’s overly wordy and confusing. It’s not 100% clear what the word “that” is referring back to – restrictions, emissions, environmental impact.
 
 E. researchers have determined which restrictions on methane emissions could positively impact our environment more than  that previously thought. 
  
This is  INCORRECT  because, just like in option D, it’s not clear what the word “that” is referring back to.

There you have it – option C is the correct choice!

Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Well done, Raxit85 ! You cracked the code! Kudos to you! The non-underlined clause is meant to act as an -ing modifier, but I do see where it could be mistaken as an independent clause. Since it's not underlined, you still need to find the best answer of the 5 given to complete the sentence. You cannot do anything about the non-underlined portion - you can only focus on the underlined parts, and try to find the best option. In this case, you did that.

Amandhanani2627 · Answer

what is level of this passage? could you please let everyone know?

Bunuel · Answer

This is a sub-600 Level question. Check tags above the first post for difficulty as well as other tags for a question.

Abhibarua · Answer

Unlike that of the OG question, the first clause of this question is independent (please correct me if I am wrong). So shouldn't the use of a semicolon or conjunction be appropriate here?

Discovering the methane output of fossil fuels has been vastly underes

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

Discovering the methane output of fossil fuels has been vastly underes

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