As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed

[bluementor]

Question from GMATPrep 2:

As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing the bee to sustain a fatal injury.


A. As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing
B. As the heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes
C. The honeybee’s stinger, heavily barbed and staying where it is inserted, results in the fact that the act of stinging causes
D. The heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, and results in the act of stinging causing
E. The honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes

OA is E. My queries to the instructors are:

1)Is E correct because of parallelism? i.e. is//stays//causes?
2) In A, B and D, is 'results in..' unidiomatic?
3) What is this sentence trying to convey really? I think I spent about 2.5 mins on this question trying to get to the gist of it. How should one split the answer choices?

Thanks,
-BM-

[RonPurewal]

Question from GMATPrep 2:

As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing the bee to sustain a fatal injury.


A. As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing
B. As the heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes
C. The honeybee’s stinger, heavily barbed and staying where it is inserted, results in the fact that the act of stinging causes
D. The heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, and results in the act of stinging causing
E. The honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes

OA is E. My queries to the instructors are:

1)Is E correct because of parallelism? i.e. is//stays//causes?
2) In A, B and D, is 'results in..' unidiomatic?
3) What is this sentence trying to convey really? I think I spent about 2.5 mins on this question trying to get to the gist of it. How should one split the answer choices?

Thanks,
-BM-

first off, the construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN. (that isn't usually the case, so, if you're in doubt, you should strike choices with this sort of construction.)

for instance:
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
WRONG. this is not an issue of whether you've heard of bees themselves; it's an issue of whether you've heard of their stinging dogs.

...results in the act of stinging causing...
WRONG. this doesn't result in the act of stinging itself; it results in what is caused by the act of stinging.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
CORRECT. this time, the picture is actually of my cousin, so we're good.

therefore, (a) and (d) are wrong because of "...results in the act of stinging causing...".

--

the pronoun "this" in (a) doesn't refer to any particular noun. this consideration also kills (a).

--


you can't say "the stinger results in...".
"results in..." can only be used when it's LITERALLY TRUE. for instance, you could say that the attempt resulted in failure, since the attempt ITSELF ended in failure.
if you understand this literal meaning, then it goes without saying that you can't use this sort of construction for physical objects.
TAKEAWAY:
you can only say "X results in Y" when X is an ACTION. if X is an OBJECT, you can NEVER say that X "results" in anything.
this kills choices (c) and (d), in which "stinger" is the subject of the verb "results".

--

choice (b) misuses the connector "as".
the connector "as" connects two complete sentences BY ITSELF. if "as" is used to connect two complete sentences, it should NOT be used in conjunction with any other connector words.

in choice (b), "as" and "with" are used together. the use of either of these prohibits the use of the other, so this choice is wrong.

--

not sure what you're asking in #3. it looks like at least 2 completely different questions.

the MEANING of the sentence is that the bee's stinger stays where it's placed, and so the bee dies because it can't get away after the sting.

as far as HOW TO SPLIT, you'll notice that i've given several different angles from which to approach this one.
there aren't really genuine "splits" - i.e., easily identifiable points of divergence between clearly parallel items - so you just have to try to identify any of the multitude of errors present.

[ranjeet1975]

Very Good Explanation Ron, Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

Very Good Explanation Ron, Thank you.

thanks.

[srikanth.vedala]

[quote="RonPurewal"]bluementor wrote:
Question from GMATPrep 2:

first off, the construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN. (that isn't usually the case, so, if you're in doubt, you should strike choices with this sort of construction.)

for instance:
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
WRONG. this is not an issue of whether you've heard of bees themselves; it's an issue of whether you've heard of their stinging dogs.

...results in the act of stinging causing...
WRONG. this doesn't result in the act of stinging itself; it results in what is caused by the act of stinging.

In the bold part are we applying the per.+noun+VERBing concept ?
I am confused with the bold portion noun(the act)+prep(of)+VERBing(stinging), the order is different

[sambhavverman]

hi Ron....
somewhere in ur explanation u hav written
"WRONG. this doesn't result in the act of stinging itself; it results in what is caused by the act of stinging."

But i feel this is correct ... the act of stinging causes fatal injury to the bee- the same inference as supported by the sentence...
i need to know what is wrong abt this construction... plz elucidate..

[tim]

Sam, Ron's point was that the reason that construction is wrong is because it implies that the stinger results in the act of stinging. Your analysis of what happens in the real world is correct; what Ron was pointing out was that the sentence definitely does not say that. Instead it says that the stinger results in the act of stinging..

Srikanth, in the example you cite, we do still have PREP NOUN VERBing: "of stinging causing", where stinging is the noun and causing is the verb+ing. This the specific construction Ron was referring to..

[sudaif]

can someone please explain the following
"first off, the construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN. (that isn't usually the case, so, if you're in doubt, you should strike choices with this sort of construction.)

for instance:
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
WRONG. this is not an issue of whether you've heard of bees themselves; it's an issue of whether you've heard of their stinging dogs.

...results in the act of stinging causing...
WRONG. this doesn't result in the act of stinging itself; it results in what is caused by the act of stinging.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
CORRECT. this time, the picture is actually of my cousin, so we're good.

therefore, (a) and (d) are wrong because of "...results in the act of stinging causing..."."

not sure what construction that is....and why it is wrong.

[sambhavverman]

Sam, Ron's point was that the reason that construction is wrong is because it implies that the stinger results in the act of stinging. Your analysis of what happens in the real world is correct; what Ron was pointing out was that the sentence definitely does not say that. Instead it says that the stinger results in the act of stinging..

Srikanth, in the example you cite, we do still have PREP NOUN VERBing: "of stinging causing", where stinging is the noun and causing is the verb+ing. This the specific construction Ron was referring to..

thanks tim ... i got the point anyway...

[RonPurewal]

can someone please explain the following
"first off, the construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN. (that isn't usually the case, so, if you're in doubt, you should strike choices with this sort of construction.)

for instance:
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
WRONG. this is not an issue of whether you've heard of bees themselves; it's an issue of whether you've heard of their stinging dogs.

...results in the act of stinging causing...
WRONG. this doesn't result in the act of stinging itself; it results in what is caused by the act of stinging.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
CORRECT. this time, the picture is actually of my cousin, so we're good.

therefore, (a) and (d) are wrong because of "...results in the act of stinging causing..."."

not sure what construction that is....and why it is wrong.

if you have "preposition + NOUN + VERBing", then "VERBing" is just a modifier, and can be dropped without changing the surrounding grammar.
therefore, the sentence should still make sense, in context, if you write it as just "preposition + NOUN", without the "VERBing" modifier.
therefore, the sentence at hand can be reduced to "... results in the act of stinging".
that's incorrect -- the act of stinging is not the result here; the fact that the stinger is heavily barbed does not cause the actual act of stinging.

go ahead and apply this principle to the examples above:

i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
--> i've never heard of bees
doesn't make sense anymore. wrong.

..results in the act of stinging causing...
--> ..results in the act of stinging
doesn't makes sense anymore. wrong.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
--> i have a picture of my cousin.
still makes sense, so this one is ok.

[n.rajitr]

if you have "preposition + NOUN + VERBing", then "VERBing" is just a modifier, and can be dropped without changing the surrounding grammar.
therefore, the sentence should still make sense, in context, if you write it as just "preposition + NOUN", without the "VERBing" modifier.
therefore, the sentence at hand can be reduced to "... results in the act of stinging".
that's incorrect -- the act of stinging is not the result here; the fact that the stinger is heavily barbed does not cause the actual act of stinging.

go ahead and apply this principle to the examples above:

i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
--> i've never heard of bees
doesn't make sense anymore. wrong.

..results in the act of stinging causing...
--> ..results in the act of stinging
doesn't makes sense anymore. wrong.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
--> i have a picture of my cousin.
still makes sense, so this one is ok.

Now this makes perfect sense.. awesome example ... thank you...

[tim]

:)

[ronaldramlan]

In choice E, what would the prepositional phrase "with the result that ..." function (adj or adv) and, consequently, refer to?

[singh.181]

In choice E, what would the prepositional phrase "with the result that ..." function (adj or adv) and, consequently, refer to?

Adverb. Modifies the previous clause/action.

[jnelson0612]

In choice E, what would the prepositional phrase "with the result that ..." function (adj or adv) and, consequently, refer to?

Adverb. Modifies the previous clause/action.

Correct!