Growing evidence that coastal erosion occurs continuously

[boncourage]

Source GMAT prep question:

Growing evidence that coastal erosion occurs continuously, not in just such calamitous bursts like hurricanes, has led scientists and planners to urge a stringent new approach to limiting development along the nation's shoreline.

A. coastal erosion occurs continuously, not in just such calamitous bursts like hurricanes, has
B. coastal erosion occurs continuously, not just in calamitous bursts such as hurricanes, has
C. coastal erosion is continuously occurring, not in just calamitous bursts like hurricanes, having
D. there is continuous coastal erosion, not just in calamitous bursts such as hurricanes, which has
E. there is continuous coastal erosion occurring, not in just such calamitous bursts like hurricanes, has

The OA is B, but I chose A.
1. I understand that we can rule out A based on "such...like"...But except this point, what is the difference btw. A -"not in just" & B- "not just in"?

2. E: my logic is that using both "there is" and "occuring" is redundant, because "there is continuous coastal erosion" has already expressed the meaning of "occuring" here. So we could say either "there is continuous coastal erosion" or "coastal erosion occurs continuously", but not both of them in the same sentence.

Please kindly clarify If I am wrong. Thank you very much.

[RonPurewal]

The OA is B, but I chose A.
1. I understand that we can rule out A based on "such...like"...But except this point, what is the difference btw. A -"not in just" & B- "not just in"?

It's VERY unlikely that you would need to make this kind of decision on the gmat. Those words are almost certainly there as a distraction.

The idea of the sentence is to contrast "continuously" with "in calamitous bursts". "Just" modifies "in calamitous bursts".
(It's the same as saying, e.g., continuously, not just intermittently.)

2. E: my logic is that using both "there is" and "occuring" is redundant, because "there is continuous coastal erosion" has already expressed the meaning of "occuring" here. So we could say either "there is continuous coastal erosion" or "coastal erosion occurs continuously", but not both of them in the same sentence.

That's correct.

[boncourage]

The idea of the sentence is to contrast "continuously" with "in calamitous bursts". "Just" modifies "in calamitous bursts".
(It's the same as saying, e.g., continuously, not just intermittently.)

The OA is B, but I chose A.
1. I understand that we can rule out A based on "such...like"...But except this point, what is the difference btw. A -"not in just" & B- "not just in"?

Ron, Thank you so much!! I did't notice the contrast btw. "continuously" and "in calamitous bursts". As a non-native speaker, I kind of tend to skip unfamiliar words and thus sometimes don't get the entire meaning...really should improve my vocabularies...

So in this case, "just" modifies the adverbial modifier "in calamitous burst " as a whole, and that's why ''just" should put before "in XXX burst", right? =D

[RonPurewal]

Yes.

[boncourage]

Yes.

Ron, thank you very much! I really enjoy your wonderful explanations and learn a lot, not just in my thread, but also in other postings!

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[gbyhats]

Hi dear Manhattan instructors ; )

I have a question for the non-underlined part:

Why is "limiting" but not "limit"?

--

Growing evidence that coastal erosion occurs continuously, not just in calamitous bursts such as hurricanes, has led scientists and planners to urge a stringent new approach to limiting development along the nation's shoreline.

(I substitutes choice B (OA) into this question to make it a legit complete sentence)

--

It's natural to me to say "urge new approach to limit_________"

[RonPurewal]

in that part, "limiting" is a noun.

here's the same thing in two simpler sentences:
James is experimenting with a new approach to exercise.
James is experimenting with a new approach to lifting weights.

if you understand those two, you're good.

[gbyhats]

Hi Ron!

Thank you for your answer!

in that part, "limiting" is a noun.

here's the same thing in two simpler sentences:
James is experimenting with a new approach to exercise.
James is experimenting with a new approach to lifting weights.

if you understand those two, you're good.

Whoa! That's interesting! It now makes sense to me!

[RonPurewal]

cool.

by the way, this notion of "put things into shorter/simpler sentences" is one of the biggest keys to the whole SC game.

you'll find that, in the main, the problems in SC sentences aren't hard to understand; in fact, they're almost always surprisingly simple -- and surprisingly fundamental -- problems.
that's not the issue. the issue is that, when you throw simple/fundamental problems into a long sentence with a bunch of junk, even those simple/fundamental things become hard to see -- for the same reason why it's hard for us to listen to just one violin out of an entire orchestra.

[gbyhats]

Hi dear Ron! Thank you so much for your post!

cool.

by the way, this notion of "put things into shorter/simpler sentences" is one of the biggest keys to the whole SC game.

you'll find that, in the main, the problems in SC sentences aren't hard to understand; in fact, they're almost always surprisingly simple -- and surprisingly fundamental -- problems.
that's not the issue. the issue is that, when you throw simple/fundamental problems into a long sentence with a bunch of junk, even those simple/fundamental things become hard to see -- for the same reason why it's hard for us to listen to just one violin out of an entire orchestra.

I totally agree! Since SC is sentence correction, it is no more than a sentence (mostly, only one of them underlined, if there are more than 1 sentence), and a sentence has just a subject and a verb. All the rest are supplements and modifiers.

BTW, I love your orchestra example, you used it to show me how SC looks like and I like it so much

[RonPurewal]

well, sometimes there's more than one subject and/or verb (e.g., 2 complete sentences can be connected by and, but, as, while, (al)though, etc.)

...but, otherwise, you seem to have gotten the point.

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, the orchestra analogy works here, too: most pieces have one distinct melody at any given point, but some pieces (counterpoint, rondo, etc.) have more than one melody.

of course, this distinction changes absolutely nothing about the fact that it's hard to ignore everything except one component; likewise, the main challenge in SC in unaffected by the individual quirks of any one sentence.

[gbyhats]

likewise, the main challenge in SC in unaffected by the individual quirks of any one sentence.

Today is a little bit gloomy -- it's drizzle and cloudy outside -- until seeing your replies, hahaha, yea it's a pleasure to see you share your wisdom!

Your words actually somewhat resonate with another reply you send me a few minutes later:

once you've made substantial progress in SC, you should realize that it tests fewer things than you originally thought

Although there are countless slight variations for every SC questions, things been test are, in fact, limited.

[RonPurewal]

yep.