<p>Adult ladybugs often prey on agricultural or garden pests, causing many fruit growers to consider them among the most beneficial insects.</p>
<p>(A) causing many fruit growers to
(B) therefore, many fruit growers
(C) this causes many fruit growers to
(D) which cause many fruit growers to
(E) many fruit growers</p>
<p>ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS </p>
<p>Explanation for Correct Answer A : </p>
<p>Choice (A) is correct. It avoids the errors of the other options by providing a participial phrase causing to to appropriately modify the noun ladybugs.</p>
<p>Explanation for Incorrect Answer B : </p>
<p>Choice (B) creates a comma splice. Two independent clauses should not be linked by only a comma.</p>
<p>Explanation for Incorrect Answer C : </p>
<p>Choice (C) creates a comma splice. Two independent clauses should not be linked by only a comma.</p>
<p>Explanation for Incorrect Answer D : </p>
<p>Choice (D) creates an error in pronoun reference. The relative pronoun which has no noun to which it can logically refer.</p>
<p>Explanation for Incorrect Answer E : </p>
<p>Choice (E) creates a comma splice. Two independent clauses should not be linked by only a comma.</p>
<hr>
<p>For A, doesn't "causing" relate to the "garden pests" if it's placed right after it?
Also, why can't you use ",therefore,"
I'm really confused...</p>
<p>You can’t use “therefore” because you would need a period or semicolon to make the sentence work. Just because causing is right after garden pests does not mean it relates to it. This is a common SAT trick to throw you. Causing in this case relates to the ladybugs prey activites. Personally, I’d use “which is why” instead of causing. More words, but I think it sounds better.</p>
<p>^I’m probably wrong somewhere in my post. I’m not really a grammar guy.</p>
<p>Re: I don’t get why D is wrong
Read it this way:
Adult ladybugs often prey which cause
That clearly doesn’t make sense. It would be correct if “causes” was used.</p>
<p>That’s actually incorrect. It’d be, “He was a good singer; therefore, many people liked him.”
Otherwise, you’re basically saying “He was a good singer, therefore,” despite not having any previous evidence to prove this statement true.</p>