Many daring vacationers who participate in guided boat tours on the Ta

Question

Many daring vacationers who participate in guided boat tours on the Tarcoles River  encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses are peeking out  from the surface of the murky water.

(A) encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses are peeking out

(B) encountered native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses peek out

(C) had encountered native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses peek out

(D) encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, with eyes and noses peeking out

(E) encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, with eyes and noses that are peeking out

TommyWallach · Accepted Answer

Hey All,

While Angel's explanation is entirely correct, it's a bit light on detail, so I thought I'd weigh in.

The big category here is modifiers, and the rules regarding modifiers are very strict. If you want to modify a noun, the modifier and the modifi-ee (my invented word) have to touch.

(A) encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses are peeking out

(B) encountered native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses peek out

(C) had encountered native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses peek out

(D) encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, with eyes and noses peeking out

(E) encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, with eyes and noses that are peeking out

The first split you inevitably saw (aside from the verb tense issue up front, which we can also discuss) was "whose" versus "with". "Whose" is a relative pronoun, and can only be used to modify nouns. That means that "whose" better go RIGHT NEXT to the thing it modifies. Unfortunately, in A, B and C, it modifies "shallows". This doesn't make any sense, for obvious reasons.

"with" is a preposition, and also sets off a modifying phrase. However, this phrase is not modifying crocodiles (As you may have assumed) but "lurking". One way to determine what's being modified is to ask yourself what question is being answered by the modifying phrase. In other words, you can't answer a question about the crocodile with this modifier ("What were the crocodiles doing?" "With eyes and noses peeking out" -- this makes no sense). But you can answer the question "How were the crocodiles lurking?" "With eyes and noses peeking out"). We're modifying a verb, and verb modifiers DO NOT need to touch the verbs they modify.

Between D and E, D is simply more concise (there's no reason to introduce the relative pronoun "that"; it just complicates the meaning).

Also, there's no reason to use any tense but present here. Notice the original verb "participate", which is in the present, then ask yourself if there's any good reason to change tenses. There isn't. Answer is D.

Hope that helps!

sayantanc2k · Answer

Hi  debbiem ,

Your reasoning is good, but you missed out one tense error in A. The present continuous tense  are peaking out  implies that the action is happening at this current moment. This tense is definitely wrong. This option would mean that the visitors encounter crocodiles whose eyes and noses are peaking out at this moment...

I understand that you are very concerned with the modifier touch rule, and you are right in doing so. However there are exceptions to modifier touch rule. This example illustrates such an exception: another essential phrase modifier may sometimes drop in between a noun and its modifier. Since you have more serious problem (tense problem) in option A, you would be better off with D, although the modifier touch rule is not followed in this case.

Also note that  peaking out  in option D is not in present continuous tense, but a present participle. A present participle follows the tense of the main verb of the sentence, in this case simple present.

BarneyStinson · Answer

My standard way of solving SC questions, break the sentence into meaningful clauses, each clause speaks about one and only one thing. Now you can eliminate some of the clauses that are just adding information and aren't necessary to understand the complete meaning. That way, you can clearly see the usage of "whose" is a pronoun-referencing error.

My take is D and lock this as the OA.

lastshot · Answer

My take on this question is in a different way , As i think use of whose is correct because It clearly refer's to croc's !!

Ans is D,

Reasoning as follows : < I split sentence into its clauses >

Many Daring vactioners,

Who  participate in guided tours on the tarcos river ,  encounter  native crocodile lurking in the swallows,

Whose eyes & noes are peeking out from the surface of murky water

Now, As per S-V agreement Sentence is correct, 
Pronoun : whose --> referring to croc correct
Verb Tense : Since this is a information statement hence Simple present tense must be use , Use of present progressive in under line portion ( Whose eyes & noes are peeking) wrong
Modifiers : Correct
Parallelism : OK
Idioms : does not find any specific
Meaning : clear

A : Wrong because of VT error
B: use of encountered verb wrong
C : Use of past perfect wrong
D : Correct Ans , 
E : Use of that unnecessary

Hope it helps !!

Regards
ST

Divyadisha · Answer

I would chose 'D' for this.

The question stem is stating a fact, and hence 'B' and 'C' are out because of past/ past perfect tense. In option 'E'- with eyes and noses that are peaking out- 'that are' is not required.

'Whose' in option A is not clear for what is is referring to. 'D' sounds correct that crocodiles with eyes and noses peaking out of water are seen by vacationers.

FieryLeo · Answer

sayantanc2k

Many daring vacationers who participate in guided boat tours on the Tarcoles River 
 encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses are peeking out   
from the surface of the murky water.

B > encountered native  crocodiles  lurking in the shallows,  whose  eyes and noses peek out
Having read about so many modifier and their exceptions (such as that, which , etc) I have come up with a rule that meaning is given precedence over placement all the time.

In this option "whose" very well modifies crocodiles logically ; lurking in the shallows modifies crocodiles logically and grammatically and its a participle phrase - so we can drop off this part to fetch the crux of the sentence. After cutting the fluff I found the usage of "whose" correct in this option.
Of Course we have fatal verb error in this choice to make it incorrect.

Can we say that the usage of "whose" is correct in here?

D> encounter native  crocodiles  lurking in the shallows,  with  eyes and noses peeking out

For the usage of WITH - I always though comma + with modifies the preceding action/verb and answers the How question.
How did the vacationers encountered crocodiles? with eyes and noses peeking out ? Does not make sense

So how is "WITH" modifying crocodile? and what are the rule around the "WITH"

sayantanc2k · Answer

Both your questions are related. In general a modifier should touch the noun it modifies. However there are certain exceptions when this rule does not hold. Manhattan SC guide elaborates these rules in a structured way. The above is an example of such an exception in which the touch rule does not hold.

Moreover I would suggest not to differentiate the modifiers as "whose" modifiers, "with" modifiers etc. - it is more convenient to generalize the rules for all modifiers - only some exceptions may be memorized (e.g., present participle modifier may refer to the whole preceding clause).

asdfghjklasdfghj · Answer

Between D and E: Am I right to say that both answer are grammatically correct but one is more concise than the other ?

sayantanc2k · Answer

No, it is not concision that makes option D better. The present continuous tense "are peaking out" makes option E wrong.

anairamitch1804 · Answer

In the original sentence, the modifier “ whose eyes and noses are peaking out… ” incorrectly refers to “ shallows .” When used to introduce a noun modifier, “ whose ” always refers to the  immediately preceding noun . In this case, the author intends to refer to the “ crocodiles ,” not the “ shallows .”

(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.

(B) The modifier “whose eyes and noses peak out…” incorrectly refers to “shallows.” When used to introduce a noun modifier, “whose” always refers to the immediately preceding noun. In this case, the author intends to refer to the “crocodiles,” not the “shallows.” Further, the past tense “encountered” is inconsistent with the present tense “participate.” When there is no compelling reason to change tenses, consistency is preferred. Also, the past tense “encountered” seems to imply that these encounters have already happened. However, it is clear from the original sentence that the encounters are ongoing occurrences for “vacationers who participate in guided boat tours.”

(C) The modifier “whose eyes and noses peak out…” incorrectly refers to “shallows.” When used to introduce a noun modifier, “whose” always refers to the immediately preceding noun. In this case, the author intends to refer to the “crocodiles,” not the “shallows.” Further, the past perfect “had encountered” is used incorrectly. The past perfect tense should only be used to specify the first of two past events. Here, there are no past events.

(D) CORRECT. The adverbial modifier “ with eyes and noses peaking out ” correctly modifies the verb " lurking ." As this example shows,  adverbial modifiers  do not need to be placed adjacent to the verbs they modify. Further, the present tense “ encounter ” is consistent with the present tense “ participate .”

(E) While the adverbial modifier “ with eyes and noses that are peaking out ” correctly modifies the verb "lurking," this phrasing is unnecessarily wordy. The more concise “with eyes and noses peaking out” is preferred.

ajtmatch · Answer

I read somewhere on this forum that a "preposition + noun + participle phrase" is an incorrect structure. In option D, how can a "with + eyes and noses + peeking" be a correct structure?

moneshrathore · Answer

TommyWallach

i am still confused why option E is wrong, just because of use of That or it is not concise...

globaldesi · Answer

i agree that shallows is the noun adjacent to whose. Hence Band C are wrong but isn't "in the shallows" prepositional phrase and whose does not modify the prepositional phrase.

Can some one please clear?

gvij2017 · Answer

In my understanding B is wrong for tense error, not for modifier error.

Whose is correctly modifying crocodile and this is example of exception of touch rule.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Many daring vacationers who participate in guided boat tours on the Ta

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

Many daring vacationers who participate in guided boat tours on the Ta

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