The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County

[jlucero]

Correct. I believe this is a case of a verb that switches forms when changed into a gerund.

I removed you.
Your removing is immediate. (Wrong)
Your removal is immediate. (Correct)

[gauravtyagigmat]

option C is wrong because comma+ing struture shows two thing

1.either ing action is simultaneous with and subordinate to main clause

2. or _ing action is direct and immediate consequesne of main action

But here _ing action is not simultaneous and subordinate to main clause (population of rabbit increased after ing action )

and action in main clause is the result of ing action

hence comma+_ing usage is incorrect

Am i correct?

[thanghnvn]

[quote="philip"]The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California, has increased unchecked in recent years as a result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands.

(A) years as a result of the removal of
(B) years as a result of removing
(C) years, resulting from the removing of
(D) years, which is a result of removing
(E) years, which is a result of the removal of

there are many things important for sc, which we do not see in general grammar books. that is why we stay here.

to refer to a general action, we should use the noun not doing. of course, if there is no noun, we have to use doing.

the problem is that general action is different from the action caused by an agent/noun in the sentence. we have to realize that "doing" in this case take different gramartical role. "doing' in this case refers to a specific action caused by an agent in the sentence. "doing" in this case is called particile in grammar book but it is never explained fully in those book while, in the test, gmac test us this point.

compare"

learning english, I make my thinking better.

learning (of) english is good.

in the first sentence, learning is caused by "I". in the second sentence, learning refers to a general action. in the sentence, there is no agent which cause "learning".

this thing is not explained in general grammar books but is tested on gmat sc. why gmat test us this point ? because this point affect the meaning of the sentence and so is considered important.

gmat do not test us the rarely used idioms, because it think that most non natives can not use those idioms . gmat want a logical writer, not a grammarian remembering many rarely used idioms.

there is one more point. some times, doing is used to refer to general actions though the relevant noun exists. this situation happens because paralelism should be considered more important than the choice between doing and the noun. an example for this case is the question " spliting apart ..." in og books. pls do searching in the pdf files of og 11 or 12. you will find the problem.

do you agree with me? if you think my posting is helpful. pls say thank

[RonPurewal]

thanghnvn, what is your question? I can't tell.

[tarakdutta]

Hello Ron,

I got this wrong in GMAT prep. I went with option number (C) because of " the removal of" AND "and the clearing of" it looked parallel to me. Should we not consider X and Y in this case?

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Hello Ron,

I got this wrong in GMAT prep. I went with option number (C) because of " the removal of" AND "and the clearing of" it looked parallel to me. Should we not consider X and Y in this case?

Thanks

yes! those are exactly the two parallel things...
... but those are in choices A and E.

??

[michail.palagaschwili]

Just my 2 cents... Dear experts do you think my reasoning is accurate for this question ?

The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California, has increased unchecked in recent years as a result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands.

A. years as a result of the removal of --> Correct. Action noun is parallel to the complex gerund.
B. years as a result of removing --> Simple gerund phrases are never parallel to complex gerund phrases (see MGMAT SC Guide)
C. years, resulting from the removing of --> Subject cottontail rabbit doesn't make sense with ING-Modifier (resulting) - the rabbit doesn't result from anything, rather the "increase" would be the right subject for the preceding clause.
D. years, which is result of removing --> Which cannot modify a clause
E. years, which is a result of the removal of --> Which cannot modify a clause

[RonPurewal]

your explanations for the last three choices are on point.

i don't know the terms you're using for choice B, and the internet doesn't seem to know them either.

[Crisc419]

i eliminate E choice because the comma+ v-ing should refer to the subject of the clause, so E is wrong for resulting from to refer to "the rabbit population"

is this reasoning right?

[RonPurewal]

the word "resulting" doesn't even appear in choice E.

[Crisc419]

the word "resulting" doesn't even appear in choice E.

Ok, Ron, now i understand why "resulting from" cannot be in the " comma+ving" form through reading your posts .

thanks for your reply.


Cris

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.