Since the start of space age, more and more littering

[thanghnvn]

Choice A doesn't convey the right meaning. If I say that littering occurred 'because of' the intentional discarding of those items, that implies that the intentional discarding WASN'T the actual littering. Instead, it means that the intentional discarding set into motion a chain of events that LED to the littering.

For instance:
'The U.S. entered World War II because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.' -- Correct: the bombing was an event that then LED to the U.S. decision to enter the war, but did not constitute the war itself.

'The U.S. destroyed Hiroshima because of dropping a nuclear bomb.' -- Incorrect: this sentence wrongly implies that the dropping of the bomb LED to some future event in which the U.S. destroyed Hiroshima, rather than that the dropping of the bomb WAS the actual event that destroyed Hiroshima.

In #C there's no NOUN that serves as the focus of the modifier 'resulting from...' (an adjective-type modifier). It's intended to modify the general idea that the orbits have become littered, but there's no NOUN that signifies the littering.

#D has the same problem as #A ('because' is wrong).

thank you Ron, great. but my god. how in the test room after doing 30 math question at the rate of 2 minute/question I can realize that

because of : indirect cause
resulting from: direct cause.

to eliminate A.

my god.

[tim]

melodrama much? :) just memorize it as an idiom..

[prakash.g]

I think prepositional phrases / subordinate clauses (modifiers) before the comma will modify the first noun or the subject of the sentence following the comma.

this is incorrect.
your claim is true for many other kinds of initial modifiers that precede commas, but not for prepositional phrases. if you see a prepositional phrase before a comma, then that prepositional phrase modifies the entire clause that follows the comma.

for a discussion of the initial modifiers that *do* actually modify the following noun, see here:
post49102.html#p49102

Ron :

i've solved this SC recently purely based on
(1) verb tense --> Since should be followed by present perfect in this context , and
(2) SV agreement to eliminate D

this thread gave me immense amount of knowledge about other aspects tested on this Question. thanks much!

However, i do have a question related to the modifier issue discussed here.

I understand from the URL you shared above, -- the initial modifier "since the start..." modifies the entire clause that follows the comma. (= prepositional phrase modifier => adverbial modifier )

(1) Is there a modifier issue at all in the original sentence? ( "more and more" after comma vs "orbits near earth" )
(2) is there a genuine split that allows me to zone into B and C right away ?

Appreciate your help!

[RonPurewal]

(1) Is there a modifier issue at all in the original sentence? ( "more and more" after comma vs "orbits near earth" )

i don't really understand what you are asking here, but there's no issue -- "more and more" is just an adjective describing "littering".

(2) is there a genuine split that allows me to zone into B and C right away ?
[/quote]

i'm also confused here -- you said you killed the past tense, so (c) should be gone already.

[prakash.g]

(1) Is there a modifier issue at all in the original sentence? ( "more and more" after comma vs "orbits near earth" )

i don't really understand what you are asking here, but there's no issue -- "more and more" is just an adjective describing "littering".

Ron - thanks for your response,
will try to rephrase my question , i was trying to check whether the initial modifier here has any bearing on the words following COMMA . "more and more littering" vs "orbits near earth" etc.

In your "Initial Modifiers" session, you've explained 5 categories of initial modifiers that must talk about the subject of the clause following COMMA. A prepositional phrase + ING word was one of the types of modifiers discussed in that session.
The modifier here doesn't really fall into any of those categories, but just wanted to be sure that the prepositional modifiers such as this do not have any bearing on the subject/opening word of the following clause.

(2) is there a genuine split that allows me to zone into B and C right away ?

i'm also confused here -- you said you killed the past tense, so (c) should be gone already.

-- yeah, i did kill (c) with verb tenses , but had this question about splits while reviewing this SC problem (after completing the test). Was trying to identify all possible splits as a review exercise. But again, i think the the answer to question (1) also indirectly answers this question (2) as well.
-- in general, i find the splits created by initial modifier (in which it has a bearing on what follows the comma ) are faster to eliminate.

[duyng9989]

Choice A doesn't convey the right meaning. If I say that littering occurred 'because of' the intentional discarding of those items, that implies that the intentional discarding WASN'T the actual littering. Instead, it means that the intentional discarding set into motion a chain of events that LED to the littering.

For instance:
'The U.S. entered World War II because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.' -- Correct: the bombing was an event that then LED to the U.S. decision to enter the war, but did not constitute the war itself.

'The U.S. destroyed Hiroshima because of dropping a nuclear bomb.' -- Incorrect: this sentence wrongly implies that the dropping of the bomb LED to some future event in which the U.S. destroyed Hiroshima, rather than that the dropping of the bomb WAS the actual event that destroyed Hiroshima.

In #C there's no NOUN that serves as the focus of the modifier 'resulting from...' (an adjective-type modifier). It's intended to modify the general idea that the orbits have become littered, but there's no NOUN that signifies the littering.

#D has the same problem as #A ('because' is wrong).

Interesting.

SC question also test Critical Reasoning :).

Do you mean that:

Generally those questions are wrong:

1.Dinosaur is extinct because all the dinosaurs on earth died
2. The global is warming because the temperature is increasing?

I found a very similar question from GMAT prep software:

The typical size difference between males and females has lessened since the origins of the human species because the size increase in males has been slight while the size increase in females has been great. (correct)

It does not sound logical according to your logic presented in this post?

[RonPurewal]

duyng9989, i'm talking about "because of + noun", which is distinct from the examples you've cited here.

[duyng9989]

duyng9989, i'm talking about "because of + noun", which is distinct from the examples you've cited here.

Sorry Ron. I thought that I understood what you said but I did not.

In this post

"X because of Y" means that action Y was the cause of action X, but IS NOT THE SAME THING as action X.

for instance,
more littering has occurred because of the lax enforcement of laws against littering --> this makes sense.
more littering has occurred because people have been throwing bottles along the side of the road --> doesn't make sense (these are two descriptions of the SAME action - they are not cause and effect).

You said that cause and effect must make sense together. I understand that if two descriptions of the same action

for example:

The global is warming because the earth is become hotter.

That sentence does not make sense because they are two descriptions of the SAME action.

Therefore, I asked you the question from GMAT prep, which I think that the cause and the effect are two descriptions of the same action and it does not make sense.

The typical size difference between males and females has lessened since the origins of the human species because the size increase in males has been slight while the size increase in females has been great. (correct)

So what did you mean by the use of because of + Noun?

[RonPurewal]

Therefore, I asked you the question from GMAT prep, which I think that the cause and the effect are two descriptions of the same action and it does not make sense.

The typical size difference between males and females has lessened since the origins of the human species because [color=#FF0000]the size increase in males has been slight while the size increase in females has been great.

well, no. the blue thing is something that can happen for lots and lots and lots of reasons; the red thing is just one of those many possible reasons.

i don't feel like typing that many words, so here are some shorter examples of the same thing:
* I am no longer fatter than my brother, because I lost weight.
* I am no longer fatter than my brother, because, even though we both lost weight, I lost more of it.
* I am no longer fatter than my brother, because he gained weight.
etc.

these are clearly not all saying the same thing. in fact, none of them are saying the same thing. (you can make the appropriate analogies to the "size increase" sentence.)

hope that helps.

[duyng9989]

Therefore, I asked you the question from GMAT prep, which I think that the cause and the effect are two descriptions of the same action and it does not make sense.

The typical size difference between males and females has lessened since the origins of the human species because [color=#FF0000]the size increase in males has been slight while the size increase in females has been great.

well, no. the blue thing is something that can happen for lots and lots and lots of reasons; the red thing is just one of those many possible reasons.

i don't feel like typing that many words, so here are some shorter examples of the same thing:
* I am no longer fatter than my brother, because I lost weight.
* I am no longer fatter than my brother, because, even though we both lost weight, I lost more of it.
* I am no longer fatter than my brother, because he gained weight.
etc.

these are clearly not all saying the same thing. in fact, none of them are saying the same thing. (you can make the appropriate analogies to the "size increase" sentence.)

hope that helps.

Oh. I got your point. Thank you Ron.

But, what did you mean by because of + noun???

you make me a little bit confused when you said

duyng9989, i'm talking about "because of + noun", which is distinct from the examples you've cited here.

Did what you say everything in previous posts are about the cause and effect sentence must make logical sense? The cause and effect must not be two descriptions of the same thing?

[jnelson0612]

Thanks.
What is the OA for this question?
Can you summarize what are the mistakes in each answer choice?
I am confused with so much information.

The original answer is B.

Please go back and read Ron's post (it is the fourth one down on the first page) which explains why A, C, and D are incorrect.

E is wrong because it uses the past perfect verb "had been". Past perfect is only appropriate to use when we have two events that occurred in the past and we need to show which event happened first. That is not the case in this question, so past perfect is inappropriate.

[Khalid-84]

Hi Ron

You said that "resulting" is an adjective modifier, and can only be used in describing nouns. But in the following SC question from GMATPrep, "resulting" is used as an adverbial modifier, though it's in the non-underlined portion.

In a previous design, the weight of the discus used in track competition is concentrated in a metal center, but now it is lined with lead around the perimeter, thereby improving stability in flight and resulting in longer throws.

A. In a previous design, the weight of the discus used in track competition is concentrated in a metal center, but now it is
B. According to a previous design, the weight of the discus used in track competition was concentrated in a metal center, but now it is
C. Once designed with its weight concentrated in a metal center, the discus used in track competition is now
D. The discus used in track competition, once designed with its weight concentrated in a metal center, but now
E. The discus used in track competition was once designed having its weight concentrated in a metal center and now

[tim]

I'll alert Ron to this issue and see what he has to say about it. I agree that "resulting from" can be an adverbial modifier in certain situations, but perhaps Ron has some insight into when it can and can't be used as an adverbial modifier.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron

You said that "resulting" is an adjective modifier, and can only be used in describing nouns. But in the following SC question from GMATPrep, "resulting" is used as an adverbial modifier, though it's in the non-underlined portion.

In a previous design, the weight of the discus used in track competition is concentrated in a metal center, but now it is lined with lead around the perimeter, thereby improving stability in flight and resulting in longer throws.

i was talking only about "resulting from...". that's an example of "resulting in...", which is a different construction and so doesn't affect my comments.
sorry if that stipulation was not clear.

this is not really any sort of grammar rule; there's no grammatical reason why "resulting from"... would be barred from functioning as an adverb. instead, i just don't think it would ever make logical sense to use it in that sort of situation. (if you wanted to describe an action taken as a result of something else, you'd just use "because" or equivalent: e.g., I took a long detour because of the traffic, not I took a long detour, resulting from the traffic.)

"resulting in", on the other hand, can perfectly well describe an action, since actions themselves have all sorts of resultant consequences (and since that is precisely the reason why the "comma + -ing" modifier construction even exists in the first place).

hope that helps

[tim]

Thanks for the clarification, Ron!