Scientists have found signs that moving water changed

[HunH579]

Does this mean that the following sentence from OG Prep Exam Pack 1 RC passage is incorrect?

Women's historians, meanwhile, have shown little interest in the subject of party politics, instead drawing on personal papers, legal records such as wills, and records of female associations to illuminate women's domestic lives, their moral reform activities, and the emergence of the women's right movement.

thanks and regards
Hun

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Which part of the (quite extensive) discussion in this thread are you referring to? Please quote.

[RAHULS852]

Hi Sage/ Manhattan expert,

Apart from all errors in (E), Can I remove this choice based on "is harboring" ?
"Is -ing" means that Crust is doing this activity at this moment.
"Crust harbors" is better to explain this fact.

Tarun feels cold during rainy weather.

Tarun is feeling cold in rainy weather.

Is my understanding right ?

Regards,
Rahul Singh

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Yes, I agree that there's a verb tense issue with 'is harboring'. In English there are two present tenses. Taking your examples:
Tarun feels cold during rainy weather. A general fact. Correct sentence.
Tarun is feeling cold in rainy weather. Right now / temporary situation. Probably incorrect sentence.

[RAHULS852]

Thanks Sage for confirmation

Regards,
Rahul Singh

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

You're welcome.

[JbhB682]

is “comma+ving” vs. "therefore + main verb" an effective split here?

Yes.

Comma + "concluding" is nonsense, because "...concluding" doesn't in any way describe the previous part.

The "conclusion" is something that the scientists did later.
• It's not a description of the previous part.
• Because this conclusion demanded active deduction on the scientists' part, it's not a necessary/inevitable consequence of the previous part. (Immediate and inevitable consequences can also be expressed with comma + __ing: e.g., The car ran up onto the sidewalk and into the crowd, injuring five pedestrians.)

So, yes, valid split.

And nicely done.

Hi Experts - based on the text in blue specificailly from Ron -

How can one deduce that concluding was not instant and must have happened after some gap ? For all we know, the scientists may have concluded the same moment they saw the evidence

I think A & B is not wrong because of COMMA + Concluding.

Instead A and B are wrong because therefore and concluding are redundant

Thoughts ?

[Whit Garner]

The blue highlighted comment isn't a problem because of "cause / effect" but because this is an incorrect use of the adverbial modifier (comma + ing). What is concluding that the crust is harboring up to three times....."? It's not the entire earlier clause that is concluding (the fact that scientists have found sign...), it is the scientists themselves. Therefore, an adverbial modifier doesn't make sense at all. The therefore + concluding would be fine IF the modifier ", concluding" worked at all.

So the ways to eliminate (A) and (C) are the following:

(A) incorrect use of an adverbial modifier (, concluding); incorrect comparison idiom (correct: as much water AS)

(B) incorrect use of an adverbial modifier (, concluding); redundancy ("up to three times" + "or more")