Poor weather in early 14th-century Europe created

[bangu]

This question is from MGMAT CAT

Poor weather in early 14th-century Europe created meager harvests, causing the result of mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as many as 15 percent of the population.
A) causing the result of mass starvation in some areas and the elimination as many as
B) causing the result of mass starvation in some areas and eliminating as much as
C) resulting in mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as much as
D) and resulted in mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as many as
E) causing mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as many as

Explanation says that "as many as" refers to a portion of the "population," which is an uncountable noun (i.e., one cannot say "one population, two population"); hence, the correct expression here is "as much as" rather than "as many as."

However I think "15% of population" is a countable thing and not non-countable. Moreover "causing mass starvation" is more concise than "resulting in mass starvation".

Please elaborate why "15% of population" in non-countable.

[StaceyKoprince]

Don't try to think about it logically - that only makes it confusing because now you're telling yourself, well, I can count how many people there are. Literally think of the word in question and try to count it. As the explanation said, you wouldn't say "1 population, 2 populations, 3 populations."

Try this:
I don't have many dollars in my wallet.
I don't have much money in my wallet.

Each sentence is conveying the same general concept, but via different words.
I can say "1 dollar, 2 dollars, 3 dollars" - so I use "many" there.
I can't say "1 money, 2 moneys, 3 moneys" - so I use "much" there.

Re: causing vs. resulted in - don't get caught up in the "how would I prefer to write this?" distraction. Either one could be fine... as long as the rest of the sentence is grammatically correct. I assume you do realize that A and B don't work because of the redudancy issue b/c you specifically said "causing mass starvation" - so the only issue here is E and E is not completely grammatically correct otherwise.

[Aragorn]

Don't try to think about it logically - that only makes it confusing because now you're telling yourself, well, I can count how many people there are. Literally think of the word in question and try to count it. As the explanation said, you wouldn't say "1 population, 2 populations, 3 populations."

Try this:
I don't have many dollars in my wallet.
I don't have much money in my wallet.

Each sentence is conveying the same general concept, but via different words.
I can say "1 dollar, 2 dollars, 3 dollars" - so I use "many" there.
I can't say "1 money, 2 moneys, 3 moneys" - so I use "much" there.

Re: causing vs. resulted in - don't get caught up in the "how would I prefer to write this?" distraction. Either one could be fine... as long as the rest of the sentence is grammatically correct. I assume you do realize that A and B don't work because of the redudancy issue b/c you specifically said "causing mass starvation" - so the only issue here is E and E is not completely grammatically correct otherwise.

Thanks Stacey, this technique in the SC book and in your several posts is very strong.

[StaceyKoprince]

You're welcome!

[raj.ison]

But generally we concentrate on the word before the OF structure and decide based on that..so 15% of population will be a number rite?i totally agree with the counting method..but can u please let me know when does the before OF structure come into play?

[RonPurewal]

Please elaborate why "15% of population" in non-countable.

stacy's analysis above is detailed and thorough. if that's too much for you to digest in a single post, here's a more compact analysis:
in the vast majority of cases, "x% of y" has the same character of countable/uncountable as does simply "y".

in other words, since "the population" is uncountable (verify this yourself with some examples), "15% of the population" should likewise be uncountable.
by the same token, since "the people" is generally countable, "15% of the people" should likewise be countable.

[gmatwork]

Poor weather in early 14th-century Europe created meager harvests, causing the result of mass starvation in some areas and the elimination of as many as 15 percent of the population.

The ing modifier - Is it modifying the bad weather or the meager harvests?

What I have learned so far is that ing noun modifier modifies the subject noun and not the object noun. In this case shouldn't the ing modifier modify weather rather than harvest? As per CAT explanations for choice d , it seems that the modifier is modifying harvest and that is why choice (d) is wrong.

Please clarify the issue.

[singh.181]

usually in,
CLAUSE+COMMA+ING PART

ING PART tells about the resulting action of the clause.
For ex:

THE VOLCANO ERUPTED, CAUSING PANIC IN THE CITY.

here ING part is telling about the action that happened in the clause.

We can apply same formula here.
Choice D is wrong because POOR WEATHER didnt result into MASS STARVATION.
The whole action as a result of POOR WEATHER caused MASS STARVATION.

[singh.181]

SO, all the options here are INCORRECT???

[tim]

Singh, C is the correct answer. You seem to be misapplying the rule here. First, D doesn’t even use the structure you claim to "apply same formula [sic]" to. Second, for the answer choices that actually do use the COMMA -ING structure, the -ING is referring not to to poor weather but to the whole process of poor weather creating meager harvests. Thus none of the -ING options are wrong for that reason. You have to look at other issues on this one, as discussed above.

Priyanka, I hope this answers your question as well. Once you include the COMMA, the -ING is no longer required to be a noun modifier, and if it is modifying something else it doesn’t need to touch the thing it’s modifying.

[gmatwork]

Thanks, Tim. I was making a mistake in understanding the role of ing modifier.

[jnelson0612]

Thanks everyone!

[antonio.munoz.villanueva]

Wouldn't be the option c) clearer with an "in" before "the elimination".
Between the option I present and the option c) , which one is preferred?
I chose c) because the other options were "clearly" wrong. However, had another nice option appeared, I would have failed.

I remember the following from an older post:

I've lived in Minnesota and Florida. --> correct
I've ilved in Minnesota and in Florida. --> also correct

I'd better get used to these constructions... right?
I feel somehow uncomfortable. I am a non-native speaker as you could imagine.

Thanks.
Antonio

[jlucero]

If there were something else that "the elimination" could be parallel to, we'd need an "in" in front of it, but since "some areas" can't be parallel to "the elimination", we don't need one.

Taking it a step further, since there's an "in" in front of "some areas" we'd actually need to rewrite "resulting" as well, in order to maintain parallelism:

"...resulting in mass starvation in some areas and resulting in the elimination of..."

As always, one clear meaning in a sentence trumps us being able to define a single rule for even the most simple-looking rules in the English language.

[tiwari.ayush03]

Hi,
I think that Ron some where have told that-
a.] "comma+ing" modifier modifies the entire action of the preceding clause and it applies to the subject of that clause.
b.] we can only say "X results in Y", when X is an action.



I eliminated correct choice "C" because of above two reasons only. As "resulting in" should be applied to subject of preceding clause- "poor weather", which appears to be bit non sensical to me and no way I think that "poor weather" (a subject ) results in "mass starvation".

Would be glad if anyone can help me in knowing where I am going wrong.
Thanks.