As sources of electrical power, windmills now account for only about 2,500 megawatts nationwide, but production is almost expected to double by the end of the year, which would provide enough electricity for 1.3 million households.
(This question is from Official Guide. Therefore, because of copyrights, the complete question cannot be copied here. The question can be accessed at GMAT Club)
The sentence says that windmills, as sources of electricity, currently account for only around 2,500 megawatts in the country. The statement then presents a contrast using “but”. Let’s focus on the part after “but”.
- production is almost expected to double by the end of the year, which would provide enough electricity for 1.3 million households.
We can see that “almost” modifies “expected in the sentence. Logically, it should modify “double” since generally, expectedness doesn’t exist along a continuum whereas production does exist along a continuum. Thus, it makes much more sense to say that production will almost double rather than say something is almost expected.
Additionally, “which” seems to modify either “year” or “end of the year”, both illogical modifications since neither of these entities can provide electricity! Logically, “which” should modify “production” since production will provide electricity.
The use of “would” to talk about future event is fine since the future event is hypothetical or unsure.
Therefore, the original sentence has two errors.
(A) Incorrect. For two errors explained above.
(B) Incorrect. For the following errors:
- “almost expected” error as in option A
- The construction “X is expected that X will do something” is not correct. The correct constructions are:
- X is expected to do something
- It is expected that X will do something
Therefore, the construction in this option “production is almost expected that it will double” is incorrect.
(C) Incorrect. For the following reasons:
- Error no. 2 from option B repeated here.
- “to provide” is wrong. It conveys intention. It seems, from this option, that the production will double with an intention to provide electricity! Clearly, we do not expect production to have an intention, and thus, this construction is illogical.
(D) Correct. Both “almost to double” and “to almost double” convey the same meaning and are fine. This option uses the former construction. Besides, “to provide” after “and” is parallel to “to double” before “and”. The sentence logically conveys that the production is expected to provide almost enough electricity.
(E) Incorrect. “which” illogically refers to “year” or “end of the year”. Secondly, the use of progressive tense “be providing” is inappropriate here since this “providing” will happen after the production “doubles”. The use of progressive tenses distorts the sequencing of events and inserts unnecessary change in verb form.