Past assessments of the Brazilian rain forest have used sate

[eggpain24]

Past assessments of the Brazilian rain forest have used satellite images to tally deforested areas, where farmers and ranchers have clear-cut and burned all the trees, but such work has not addressed either logging, which is the removal of only selected trees, as well as surface fires, burning down individual trees but do not denude the forest.
A. which is the removal of only selected trees, as well as surface fires, burning
B. which removes only selected trees, or surface fires that burn
C. which removes only selected trees, along with surface fires that burn
D. removing only selected trees, or surface fires, burning
E. removing only selected trees, as well as surface fires that burn

this is a question from GMAT prep. the OG is B

I got the correct choice easily.

in choice D

1. I think that "removing" is problematic and not sure what "removing" is intended to modify (should it be "logging" or the subject of the main clause?)

2. surface fires, burning should also be problematic and I am unable to articulate what is really wrong

Ron, can you help solve these two doubts?

Thank you！

[eggpain24]

-

[gbyhats]

I deeply apologize for digging this post up if this question this forum considered as coming from untrusted source :)

--

In choice (D),

1/ both "removing" and "burning" share a same mistake:

"removing..." and "burning" mistakenly modifies the sentence "work has not addressed...", meaning "removing..." and "burning..." are the results of "work has not addressed..."

"Comma+VERBing" is a modifier that modifies the entire sentence before it

2/ Also, "burning" is not parallel with "denude"

--

A comprehensive analysis is following:

A) "burning" mistakenly modifies the sentence "work has not addressed..."; "burning" is not parallel with "denude"

B) correct

C) "either... along with..." is wrong

D) "removing..." and "burning" mistakenly modifies the sentence "work has not addressed..."; "burning" is not parallel with "denude"

E) "either... as well as..." is wrong

--

I'm happy to correct whenever some finds my rational wrong :)

[RonPurewal]

that's basically the idea.

the "ing"s also create a timeframe problem.
__ing modifiers describe things occurring in the same timeframe as the main sentence. that's not the point here; the point is to make generalizations——irrespective of the timeframe——about logging and about surface fires.

one use of the present tense is to make precisely these kinds of generalizations, so the present tense is what we need here.

[gbyhats]

Thank you very much Ron!!! :)

one use of the present tense is to make precisely these kinds of generalizations, so the present tense is what we need here.

It's the first time I get to know this!

[RonPurewal]

ok.

note that, even if the sentence itself is not in the present, those sorts of generalizations still appear in the present tense.

By the time of Shakespeare, doctors knew that blood circulates through the human body.
(correct)

By the time of Shakespeare, doctors knew that blood circulated through the human body.
(incorrect; implies that blood doesn't circulate anymore!)

[gbyhats]

note that, even if the sentence itself is not in the present, those sorts of generalizations still appear in the present tense.

Thank you Ron ;)

Interesting!!!

I'm learning new things everyday because of your words!!!

[RonPurewal]

note that, even if the sentence itself is not in the present, those sorts of generalizations still appear in the present tense.

Thank you Ron ;)

Interesting!!!

I'm learning new things everyday because of your words!!!

well, that, at least, is the sort of thing you'd pick up from reading just about any well-written stuff on a regular basis.
but, as far as some of the more nuanced things i've explained (or at least attempted to explain) on here-- thanks!

[gbyhats]

that, at least, is the sort of thing you'd pick up from reading just about any well-written stuff on a regular basis.

Haha, it's not until you point it out that I realized! And your explanations are crystal clear! Some grammar issues are so obvious that I never thought about why they should be this way.

[RonPurewal]

well, i never really thought consciously about any of the things you (forum posters) are asking... until you asked them.
trying to come up with conscious explanations for subconscious knowledge is always a challenge. that challenge is a big part of why i still enjoy moderating the forum, even after all these years.

[gbyhats]

trying to come up with conscious explanations for subconscious knowledge is always a challenge. that challenge is a big part of why i still enjoy moderating the forum, even after all these years.

I'm really surprised by your passion in helping students!

Your earliest post I saw was in 2009 (that means you have been doing this for at least 6 years. That's really a long time). And you have made 14K of posts.

I'm very gratefully for your unqualified (unlimited) help ;)
--

haha, idk if I allow to say it here: if you will come to NYC, allow me buy you a coffee.

[RonPurewal]

i think i started in 2008. but, yeah, fourteen thousand posts is a lot of posts.

i don't drink coffee, but i wouldn't turn down a diet mountain dew. (:

[gbyhats]

i don't drink coffee, but i wouldn't turn down a diet mountain dew. (:

Hahaha, sure!!!

[RonPurewal]

.

[gmatkiller_24]

i think i started in 2008. but, yeah, fourteen thousand posts is a lot of posts.

i don't drink coffee, but i wouldn't turn down a diet mountain dew. (:

notice parallelism is being tested here.

burning is definitely wrong for not paralleling to "but do not denude the forest"

only burn is parallel to do no denude