Test: Modifier- 2 - GMAT MCQ

The modifying phrase “although covered in about 11 inches of snow” at the beginning of this sentence should be followed by the noun the modifier refers to, “the runway.” The original sentence illogically suggests that “aviation
officials” were covered in about 11 inches of snow. Additionally, the plural subject "conditions" does not agree with the singular verb "was acceptable."
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The modifying phrase “although covered in about 11 inches of snow” at the beginning of this sentence should be followed by the noun the modifier refers to, “the runway.” Note that in the noun phrase "the runway conditions," the word "runway" acts as an adjective modifying the noun "conditions."
(C) This choice incorrectly uses the redundant phrase “during the time of” instead of “during.” Further, the placement of "according to aviation officials" makes it unclear whether the officials stated that the runway was "covered in about 11 inches of snow" or that "the runway was in acceptable condition."
(D) CORRECT. The modifying phrase “although covered in about 11 inches of snow” is correctly followed by the noun the modifier refers to, “the runway.” Additionally, the phrase "according to aviation officials" is placed at the end of the sentence, unambiguously referring to the main clause ("the runway was in acceptable condition").
(E) The modifying phrase “although covered in about 11 inches of snow” at the beginning of this sentence should be followed by the noun the modifier refers to, “the runway.”

(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The modifying phrase “Discouraged by new data that show increases in toxic emissions from domestic factories” is meant to modify the noun “shareholders.” Therefore, “shareholders” should be placed directly after
“factories.” Instead, it seems that the “searches” are “Discouraged by new data,” which is not logical. Also, the passive construction “are being conducted by” is unnecessarily wordy. Finally, the placement of “who are looking for alternative investment opportunities” after “companies” makes it seem that the “companies” are “searching for alternative investment opportunities.” According to the original sentence, the “shareholders” are looking for these
“opportunities,” not the “companies.”
(C) While the misplaced modifier issue is corrected by placing “shareholders” adjacent to the modifying phrase, the past perfect form of the verb, “had begun,’’ is used unnecessarily. In fact, the use of “had begun” implies that the “shareholders” had begun searching for new investment opportunities before the discouraging data were released. This is not the intended meaning of the sentence. Also, “investment opportunities outside of the manufacturing industry” is wordy when compared with “alternative investment opportunities.”
(D) The placement of “the nation’s leading manufacturing companies” adjacent to the modifying phrase makes it seem that these companies are “Discouraged by new data,” which changes the meaning of the sentence. The original meaning is further compromised by “companies are searching.” The “shareholders” are searching for new opportunities, not the companies.
(E) CORRECT. The misplaced modifier issue is corrected by placing “shareholders” adjacent to the modifying phrase. It is clear that the “shareholders” are “searching,” and not the companies. The active voice "are
searching" replaces the wordy passive construction "searches. . . are being conducted by." Finally, the phrase “alternative investment opportunities” is clear and concise.

The original sentence incorrectly separates the modifier “Found in the wild only

in Australia and New Guinea” from the noun described by this modifier, “kangaroos,” thus illogically suggesting that “powerful legs” rather than “kangaroos” “are found in the wild.” Modifiers should always be placed immediately next to the nouns that they describe.

(A) This answer choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.

(B) The answer choice incorrectly separates the modifier “Found in the wild only in Australia and New Guinea” from the noun described by this modifier, “kangaroos,” thus illogically suggesting that “powerful legs” rather than “kangaroos” “are found in the wild.” In addition, the construction “mammals that are large” is unnecessarily wordy; a simpler and more concise form, “large mammals” would be preferred.

(C) The answer choice incorrectly separates the modifier “Found in the wild only in Australia and New Guinea” from the noun described by this modifier, “kangaroos,” thus illogically suggesting that “powerful legs” rather than “kangaroos” “are found in the wild.” In addition, by introducing the relative pronoun “those” that refers to “powerful legs,” this answer choice illogically attempts to draw a comparison between “kangaroos” and “legs” of other animals, rather than the animals themselves.

(D) CORRECT. This answer choice correctly places the appropriate noun “kangaroos” immediately after the modifier “Found in the wild only in Australia and New Guinea.” In addition, this answer choice is clear, concise, and free of  the redundancies present in other answers.

(E) While this answer choice remedies the original problem with the modifier, it uses the awkward and wordy verb construction “being distinguished” rather than the more concise and direct verb “distinguished.” Furthermore, the construction “mammals that are large” is unnecessarily wordy; a simpler and more concise form “large mammals” would be preferred

The original sentence begins with a modifier "Responding to growing demand for high-end vehicles," but this modifier has no logical subject within the main clause. The subject of the sentence should be the people or organizations that respond to this growing demand.
Moreover, the pronoun "they" is ambiguous, as it could grammatically refer either to the interiors or to the models. We know that the intended antecedent of "they" is the cars, so we need to find a choice that makes this intention clear. Finally, the modifier "that are so luxurious" should be placed immediately after "interiors," not "models"; otherwise, an alternative phrasing without this modifier should be found.

(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.

(B) The choice repeats the original modifier error: the subject of the modifier is not present in the sentence.

(C) This choice repeats the original pronoun error: "they" is ambiguous and could refer to either interiors or models. Also, the modifier "that are so  luxurious" is placed incorrectly.

(D) This choice repeats both the original modifier error and the original pronoun error. Also, "interior" should be plural.

(E) CORRECT. This choice correctly introduces "auto makers" as the subject of the sentence and also corrects the pronoun error by replacing "they" with "these cars."

Note that the use of the synonym "cars" avoids both the awkward repetition of "models" and the ambiguity of the pronoun "they."

This sentence begins with a modifier, yet leaves absent who will be applying optimization techniques (This is termed a "dangling" modifier.) Also, the sentence is unnecessarily wordy in its use of the phrases “ought to” and “in both the short and long terms.”
(A) This choice incorrectly repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. The sentence correctly places “a company’s managers” adjacent to the modifier such that the meaning is clear, and the sentence is otherwise concise.
(C) This answer does not correct the original modifier error. It also weakens the sentence by replacing the active voice with the passive voice in its use of “can be determined by company managers.” The sentence’s concluding use of “goals, both short and long term” is awkward.
(D) This answer does not correct the original modifier error. In this choice, the phrase “may be possible” is unnecessary and weakens the sentence. This choice also incorrectly uses the word “these,” as the products have not been referenced earlier in the sentence.
(E) This sentence resolves the modifier issue, but incorrectly uses the word “these,” as the products have not been referenced earlier in the sentence. This choice is also wordy in its use of “ought to” and “in both the short and long term.”

The original sentence contains several errors. First, the opening modifier "given its authoritative coverage of other science topics" describes the textbook as a whole, yet the subject of the main clause is "the textbook's chapter on genetics." Second, the relative pronoun "which" is used here to modify the entire clause "the textbook's chapter on genetics is surprisingly tentative." "Which" must modify the immediately preceding noun only; it cannot modify the action of an entire clause, as it does here.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The modifier issue is not corrected here, since "the chapter" remains the subject of the main clause (as opposed to "the textbook"). However, this choice does correct the misuse of "which" by replacing it with "leading."
(C) The modifier issue is corrected here by making "the textbook" the subject of the main clause. However, the misuse of "which" is retained. The relative pronoun "which" is used here to modify the entire clause "the textbook's chapter on genetics is surprisingly tentative." "Which" must modify the immediately preceding noun only; it cannot modify the action of an entire clause, as it does here.
Also, the phrase "surprising and tentative" implies that the chapter on genetics is both "surprising" and "tentative," two characteristics that are independent of one another. However, it is clear in the original sentence that "surprisingly" is meant to be an adverb that modifies the adjective "tentative." The chapter is "suprisingly tentative," not "suprising and tentative."
(D) The modifier issue is not corrected here, since "the textbook's chapter" is the subject of the main clause (as opposed to "the textbook"). Moreover, the verb "leads" is incorrectly parallel with "is" when it should be subordinate (e.g., "leading"). This makes it less clear that doubting the author's scholarship is a result of the tentativeness of the chapter on genetics.
(E) CORRECT. The modifier issue is corrected here by making "the textbook" the subject of the main clause. Moreover, "which" is replaced by "leading," thus eliminating the incorrect use of "which" while preserving the meaning of the sentence.

This original sentence is correct as written. The word "fossils" is correctly placed as the subject of the opening modifier "hailed as a key discovery in the science of evolution." Also, the plural noun "fossils" agrees with the plural verb "provide."
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) In this choice, "a large scaly creature" is incorrectly placed as the subject of the opening modifier "hailed as a key discovery in the science of evolution." The fossils of the creature – not the creature itself – were discovered.
Moreover, the phrase "a large scaly creature . . . provides fossils that are a possible link" distorts the meaning of the sentence by nonsensically suggesting that the creature "provides" its fossils; in fact the fossils were simply
discovered by scientists.
(C) In this choice, "a large scaly creature" is incorrectly placed as the subject of the opening modifier "hailed as a key discovery in the science of evolution." The fossils of the creature – not the creature itself – were discovered.
(D) This choice correctly places the word "fossils" as the subject of the opening modifier "hailed as a key discovery in the science of evolution." However, this choice incorrectly employs the singular verb "provides," which does not agree with the plural noun "fossils."
(E) This choice subtly changes the meaning of the original sentence. The use of the word "and" in the phrase "the fossils resemble . . . and provide" creates two distinct points: first, that the fossils resemble x, and, second, that the fossils provide y. In contrast, in the original phrase "the fossils of a large scaly creature resembling both a fish and a land-animal provide evidence of . . .," the focus is clearly on how the fossils provide evidence. The modifying phrase "resembling both a fish and a land-animal" demonstrates how the fossils provide that evidence – it is not intended as a separate, unrelated point.

The modifying phrase “hoping to alleviate some of the financial burdens…” begins this sentence and should be followed immediately by the noun the modifier refers to, “the county government.” However, the original sentence illogically suggests that “property taxes” were hoping to alleviate the financial burdens. Additionally, the phrase “raised by an eleven percent increase” contains a redundancy; either “raised by eleven percent” or “increased by eleven percent” would be more concise and correct. Finally, the passive construction “property taxes…were raised…by the county government” is wordier than the preferred active construction “the county government…raised…property taxes.”
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The modifying phrase “hoping to alleviate…” should be followed immediately by the noun the modifier refers to, “the county government.” However, this choice illogically suggests that “property taxes” were hoping to alleviate the financial burdens. Also, the passive construction “property taxes…were raised…by the county
government” is wordier than the preferred active construction “the county government…raised…property taxes.”
(C) The phrase “raised…by an eleven percent increase” contains a redundancy; either “raised by eleven percent” or “increased by eleven percent” would be more concise and correct.
(D) The phrase “last year raised by eleven percent property taxes” is awkward, since “property taxes,” the object, do not immediately follow the verb “raised.” The meaning would be clearer if it were phrased “raised property taxes by eleven percent last year.”
(E) CORRECT. This choice is the most concise and correct. “The county government” correctly follows the modifying phrase “hoping to alleviate…” The concise phrase “raised…by eleven percent” is used. Finally, the active construction “the county government…raised…property taxes” replaces the wordier passive construction “property taxes…were raised…by the county government.”

The sentence begins with the modifier “In order to properly evaluate a patient’s state of mind and gain informed consent prior to surgery.” This modifier logically should apply to the modified noun “the operating physician,” as it is the operating physician who must evaluate a patient’s state of mind and gain informed consent. In other words, "in order to do X" most properly expresses the intention of the subject of the sentence, and so the subject should be "the operating physician." The original sentence is incorrect, as the modifier is incorrectly followed by “a substantial period of time” as opposed to “the operating physician.”
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) In this sentence, the modifier is followed by the compound subject “the operating physician and the patient.” This choice incorrectly suggests that it is both the operating physician and the patient that must evaluate the patient’s state of mind and gain informed consent, as opposed to the physician alone. Also, the final phrase in the sentence, "thus ensuring full awareness..." does not clarify exactly whose full awareness is ensured (the awareness must clearly be the patient's).
(C) This choice places “the patient” immediately after the initial modifier, illogically and incorrectly suggesting that the patient him or herself will evaluate the patient’s state of mind. In addition, the pronouns "he or she" are
ambiguous; they could refer to the patient or to the physician.
(D) CORRECT. This choice places the proper subject, “the operating physician,” adjacent to the opening modifier. Additionally, it is 100% clear that the patient is to be made fully aware of the pros and cons of undergoing the
surgical procedure.
(E) This choice correctly uses “the operating physician” as the subject of the sentence, resolving the modifier issue. However, the pronouns “he or she” incorrectly refer to “the operating physician,” suggesting that it is the
physician, rather than the patient, who must be made fully aware of the pros and cons of undergoing the surgical procedure.

In the original sentence, the modifier “whose eyes and noses are peaking out…” incorrectly refers to “shallows.” When used to introduce a noun modifier, “whose” always refers to the immediately preceding noun. In this case, the author intends to refer to the “crocodiles,” not the “shallows.”
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The modifier “whose eyes and noses peak out…” incorrectly refers to “shallows.” When used to introduce a noun modifier, “whose” always refers to the immediately preceding noun. In this case, the author intends to refer to the “crocodiles,” not the “shallows.” Further, the past tense “encountered” is inconsistent with the present
tense “participate.” When there is no compelling reason to change tenses, consistency is preferred. Also, the past tense “encountered” seems to imply that these encounters have already happened. However, it is clear from the original sentence that the encounters are ongoing occurrences for “vacationers who participate in guided boat tours.”
(C) The modifier “whose eyes and noses peak out…” incorrectly refers to “shallows.” When used to introduce a noun modifier, “whose” always refers to the immediately preceding noun. In this case, the author intends to refer to the “crocodiles,” not the “shallows.” Further, the past perfect “had encountered” is used incorrectly. The past
perfect tense should only be used to specify the first of two past events. Here, there are no past events.
(D) CORRECT. The adverbial modifier “with eyes and noses peaking out” correctly modifies the verb "lurking." As this example shows, adverbial modifiers do not need to be placed adjacent to the verbs they modify. Further, the present tense “encounter” is consistent with the present tense “participate.”
(E) While the adverbial modifier “with eyes and noses that are peaking out” correctly modifies the verb "lurking," this phrasing is unnecessarily wordy. The more concise “with eyes and noses peaking out” is preferred.

The original sentence begins with a modifier ("Before its independence") that clearly describes India, though the subject of the main clause is Britain. Moreover, "ruled India as a colony" is wordy and the verb "ruled" is in the simple past when it would be better in the past perfect (two past actions, one of which was earlier). Finally, "they"
has no grammatical antecedent and "would" is not a proper tense here (the simple past is required).
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) Britain should not be the recipient of the modifier "Before its independence."
(C) The pronoun "they" has no logical antecedent. Logically it probably refers to the British, but the British do not appear in the sentence. Also the past perfect tense would have been preferable here (had been ruled) since the ruling occurred before the relinquishing of the power.
(D) The phrase "ruled as a colony by Britain" is awkward and unclear. The placement of the modifer "by Britain" makes it unclear that the ruling is being done by Britain.
(E) CORRECT. This correctly places India as the recipient of the opening modifier. The past perfect is utilized to indicate that different times in the past. Notice that the word "ruled" has been removed from this answer choice, however, this did not result in a change of meaning. To be a colony of the British is to be ruled by the British.
The exclusion of the pronoun its in the beginning of the sentence (see answer choices A and C) is incidental. The sentence would have been correct with the pronoun its as well.

The original sentence uses the introductory adjective modifier “used until the end of the Second World War”; The U-boat, the subject of the modifier, should immediately follow the modifying phrase. Additionally, the expression “both military or civilian” is unidiomatic; the correct idiom is “both military and civilian.”
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. The noun “U-boat” properly functions as the subject of the modifying phrase. Additionally, the idiomatic “both military and civilian” is properly used at the end of the sentence.
(C) This choice changes the intended meaning of the original sentence to one that is nonsensical. The U-boat, a boat, cannot “employ the German army” to do anything. Furthermore, the “both military or civilian” construction is unidiomatic.
(D) This choice incorrectly uses “the German army” as the subject of the introductory phrase. Additionally, this choice creates a verb tense error by unnecessarily switching to the past perfect “had employed” and a parallelism error by using the “both military and the civilian” construction.
(E) This choice uses the present perfect tense “has been employed,” incorrectly indicating that U-boats are still used by the German army. Furthermore, the “both military and also civilian” is unidiomatic

The original sentence begins with an opening modifier that correctly modifies the nationwide admission of students.
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The use of the initial modifier in this choice is correct. However, the adjective “nationwide” is incorrectly applied to students, when it is meant to apply to the admission process.
(C) Here, the modifier is adjacent to the subject “colleges and universities,” incorrectly suggesting that colleges and universities are taken for granted as opposed to the admission process.
(D) This sentence incorrectly uses the pronoun “them” to refer to the “admission” which is a singular subject. The use of the pronoun “their” is also unclear as the antecedent could be construed to be “colleges and universities” as opposed to the intended antecedent, "students."
(E) Using the word "and" at the end of the underline makes the meaning of this sentence less clear by failing to draw an appropriate contrast between the current state of taking the nationwide admission of students for granted and the fact that it is a relatively recent phenomenon. A more appropriate word choice would be "but": "Most people now take for granted..., but it is a relatively recent phenomenon."

The original sentence is correct. "Famous because of 'The Godfather'"and "near to those he most trusted" correctly modify "a town," which modifies Corleone. Noun modifiers must be next to the nouns that they describe. This choice contains no other errors.
(A) CORRECT. This answer choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence. (B) This choice contains a modification error; "famous because of 'The Godfather'” incorrectly describes the prosecutor. Noun modifiers modify the closest available noun.
(C) This choice contains a modification error; "famous because of 'The Godfather'" incorrectly describes the mobster. Noun modifiers modify the closest available noun.
(D) This choice contains a modification error; "near to those he most trusted" incorrectly describes the prosecutor. Noun modifiers modify the closest available noun.
(E) The modification is correct in this choice. "Famous because of 'The Godfather'" correctly modifies "Corleone". However, this sentence is unnecessarily wordy, "was the town that the ailing mobster came to take refuge in" is much less concise than "the ailing mobster came to take refuge in Corleone" without making the meaning
clearer.

The original sentence is correct. The modifiers “Herman Melville” and “Walt Whitman” are restrictive – they are necessary to restrict the scope of the words “author” and “poet” respectively – and hence the use of comma pairs to set off the modifiers is not appropriate here. In addition, the context of the sentence implies that the men
continue to be icons of American literature since they are beloved by generations both past and present; hence the use of the present tense “are” is appropriate.
(A) CORRECT. The original sentence is correct as written.
(B) The modifiers “the author” and “the poet” for “Herman Melville” and “Walt Whitman” respectively are non-restrictive – they are not necessary to identify the subjects and only serve to add information – and hence should be set off with comma pairs (e.g., “Herman Melville, the author, and Walt Whitman, the poet, ….”
(C) The phrases “The author named Herman Melville” and “the poet named Walt Whitman” are unnecessarily wordy. In addition, an icon of something has implied greatness; hence, the phrase “great icon” is redundant.
(D) The restrictive modifiers “Herman Melville” and “Walt Whitman” are improperly set off by comma pairs.
(E). The modifiers “the author” and “the poet” are non-restrictive and properly set off with comma pairs. The tense of the verb “had been” is not appropriate since it is implied by the context of this sentence that the men continue to be icons of American literature.

This sentence tests two modifiers. First, "only" correctly modifies "when" Rousseau believed "man is good." Second, "that" is incorrectly used to introduce a non-essential modifier. "That" is used only with essential modifiers and is not separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma. "Which" is used when introducing non-essential modifiers and these modifiers are separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma.
(A) The sentence is incorrect because it repeats the original answer.
(B) The new placement of the adverb "only" unacceptably changes the meaning of the sentence. The original sentence indicated the "only" circumstance in which "man is good." This answer choice, however, indicates
that man is the "only" good creature in a certain circumstance. In addition, "that" should only be used to introduce essential modifiers that are not separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma. "Which" is required in
this case.
(C) The new placement of the adverb "only" unacceptably changes the meaning of the sentence. The original sentence indicated the "only" circumstance in which "man is good." This answer choice, however, indicates
the "only" circumstance in which "man is corrupted." In addition, "that" should only be used to introduce essential modifiers that are not separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma. "Which" is required in this case.
(D) This answer corrects the second modifier by changing "that" to "which," the appropriate start to a non-essential modifier. However, the new placement of the adverb "only" unacceptably changes the meaning of the sentence. The original sentence indicated the "only" circumstance in which "man is good." This answer choice, however, indicates that man is the "only" good creature in a certain circumstance.
(E) CORRECT. This choice keeps the original (and correct) placement of the adverb "only" and also corrects the "that vs. which" modifier mistake by replacing "that" with "which," the appropriate relative pronoun to employ to start a non-essential modifier.

The opening clause "though the language of Beowulf is practically incomprehensible to contemporary readers," correctly modifies the main clause "careful linguistic analysis reveals a multitude of similarities to modern
English." Moreover, all verbs are in the correct tenses and all nouns are properly modified. There are no errors in the original sentence.
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice begins with the unidiomatic "despite that it." • "Despite" must be followed by either a noun ("despite extreme hunger...") or a verb ("despite having been fired..."). It cannot be followed by a relative pronoun ("despite that...").
Moreover, the opening clause seems to modify "careful linguistic analysis," which is the subject of the main clause, creating an illogical meaning (that the analysis is incomprehensible to contemporary readers).
(C) "Though being practically incomprehensible" is wordy; "being" is unnecessary here. Moreover, the main clause seems to imply that "the language of Beowulf" performed the "careful linguistic analysis," thus creating
an illogical meaning.
(D) "Though Beowulf has a language that is practically incomprehensible" is wordy. The original "though the language of Beowulf is practically incomprehensible" is more concise. Moreover, "a multitude of similarities are
revealed to modern English" seems to imply that the "similarities" were revealed to "modern English" when the correct meaning is that that "similarities to modern English" were revealed.
(E) "Beowulf reveals through careful linguistic analysis" illogically implies that Beowulf carried out the analysis.

The original sentence describes fusion as a "process" studied by scientists. The underlined portion of the sentence correctly ends with the word "scientists." This is necessary because the non-underlined portion of the sentence, beginning "some of whom . . .," is a long modifier that describes what some of those scientists have
attempted to do. Modifiers describing nouns must be adjacent to the nouns that they describe.
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice incorrectly shortens the modifier that describes fusion to "the heat and light produced by the sun." This distorts the meaning of the sentence by incorrectly stating that fusion is the "heat and light" produced by the sun. In fact, fusion is the "process" used by the sun to produce heat and light; fusion is not the "heat and light" itself. This is made clear by the use of the word "process" in the non-underlined portion of the sentence in the phrase "to mimic the process in their laboratories."
(C) This choice describes fusion as "the process through which heat and light are produced by the sun." The use of the doubly passive construction "through which . . . are produced by" produces an unnecessarily wordy modifier. Though a passive construction ma  be correct, a more active construction is preferable if it is provided.
(D) In moving the word "scientists" from the end of the opening clause to the beginning, this choice creates a misplaced modifier. The non-underlined portion of the sentence that begins "some of whom . . ." is a modifier
describing the scientists; this modifier must be placed immediately adjacent to the noun that it modifies ("scientists"). However, in this choice this modifier is incorrectly placed adjacent to "heat and light."
(E) The last word of this choice, "and," creates two independent clauses: "Scientists have studied fusion . . ." and "some of whom have attempted . . ." The phrase "some of whom" can only be used if it is placed immediately
adjacent to its antecedent ("scientists."). A better choice would have been "some of them" since the pronoun "them" (unlike "whom") does not need to be placed immediately adjacent to its antecedent ("Scientists have studied . . . and some of them have attempted . . .").

This sentence has poor parallelism, due to the placement of the word “crops.” It seems to indicate that there were three types of crops (grape, celery and chili pepper) that had been destroyed, but that sugar beet and walnut had been destroyed entirely, rather than just the crops of those plants.

• Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper crops, sugar beet and walnut in the region, but in the 1880s, more effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.
• (A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence. OK.
• Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region, but in the 1880s, more effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.
• (B) CORRECT. The word “crop” is placed correctly after the list of crop types. The modifier “in the 1880s” correctly modifies the last phrase in the sentence, indicating only that the citrus industry was saved in the 1880s. By using the past perfect “had destroyed,” this sentence indicates that the other crops had been destroyed at some time prior to the 1880s. The later past event uses the simple past tense, whereas the earlier past event uses the past perfect tense. This time line of events matches the meaning in the original sentence.
• Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region, but more effective pest-control methods that were introduced in the 1880s saved the citrus industry.
• The citrus industry was saved in the 1880s. As per the sentence above, we know that the methods were introduced in the 1880’s but have no idea when the citrus industry was saved.
• (C) The modifying phrase “that were introduced in the 1880s” refers to the “methods” immediately preceding the phrase. This alters the meaning of the sentence, since “in the 1880s” no longer modifies “saved the citrus industry. The simple past tense indicates “saved” happened sometime in the past, but not necessarily in that particular decade.

The modifier uses the relative pronoun “that,” but “that” should only introduce essential modifiers. “Which” is a better choice here, since the modifying phrase is non-essential.

• In the 1880s, pests destroyed grape, celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region and more effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.
• (D) The placement of the modifier “In the 1880s” and the use of two simple past verbs “destroyed” and “saved,” indicate that both occurred in that decade. The original sentence indicates only that the citrus industry was saved in the 1880s, and by using the past perfect “had destroyed” indicates that the other crops had been destroyed at some time prior to the 1880s. The original sentence used the word “but” to indicate a contrast, yet this sentence alters the meaning by using “and” instead.
• In the 1880s, more effective pest-control methods saved the citrus industry from what was destroying grape, celery, chili pepper, sugar beet and walnut crops in the region.
• (E) The use of the phrase “what was destroying” is an awkward way to refer to “pests.” Also, the placement of the modifier “In the 1880s” and the use of the past progressive “was destroying” indicates that the destruction was ongoing in that decade. The original sentence indicates only that the citrus industry was saved in the 1880s, and by using the past perfect “had destroyed” indicates that the other crops had been destroyed at some time prior to the 1880s.

In the original sentence, "was" does not need to be repeated after "nor." Moreover, "having been won over..." incorrectly modifies "classical guitar" (the subject of the preceding clause) instead of Segovia.
(A) This choice is the same as the original sentence.
(B) This choice does not correct the modifier issue.
(C) CORRECT. This choice corrects the "nor" issue as well as the modifier issue. Now it is clear that it was Segovia who was won over by the instrument's sound.
(D) This choice is incorrect because the phrase "classical guitar did not have prestige nor was it performed..." is both unidiomatic ("not ... nor" is incorrect) and unparallel ("did not have....nor was it performed").
(E) This choice is incorrect because it repeats "was" after "nor" and because it implies that Segovia was won over by the sound of the instrument in the midtwentieth century, while the original sentence makes clear that this happened at some earlier point.