Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.

A. Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

B. Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated

C. Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating

D. Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large areas under maritime code, this has already stimulated

E. Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating

I m stuck between B and D.

pls always underline
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.

A. Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

B. Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated

C. Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulated

D. Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large areas under maritime code, this has already stimulated

E. Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating

_________________
Many of the great achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who kept on working.

I could eliminate A,C,D,E

A. "they"-pronoun
B. it--refers to "new maritime code"
C. run on..?
D. Pronoun "this"

E. ---incomplete..starts with because then ends nowhere

_________________
Many of the great achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who kept on working.

choice (d) uses "this" as a standalone pronoun. that's pretty much never acceptable in a formal written sentence.

if you're going to use "this", you should use it as an adjective: this thing, this finding, this statistic, etc.

--

also, here's some "extra credit" knowledge:
there ARE constructions that can stand for the abstract information in an entire clause (unlike pronouns, which are limited to standing for actual nouns). chief among these are the COMMA + NOUN modifiers.
however, the presence of "because" at the beginning of choice (d) would preclude the use of those modifiers as well.

here's an example:
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked most observers.
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y; this finding has shocked most observers.
--> both correct. note that "a finding", following the comma, or "this finding", standing alone after the semicolon, stands for the entirety of the clause that comes before it; you couldn't use "which" here, because "which" would automatically refer to Y.

because studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, this finding has shocked most observers.
--> incorrect. the presence of "because" at the beginning of the first clause means you can't use "this finding" anymore.
i don't have any idea what the actual rule is here, but i do know with 100% certainty that these constructions are allowed and disallowed respectively.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

Is the OA B?

Thanks

yes.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

Is Below Option c

"(C) Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the
fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under
provisions of the new maritime code, already
stimulating"


I have understood that the adverbial modifer- already simulating" could modify object (maritime code), or whole preceding clause.

But had there been only one logical referent, then this sentence would have been correct.

For instance: crime has increased in the city, leading to more anixiety and fear among citizens.
In this leading....refers to the whole preceding clause and logically can't refer to city (object) or crime (subject).

Conclusion: if there are more than one logical referents, then ing.. form after the clause is incorrect.We can then make use of absolute prases to bring in clarity.

Instructors- please through your light on this.

rgrds
Rohit

I'm also confused about the function of the " , -ing“ structure. Which part of the sentence can it modify,the subject, the preceding verb or the whole sentence?

As you can see in this SC question, I think C is quite OK ,for it clearly uses the ", -ing" structure to modify the situation presented by the whole sentence. In B, the "it" used has a ambiguous reference.Besides,I thought GMAT didn't like the use of pronoun very much.

''Which part of the sentence can it modify,the subject, the preceding verb or the whole sentence''

fenruyun im not entirely sure but think you can use the ''ing'' form in either of the cases listed in ur question ONLY if there is a single subject and or verb involved.

B. Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated


B is the OA but when do we not eliminate a sentence because of IT :(

really really confused about this....

see here
post30983.html#p30983

in this case, all of those criteria are satisfied:
* the context is clear (it's clear that "it" is the maritime code)
* "it" is grammatically parallel to "maritime code" (each is the subject of its respective clause)
* "it" is NOT grammatically parallel to "the basis", which is the only other singular noun

Just for an idea, How hard to u think this question is ?
Is it a question that most of the test takers expected to nail or any such idea about the difficulty level of the question?

Thanks in advance.

nope. no way.

COMMA + -ING is always an adverbial modifier; it always modifiers the preceding CLAUSE.

that's sufficient to eliminate this choice.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

Hi Ron,

For C, i think it's okay to use COMMA+ING to modify the preceding clause, and there's no logical issue there. I think it's just better to use relative clause to express "has already stimulated". Additionally, in the OG, they claim "under provisions of..." is misplaced, where should it be placed? What does it modify?

Thanks.

nope.
COMMA + -ING modifiers must modify the preceding clause, but the -ING participle must also apply to the subject of the preceding clause.
therefore, the use of that comma+ing modifier would imply that the islets themselves are stimulating disputes. that's not true.




for which choice?

nb:
there are, occasionally, things written in the OG SC answer keys that are actually incorrect.
(also, these answer keys are VERY often incomplete - often neglecting to mention the most conspicuous mistakes!)
it's obvious that the answer keys are written by their less skilled writers, and that the problems themselves are written by their "A"-team, so to speak.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

Hi Guys,

This sentence completely eludes me.

If i understand correctly, the original sentence tell us that the provisions within the code and not the code itself is causing the problem. That said, none of the choices make sense. The OA in fact tells that its not the provisions but the code itself is only about the issue.

Could the experts (Ron Or Stacey) please help me as i am throughly confused. Am i reading the sentence wrong?

Really appreciate your help.