An economic recession can result from a lowering

[aaa]

Why is "that" wrong in answer choice E? Why can't we use a relative pronoun in this case? Thank you.


An economic recession can result from a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.
a. a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and start a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.

b a lowering of employment rates triggered by dropping investment, which cause people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.

c. falling employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, causing cutbacks in consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs that lead to even lower employment rates.

d. falling employment rates that are triggered by a drop in investment, causing people to cut consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs that lead back to even lower employment rates.

e. falling employment rates that are triggered by a drop in investment, that cause cutbacks in consumer spending and the start of a cycle of layoffs leading to even lower employment rates.

The original sentence contains a clause beginning with "which" that logically describes the result of lower employment rates. However, as written, this clause seems to describe the result of "a drop in investment" because "which" modifies the noun just before it. We need to find a replacement that makes the causal relationship clear. Additionally, the phrase "causes people to cut consumer spending" is wordy and somewhat illogical since the people are the consumers. A more concise way to say this would be "causes cutbacks in consumer spending." Finally, the use of "back" is redundant, as it is implied by the word "cycle".

(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.

(B) The use of "which" incorrectly suggests that "dropping investment" "causes people to cut consumer spending" when, in fact, the employment rates cause this phenomenon. Additionally, the phrase "cause people to cut consumer spending" is wordy and the use of "back" is redundant, as it is implied by the word "cycle".

(C) CORRECT. This choice makes clear, through the use of the plural verb "cause", that the employment rates are responsible for the cutbacks in spending. Further it uses the concise phrase "cutbacks in consumer spending" and eliminates the redundant word "back."

(D) This choice contains the wordy phrases "that are triggered by", "causing people to cut consumer spending" and the redundant "lead back."

(E) The construction ", that" is incorrect. Also, "the start of a cycle of layoffs" is awkward.

[Guest79]

I think in (E)

- the phrase 'that are triggered by' is wordy.
- 'that' in 'that cause cutback' refers to 'drop in employment' - but that is not the case, because we know falling employment rates are responsible for the cutbacks in spending.

[dbernst]

aaa, I tend to agree with Guest79 - the first "that" is awkward and unnecessary; the second "that," however, creates a provable grammatical error. "That cause," though lacking subject-verb agreement, seems to refer to "a drop in investment" rather than the "falling employment rates." To correct for this ambiguity, "causing" is the proper choice.

-dan

[Guest]

Hello

I have some doubts about the use of comma+that or comma+and in some sentences, this structure refers to a distant subjet but in the option E of this question, it seems to refer to investment... could you provide more insight

In the following sentence, the final comma+and seems to refer to union members:

Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend less time with each.

However, in the option E, comma+that refers to investment, how do you distinguish one from the other?

thanks

[JonathanSchneider]

First of all, the sentence that you are listing is not correct. When we use a comma and then an "and," we are either ending a list or beginning a new clause. In the latter case, the new clause must have a subject and verb.

As for the ", that": this form is never correct UNLESS it is part of a list of three or more "that" modifiers. For example, you can say:

Ebay is an online auction system that manages multiple auctions, that allows sellers to update their inventory and list multiple items available at once, and that enables quick shipping.

Otherwise, however, the ", that" form is incorrect, as the comma is an interruption.

[penriquezf]

I dont get why C is correct

Which should modify the subject just before it right? And isn't it drop in investment?

So if you use cause it would mean a wrong SV-agreement and not really a reference to employment rates?

or has the triggered by an influence?

Thanks for further explanations

[Ben Ku]

I dont get why C is correct

Which should modify the subject just before it right? And isn't it drop in investment?

So if you use cause it would mean a wrong SV-agreement and not really a reference to employment rates?

or has the triggered by an influence?

Thanks for further explanations

An economic recession can result from a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.

c. falling employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, causing cutbacks in consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs that lead to even lower employment rates.

A noun modifier modifies the noun it touches. However, in this sentence, "causing cutbacks ... and starting a cycle ... " is an adverbial modifier that modifies the entire previous clause.

Answer Choice (C) is correct because it eliminates the relative pronoun "that" which in other choices incorrectly modifies the noun they touch.

I'm not sure what you mean by S-V agreement, but I hope that helps.

[abemartin87]

An economic recession can result from a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.

a. a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and start a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.

b a lowering of employment rates triggered by dropping investment, which cause people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.

c. falling employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, causing cutbacks in consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs that lead to even lower employment rates.

d. falling employment rates that are triggered by a drop in investment, causing people to cut consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs that lead back to even lower employment rates.

e. falling employment rates that are triggered by a drop in investment, that cause cutbacks in consumer spending and the start of a cycle of layoffs leading to even lower employment rates.


Question!
1) Is the construction in (A) legal?
An economic recession can result from a lowering

I know you can say:
a) An economic recession can result from a lower ______
b) An economic recession can result from lowering ______
So we can definitely have a "from"+VERB-ing
Does the article "a" create an issue?

2) In answer choice (A)
"which causes people to cut consumer spending and start a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates."
Cannot be modifying "investment", as an "investment" cannot cause consumers to cut spending and begin a cycle of layoffs.
However, if we cross out the preopositon before the comma, the next logical thing it "which" could modify would be "drop". The "drop" can cause consumers to cut spending and begin a cycle of layoffs.

Can the "which" construction work here? Or does the meaning of the clause imply a result in which "causing (VERB-ing), would be preferred? I am just curious.

Thank you!!

[tim]

1) Yes, you can use "a lowering"..
2) Standard use of "which" on the GMAT is to have it refer to the closest noun before it that the word "which" is eligible to modify (i.e. not people), so we can’t just ignore the prepositional phrase here..

[ivy]

An economic recession can result from a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.

c. falling employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, causing cutbacks in consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs that lead to even lower employment rates.

A noun modifier modifies the noun it touches. However, in this sentence, "causing cutbacks ... and starting a cycle ... " is an adverbial modifier that modifies the entire previous clause.

Hello,

How can option C be correct? In option C, "causing cutbacks ... and starting a cycle ... " is an adverbial modifier that modifies the entire previous clause. But after considering meaning of the sentence, it seems that the modifier should logically modify 'falling employment rates' only. Am I wrong?

Thanks very much! :)

[tim]

As long as there is a correct interpretation of a SC answer, you need to keep it as a possible answer. Just because one of several possible interpretations could be wrong does not mean that the option is unilaterally wrong..

[davetzulin]

d. falling employment rates that are triggered by a drop in investment, causing people to cut consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs that lead back to even lower employment rates.

aaa, I tend to agree with Guest79 - the first "that" is awkward and unnecessary;

-dan

could someone elaborate on why it is awkward? After all, the "that" is used in the right answer choice.

layoffs that lead to even lower employment rates.
layoffs leading to even lower employment rates <-- we could use this, but then it implies "layoffs are doing the leading" so it may be wrong.

the guide mentions that "that" should be kept after a reporting verb, no other mention of awkwardness in other scenarios.

[tim]

Don't worry about the awkward one; dbernst's point was that the second "that" is the one that has an actual grammar error. It's dangerous to eliminate answer choices because something is awkward; focus instead on actual errors..

[davetzulin]

I'm having a lot of trouble distinguishing impersonal gerunds vs normal gerunds. Impersonal gerunds were explained in Ron's thursday video, these gerunds are "process" oriented, or based on steps.

swimming is fun <-- the process of swimming is fun, impersonal gerund

adopting a child is a noble act <-- a notion of adopting, needs a do-er in the sentence

My question is on the underlined part below. Is that an impersonal gerund or a regular gerund? I am guessing impersonal. What I do now is i stick "the notion of" in front of "lowering" and ask myself it that makes any sense in the context of the sentence, and it doesn't seem to work since a drop in investment won't trigger a notion?

I'd be thrilled if someone could comment on my approach to distinguishing the gerund types and if I'm correct because now everytime I see a gerund i obsessively try to determine what type it is (anticipating it is a hard problem that can't be eliminated by other easier means)

An economic recession can result from a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.

[jnelson0612]

I'm having a lot of trouble distinguishing impersonal gerunds vs normal gerunds. Impersonal gerunds were explained in Ron's thursday video, these gerunds are "process" oriented, or based on steps.

swimming is fun <-- the process of swimming is fun, impersonal gerund

adopting a child is a noble act <-- a notion of adopting, needs a do-er in the sentence

My question is on the underlined part below. Is that an impersonal gerund or a regular gerund? I am guessing impersonal. What I do now is i stick "the notion of" in front of "lowering" and ask myself it that makes any sense in the context of the sentence, and it doesn't seem to work since a drop in investment won't trigger a notion?

I'd be thrilled if someone could comment on my approach to distinguishing the gerund types and if I'm correct because now everytime I see a gerund i obsessively try to determine what type it is (anticipating it is a hard problem that can't be eliminated by other easier means)

An economic recession can result from a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.

Wow, Dave, you impress me every time I read your posts . . . you think about some really deep stuff! I would agree that "a lowering" is probably correctly classified as an impersonal gerund. Have fun with your gerund determinations! :-)