gempony
I eliminated the answer choices on the basis that "verb-ing" should not appear in the middle of the sentence...hence I thought the last option was the best.
I m not completely convinced that answer choice B was the correct answer.
Would any Grammar expert share your thoughts on this?
Attached the screen cap of the question in pdf fyr.
Thanks!
gempony , B is correct.
Split #1: Redundancy: "Eclipsed beyond" is redundant.
In this case
eclipse means
to surpass.
To
surpass means to go beyond or to be greater than.
To go beyond beyond? No.
Eliminate A and D
Split #2 Essential/non-essential modifierNote:
which introduces non-essential modifiers and is set off by commas
That introduces essential modifiers and is NOT set off by commas
. . . "report
which linked caffeine to tachycardia" is incorrect.
If "which" is used, it should be set off by commas. In that case it introduces a nonessential modifier.
Nonessential modifiers can be removed from the sentence without altering its core.
The word
that introduces essential modifiers and is not set off by commas.
The correct construction is a"report THAT linked caffeine to tachycardia. . . " or "a report linking caffeine to tachycardia."
"linking [or linked] caffeine to tachycardia" cannot be removed; the sentence falls apart.
Eliminate E
Split #3: compound predicates either should not have a comma between the subject and second verb,
or should contain a repeated subject if a comma is necessary.
A compound predicate means that the subject is coupled with more than one verb/verb phrase.
Consumption is the singular subject. Decline is the first verb. The second and third verbs are "resumed and exceeded" and "stabilized and exceeded."
Commas are not placed between compound predicates. The comma inserts a "pause" between the subject and the second verb.
As
sonusaini1 notes (+1 - you posted while I was typing), Option B repeats the subject, consumption, after "but."
Option D does not.
I could get into linguistic subtleties about whether D has a comma between two ICs (implied subject),
but it's easier just to see that repeating the subject is clearer.
Incorrect: Subject A did X, but [Subject A also] did Y
Correct: Subject A did X , but Subject A also did Y
Concision? Not enough difference.
I am not inclined to take B over D simply because B uses "caffeine consumption"
and D uses "consumption of caffeine."
Split #3a: Meaning/logicB and D contain different logical trajectories.
D does not necessarily have faulty logic, but the logic of B is better.
In B) "Caffeine consumption declined sharply . . . but consumption resumed and even eclipsed" its prior levels . . .
In D) "Consumption of caffeine declined sharply . . . but eventually stabilized and even eclipsed" its prior levels
B: consumption declines, resumes, and exceeds former levels
D: consumption declines,
stabilizes (stops declining), and exceeds former levels?
In B, we have a logical launch pad for consumption to increase so much that it eclipses its prior levels. That launch pad is the resumed consumption of caffeine.
The decline stopped, AND consumption resumed. An increase from that resumption mark makes sense.
In D, consumption declines in a free fall, then stabilizes (at what level?).
After consumption merely stabilizes and does not necessarily resume, suddenly and rather illogically, consumption surpasses its prior levels.
B has a more sensible middle step: decline, resume, increase
D is: decline, stop declining [stop cold at some lower level], increase
Option B is correct
Hope that analysis helps.