Question
With corn, soybean, and wheat reserves being low enough so a poor harvest would send prices skyrocketing, grain futures brokers and their clients are especially interested in weather that could affect crops.
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
The sentence begins with a prepositional phrase (with corn…skyrocketing) modifying the main clause (grain futures…crops).
Grain futures brokers and their clients are very interested in weather that could affect the harvest of crops. Why are they interested? Because the reserves of corn, soybean, and wheat are quite low. How much low? Low to the extent that a poor harvest would make the prices extremely high. (Therefore, the brokers are interested in knowing whether there’s going to be a poor harvest)
Now, we understand that “a poor harvest would send price skyrocketing” is providing information about the extent of “low” levels of reserves. The correct and most concise way to express such relationship is using the idiom ‘so X that Y’ i.e. “so low that a poor harvest…” in option C.
Option Analysis
(A) Incorrect. The structure “low enough so” is non-idiomatic.
(B) Incorrect. This option combines two idiomatic structures “so X that Y” and “X such that Y”, producing a non-idiomatic structure “so X such that”.
(C) Correct. As explained in the sentence analysis.
(D) Incorrect. “low enough so” is non-idiomatic. The use of relative clause “that are” unnecessarily makes the option wordy.
(E) Incorrect. “so low such that” is non-idiomatic. The use of relative clause “that are” unnecessarily makes the option wordy.
Discover more from GMAT with CJ
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi CJ,
Is there a modifier/meaning error in option D and E because:
“that-clause” acts as essential modifier and modifies “reserves”. So, in option D, E we are talking about a segment/category of reserves which are already low and not about overall reserves in general.
Does this make sense or am I going wrong in my understanding?
Bilkul sahi. That’s also an issue.
Hi CJ,
What role is played by “being” in option A?
According to me:
Being – not used as a verb since it is not preceded by “tho be” form of verb.
Being – not used as a noun since it is used in a prepositional phrase and neither acts as a subject nor as a noun.
Being – likely used as a modifier (verb-ing) and modifies “reserves”
Am I correct in my understanding? Would appreciate your help here!
Yes. “being” acts as a verb-ing modifier here.
Hi CJ,
Does ‘grain futures’ refer to single entity ? If yes, Shouldn’t apostrophe be used ?
Yes, it’s a single entity. No, an apostrophe is not necessary here. There are other such constructions as well in which a noun acts as an adjective e.g. company policies (not necessarily company’s policies), laptop charger (not necessarily laptop’s charger)
Hello CJ,
Could you please suggest why correct option do not have verb after reserves i.e. “With corn, soybean, and wheat reserves ARE so low that a poor harvest would send prices skyrocketing, …..
“with” is a preposition. A prepositional phrase cannot have a verb. Thus, “corn, soybean, and wheat reserves” cannot have a verb.
Leave a comment