Question
According to scientists who monitored its path, an expanding cloud of energized particles ejected from the Sun recently triggered a large storm in the magnetic field that surrounds Earth. which brightened the Northern Lights and also possibly knocking out a communications satellite.
Option A
Option B
Option C
Option D
Option E
(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)
Solution
Sentence Analysis
Let’s look at the sentence structure:
- According to scientists (modifies the main clause)
- who monitored its path, (relative clause modifying scientists)
- an expanding cloud of energized particles (Main subject: “cloud”)
- ejected from the Sun (verb-ed modifier modifying “particles”)
- recently triggered a large storm (Main verb: “triggered”)
- in the magnetic field (Modifies the main verb. Answers “Where triggered?”)
- that surrounds Earth. (relative clause modifying “field”)
- which brightened the Northern Lights (relative clause. Seems to modify “Earth”. Should logically modify “storm”)
- and also possibly knocking out a communications satellite. (Logically seems to provide parallel action to “brightened”. “Knocking” is incorrect.)
- that surrounds Earth. (relative clause modifying “field”)
- in the magnetic field (Modifies the main verb. Answers “Where triggered?”)
The sentence presents information according to the scientists who monitored the path of a cloud of energized particles. This cloud was ejected from the sun and recently triggered a large storm. This storm happened in the magnetic field that surrounds Earth. The storm brightened the Norther Lights and possibly knocked out a communications satellite.
The sentence has the following errors:
- In “which brightened”, ‘which’ seems to modify the closest noun “Earth”, producing an illogical meaning that Earth brightened the Northern Lights.
- “knocking” is incorrect since it is not parallel to anything before “and”. In the current structure, it should be replaced by “knocked” to make it parallel to “brightened”.
Option Analysis
(A) Incorrect. For the reasons mentioned above.
(B) Incorrect. For the following problems:
- The use of “was what” unnecessarily twists the sentence structure. The same idea can be communicated by eliminating these words.
- The reference of “it” is not clear. “it” can refer to either “expanding cloud” or “large storm”. Structurally, since “it” is the subject of the independent clause, it refers to the subject of the previous independent clause i.e. “expanding cloud”. However, in such case, this option means that the cloud brightened the Northern lights. Logically, “storm” seems to be a better contended for the same.
- Since “it brightened…” is a separate independent clause in this option, it is not clear whether this clause is also “according to the scientists” or is something separate.
(C) Correct. This option presents “brightening” and “knocking” as verb-ing modifiers modifying the preceding clause. Both of these actions present the result of the preceding the clause. The could triggered a large storm, and as a result, these two events happened.
(D) Incorrect. For the following reasons:
- Since “a large storm” is the subject here, it seems now (from the non-underlined part) that the scientists monitored the path of the storm. Clearly, illogical.
- “it possibly knocked” is a separate independent clause. It is not joined properly with the previous independent clause. Two independent clauses cannot be joined by just “and”.
- This option doesn’t mention that the particles were ejected from the Sun.
(E) Incorrect. Repeats all the errors of option D.
Discover more from GMAT with CJ
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Option B.an expanding cloud of energized particles ejected from the Sun was what recently triggered a large storm in the magnetic field that surrounds Earth, and it brightened the Northern Lights and also possibly knocked
and also possibly knocked… also with and can also be considered for rejecting this choice. I did not consider pronoun ambiguity as the reason for rejection. Sentence structure : The use of “was what”, and also. Can I consider “and also” as a deterministic reason for rejection?
Hi CJ,
In the solution set you mentioned that for option (A)
“which” seems to modify the closes noun entity “Earth” However can’t we say that “in the magnetic field that surrounds Earth” is a prepositional phrase that modifies the noun “Large storm” Thus can’t we say that “which” can logically refer to the “Large storm”
For option (A) could you also comment on the usag of “and also” Many times I see people commenting that “and also” is redundant. What are your views on this usage?
For correct answer choice (C) Could tell me what the “verb-in modifier – brightening and possibly knocking” modify?
Does it modify the subject “Large storm” or does it modify the act of “triggering” i.e… “the triggering of the large storm” lead to the brightening and knocking
Hi Hoozan,
The prepositional phrase “in the magnetic field that surrounds Earth” modifies “triggered”, not “large storm”.
The use of “and also” is perfectly fine. Check out this link to see how prevalent this use is.
In option C, the verb-ing modifies the preceding clause or the verb “triggered”.
as per the context of the mentioned sentence, it is not the cloud, which both brightened the northern lights and knocked out the communication satellite, but the storm triggered by the cloud. As per the concept regarding the verb-ing modifier, the doer of the action in both the main clause and the ing- clause shall be the same. I think that choice C is incorrect in terms of meaning as the doer in both the clauses is the expanding cloud, which doesn’t make any sense. I also understand the fact that option C is the only option with correct grammatical construction. However, I am still not convinced considering the meaning error that I just mentioned.
Good Doubt. However, the verb-ing may not always make sense with the subject. The only definitive criterion for a verb-ing modifier is that it needs to make sense with the preceding clause.
There are other official questions as well:
1. In this question, read my observation at the end of the solution.
2. Even in this question, the verb-ing “improving” doesn’t make sense with the subject “discus”.
Leave a comment