Question
Financial uncertainties from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove even more deterring to the nuclear industry than political opposition is.
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
- Financial uncertainties (Main Subject)
- from the accident (Prepositional phrase – modifies “uncertainties”)
- at Three Mile Island (Prepositional phrase – modifies “accident”)
- from the accident (Prepositional phrase – modifies “uncertainties”)
- may prove (Main Verb)
- even more deterring (Object for the main verb)
- to the nuclear industry (Prepositional phrase – modifies ‘prove’)
- than political opposition is. (Second part of the comparison)
The sentence seems to compare two deterrents to the nuclear industry:
- Financial uncertainties from an accident
- Political opposition
The sentence says the first one may prove to be a bigger deterrent than the second one is.
The sentence has the following problems:
- The verb ‘deter’ is a transitive verb and thus needs a direct object. The given sentence doesn’t have a direct object for ‘deter’.
- While the construction ‘financial uncertainties from the accident’ is not wrong, ‘financial uncertainties resulting from the accident’ is a better construction.
Option Analysis
(A) Incorrect. For the reasons mentioned above.
(B) Incorrect. For the following reasons:
- The comparison is not clear. Here the comparison could be between any of the two combinations:
- ‘Financial uncertainties’ and ‘political opposition’ (the most logical meaning)
- ‘A deterrent’ and ‘political opposition’
- The phrase ‘even more serious a deterrent’ is better phrased as ‘an even more serious deterrent’.
- The second issue of the original sentence.
(C) Incorrect. This option repeats the first error of option B and the second issue of the original sentence.
(D) Correct. resulting from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove to be an even more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry than is political opposition
(E) Incorrect. For the following reasons:
- The first error of the original sentence
- The comparison is ambiguous. The following two comparisons are possible:
- “Financial uncertainties” compared with “political opposition”
- “Nuclear industry” compared with “political opposition”
If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask in the comments section.
This solution was created by Chiranjeev Singh and Anish Passi.
Could you tell me what a transitive verb is and what is meant by ‘it needs a direct object’?
Thanks for all the effort CJ!
Hi Sakshi,
This article will help: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/
Let me know if you still have doubts.
– CJ
Hey CJ,
This link is no longer available. I am unable to understand the transitive verb and direct object concept. As far as I am able to understand, transitive verbs are the verbs that talk about an object/noun directly. Here-ing is verbal so we can call it an intransitive verb. After “deterring” we can see another “to verbal” not an object. Thus, Option A is incorrect.
Please help me understand if I am right.
Since ‘deterring originates from ‘deter’, it needs a direct object, which is not there. In this context, we have to provide a noun right after ‘deterring’ to provide it an object. However, doing so would lead to other issues in the sentence.
Isn’t ‘to the nuclear industry’ an object for deterring?
The verb ‘deter’ is a transitive verb and thus needs a direct object. (i.e. object is just placed to verb without any preposition in between )
The alarm is usually sufficient to deter a would-be thief.
so,”to the nuclear industry ” is not a direct object here.
Thanks.
option D says:
Financial uncertainties may prove to be an even more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry- here ‘deterrent’ is followed by prepositional phrase & not by direct object.Pls help in clarifying where i am faltering.
Financial uncertainties may prove to be an even more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry- here ‘deterrent’ is followed by prepositional phrase & not by direct object.Pls help in clarifying where i am faltering.
In your sentence, ‘deterrent’ is not a verb but a noun.
Hi CJ
Questions has a split btw ‘Dettering’ & ‘detterent’.Former is Gerunds(Noun form of verbing) & Latter is Action noun.Why direct object is not required following ‘Detterent’ as required in ‘dettering’.I chose deterring over deterrent,thinking Verb form is preferred over noun form.Please help on the same.
A proper noun can never require an object. A verb-ing, even when it acts as a noun or a gerund, retains its verb-like properties and thus needs an object at times. For example: In “demonstrating a principle”, a principle is an object for “demonstrating”. However, a proper noun “demonstration” cannot have an object. It can have a prepositional phrase acting as its modifier.
Hi CJ,
Did not understand why the comparison is ambiguous in option E.
“Financial uncertainties” compared with “political opposition”
Is this what is being compared or am missing something?
Thanks
Ankit
A may prove more deterring to B than C.
Are we comparing B and C OR A and C?
hi @CJ sir i am not clear with the explanation for deter used as a transitive verb- in other options say in E uses the same construction deterring to the nuclear industry so whats the difference between A and E in the usage of deter? waiting for your reply
A and E both are wrong for the same reasons. When we say a verb is transitive, we mean that it needs an object. However, neither option A nor option E has an object for ‘deter’ or ‘deterring’
Leave a comment