Manhattan CAT SC. Please explain the error in A

[BhupendraS95]

The standard framework of cap and trade is fundamentally conservative, in which a central body generally establishes a limit on the total amount of pollution that can be produced, allocates a certain number of permits, and then allows market forces to dictate the price a company must pay to pollute.

A standard framework of cap and trade is fundamentally conservative, in which a central body generally establishes a limit on the total amount of pollution that can be produced, allocates a certain number of permits, and then allows market forces to dictate the price a company must pay to pollute


B standard framework of cap and trade, a central body generally establishes a limit on the total amount of pollution that can be produced, allocates a certain number of permits, and then allows market forces to dictate the price that companies must pay to pollute, is fundamentally conservative


C standard framework of cap and trade—a central body generally establishes a limit on the total amount of pollution that can be produced, allocates a certain number of permits, and then allows market forces to dictate the price a company must pay to pollute—is, fundamentally, a conservative one


D fundamentally conservative standard framework of cap and trade is: a central body generally establishes a limit on the total amount of pollution that can be produced, allocates a certain number of permits, and then allows market forces to dictate the price that a company must pay to pollute


E fundamentally conservative standard framework of cap and trade, in which a central body generally establishes a limit on the total amount of pollution that can be produced, allocates a certain number of permits, and then allows market forces to dictate the price that companies must pay to pollute

OA is C

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I'm guessing that you've read the explanation for this problem for A: The placement of the modifier in which … pollute after fundamentally conservative makes it sound as though in which … pollute is modifying fundamentally conservative.

'Modifier' simply means that the part of the sentence in which … pollute is giving extra information about another part of the sentence. In answer A it sounds like we've got extra information about 'fundamentally conservative'. Let me give you an example: if I said 'My house is painted yellow, which is next to the post office.' it would sound pretty odd. Much more natural would be: 'My house, which is next to the post office, is painted yellow.'

The principle to follow for such noun modifiers is to place them as close as possible to the noun they're modifying. Check out the SC strategy guide for more about this.

[ZhengJ600]

Sage - I have 2 questions on this one.

1) for A, if a relative clause is as long as that in this sentence, can we invert the structure by having "is fundamentally conservative" before "in which", just like the OG sentence below in which "builds" is put before the relative clause:

Gusty westerly winds will continue to usher a seasonably cool air mass into the region while a broad area of high pressure builds, which will bring fair and dry weather for several days.

2) what do dashes do in this sentence. How come can they connect 2 clauses?

Thank you for your help.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

1) I know that Official Guide example (SC 881 from OG2020) well and I have to admit that it seems to break the rule that the noun modifier is placed next to the noun that it's modifying. We instructors had a pretty good discussion about that one and decided that the alternative sentence, which would have "builds" on its own at the end of the sentence, would simply be too awkward. The principle is that noun modifiers should be placed as close as possible to the noun that they modify.

In the example above, the sentence flows okay with 'is fundamentally conservative' at the end of the sentence. Perhaps there's something about this sentence having two distinct points of meaning: (1) what 'cap and trade' is and (2) that it's conservative. The OG example, on the other hand, has only one real point of meaning. However, that's probably too subtle a difference to worry about.

2) Dashes are sometimes used in SC problems and are somewhat flexible. I often explain them as having a function similar to parentheses or commas. Here the part between the dashes is simply an explanation of the standard cap and trade framework. Check out the section about punctuation in All the Verbal Companion for more on this.

[ZhengJ600]

Thanks Sage.

1) got it and thank you.

2) I was thinking that the dashes serve as commas or parentheses, but commas cannot connect 2 clauses. I guess my real question is: do you think we need a "that" before "a central body", as in "a central body that generally establishes a limit on the total amount of pollution that can be produced, allocates a certain number of permits, and then allows market forces to dictate the price a company must pay to pollute?"

I'm not trying to doubt the correct answer, but to understand the correct usage of dashes here.

Thank you.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Sure, I understand. It's okay for the part between the dashes to be a complete sentence, much as it would be fine for a phrase in parentheses. Take a look at the problem 886 from OG2020 for another example of this.

[ZhengJ600]

Got it. Thank you Sage.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

You're welcome.

[KulvinderS680]

Hello Team,

A couple of queries on this question.

Here is the correct answer choice for this question - Choice C

The standard framework of cap and trade—a central body generally establishes a limit on the total amount of pollution that can be produced, allocates a certain number of permits, and then allows market forces to dictate the price a company must pay to pollute—is, fundamentally, a conservative one

Here we make the adverb fundamentally a non essential information. Is it ok to do if something is not presented as a non essential information?

Moreover, the structure is a conservative one vs is fundamentally conservative forced me to chose option A, which makes perfect sense as a short predicate is allowed between a noun and its long modifier. I am not sure why we chose C in this case?

Thanks in advance for your help!

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I don't understand your question about 'fundamentally' being a non-essential modifier. I think you may be looking beyond what GMAT tests: although commas can be useful clues, GMAT doesn't test comma usage. Also, I don't believe that GMAT tests essential vs. non-essential modifiers, and definitely not in such a nuanced way as here.

You write that 'a short predicate is allowed between a noun and its long modifier'. I agree with this, in general, but it's not quite so simple. The principle to follow is that noun modifiers should be placed as close as possible to the noun that they're modifying in order to avoid confusion. Since answer C manages to place the modifier closer to the noun that it's modifying, it presents the meaning of the sentence more clearly than A. I agree that it is quite a thin choice between A and C - and that we're approaching the limit of what GMAT tests - but answer C wins out for clarity.

[KulvinderS680]

Thank you Sage

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

You're welcome.