GMAT VA PREP - One to One Mentorship online - Whatsapp 09674548313
1D
This is one of my favorites, just because I see a lot of errors on it – but it’s actually really straightforward, and is easy to solve if you follow a couple of simple rules. And that doesn’t happen as often as we’d like on GMAT SC, unfortunately.
OK, the thing that should jump out at us is the word “both.” In this case, “both” is paired with the word “and” – and this is a very strict parallelism “trigger”. The word “both” and the word “and” must be followed by two parallel elements.
And in this case, we don’t have those parallel elements: “…both rooted… and Duke Ellington…” Nope: “rooted” is an adjective in this situation, and “Duke Ellington” definitely is not. So we can eliminate (A).
(And for anybody who was paying extremely close attention in our YouTube webinar on parallelism and meaning: when I mentioned “special parallel triggers”, this both/and construction is one of the most important examples I had in mind.)
I’m OK with the use of “that” here: “that was rooted” just modifies the “body of work.” You could probably argue that the words “that was” aren’t strictly necessary, but they also aren’t doing any harm at all.
The more important thing is the parallelism again: “…both in the stride-piano tradition… and Duke Ellington…”
Nope, that’s definitely not parallel, either. (B) is out.
Hm, no more “both”! That’s cool. Now the parallelism isn’t a problem at all: Willie (The Lion) Smith and Duke Ellington are parallel to each other in the non-underlined portion.
But now there’s a more subtle problem: this thing isn’t a legitimate sentence anymore, because the presumed subject of the sentence (“Jazz pianist and composer Thelonious Monk”) never actually “performs” a main verb. I think we can agree that the part beginning with “who” is just modifying Thelonious Monk, so let’s strip that out for just a moment to see what we have: “Jazz pianist and composer Thelonious Monk,… yet in many ways he stood apart from the mainstream jazz repertory.”
Huh? That makes no sense. Basically, the sentence is structured as a noun, followed by a modifier, followed by a dependent clause. That’s not a sentence. So (C) is out.
As in (C), we don’t have any parallelism issues here, since “both” has been removed. But unlike (C), (D) is actually a real sentence, since it starts with a nice, independent clause: “…Thelonious Monk produced a body of work…”
So let’s keep (D).
And we’re right back to the same parallelism problem as in (B): “…both in the stride-piano tradition… and Duke Ellington…” That’s just plain wrong, and we’re left with (D) as the correct answer.
********
2 E
That second "it" is the big problem here: "makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble..." I suppose that "it" could refer to "heavy commitment" or "course of action", but neither of those would make any sense. (A) is gone.
This is fairly subtle, but the subject doesn't make a whole lot of sense with the main verb here. "An executive... makes missing signs of incipient trouble... likely when they do appear." The pronoun "they" is OK, but it doesn't make logical sense to say that "an executive makes missing signs of trouble likely..." Also, I see no good reason use "ones" here -- in theory, "ones" would refer to very specific signs of trouble, and there's no good reason to use "ones" when a simple "them" would work. (B) is gone.
The "it" is a problem here: "it" generally refers to the nearest singular noun. In this case, "it" would seem to refer to "trouble," and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. "Course of action" would work, but that's much farther back in the sentence.
To be fair, ambiguous pronouns aren't always wrong on the GMAT, so if you want to be conservative, you could keep (C) for now. But as we'll see in a moment, (E) is a much better option.
"Them" is trying to refer back to a possessive pronoun, "executives'", and that's wrong on the GMAT. Non-possessive pronouns (they, them, he, she, it) can't refer back to possessive nouns on the GMAT. So (D) is gone.
There are lots of pronoun issues in the other answer choices, but we're all good with (E): the ambiguous "it" we saw in (C) isn't here at all, and "them" and "they" very clearly refer to "signs of incipient trouble." The subject "being heavily committed to a course of action" works nicely with the main verb phrase ("is likely to make an executive miss signs of trouble..."), so (E) is an upgrade from (B).
That leaves "being" as the only reasonable objection to (E). But "being" is absolutely fine here: it's just a noun, also known as a gerund in this case. "Being" is no different than any other gerund. So (E) is our answer.
*****************
3D
(A) is awfully tempting. The agreement happened in the past (1972), so it’s reasonable enough to use “reduced” here.
But what about the use of past perfect tense (“had been allowed to dump”)? Whenever you see the past perfect tense, it has to describe an action that is completed in the past, but BEFORE some other “time marker” in the past – usually another action in simple past tense. And we do have another action in simple past here: “reduced the amount of phosphates.” Superficially, this looks good.
But those verb tenses don’t actually make sense! Literally, (A) is saying that the 1972 agreement “reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump” – meaning that the 1972 agreement changed the amount that municipalities had been allowed to dump BEFORE the agreement went into place. And that makes no sense: how could a 1972 agreement reach even further into the past to change municipalities' behavior?
It’s subtle. And cruel and difficult. And if you wanted to be conservative on your first pass through the answer choices, you certainly could hang onto (A). But as you’ll see in a moment, we definitely have a better option.
(B) is an even worse version of (A). How can the 1972 agreement reach back into the even-more-distant past to change the amount that “municipalities had been dumping”? Plus, there’s no good reason to use the progressive tense here, and the phrase “phosphate amount” strikes me as being awfully weird.
But the logic of the sequence of actions is the real problem, just as it is in (A). So (B) is out, too.
There are all sorts of little problems with this one. First, I don’t think it’s ideal to say that the 1972 agreement “reduces” the phosphate amount. The agreement reduced that amount when it took effect in the past – so it’s hard to argue that the present tense would work here.
Second, the phrase “phosphate amount” still strikes me as weird. I’m not certain that it’s 100% wrong, and I wouldn’t eliminate (C) solely because of it. But “the amount of phosphates” is clearly better.
Finally, I don’t understand why we would use the present perfect “have been allowed to dump” in this sentence, particularly since it’s accompanied by the present tense “reduces.” “Have been allowed” suggests that the action started in the past and continues in the present. So the sentence is literally saying that municipalities “have been allowed” to dump a certain amount beginning in the past, but only because of a 1972 agreement… which “reduces” that amount only in the present? That doesn’t make sense.
So (C) is out.
I know: this one doesn’t sound great. Why are we mixing the past tense with the present tense in this particular case? Superficially, it just doesn’t seem right.
But keep in mind that the simple present tense in English just describes a general characteristic. If we say “Mike surfs like a champion”, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Mike is surfing right now; it just means that he has the general characteristic of surfing like a champion.
So in this case, “the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump” is completely fine: it’s a general statement of how much the municipalities can dump. And back in the past – specifically in 1972 – the agreement reduced that amount to its current levels. So the past tense “reduced” makes sense, and so does the present tense “are allowed.”
It might make us squirm a bit, but we have no reason to eliminate (D).
Again, “reduces” doesn’t make a lot of sense here, for the same reasons as we mentioned in answer choice (C). Plus, what the heck is going on with the phrase “allowed for dumping by municipalities”? This is a weird passive construction, and it’s far less clear than “municipalities are allowed to dump.”
So (E) is out, and (D) is the best we can do.
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
let me address your doubt by first understanding the intended meaning of the sentence and analyzing the sentence structure. Then it will be easier to understand the differences between the options. (A and D in this case)
The intended meaning of the sentence is that till 1972, municipalities were allowed to dump a certain amount of phosphate into the Great Lakes. However, a 1972 agreement between Canada and the US reduced this amount. Now let us analyze the sentence structure.
• A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates
o that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.
The only error in this sentence is the use of past perfect tense “had been allowed”.
Let us understand how. Per the sentence, the agreement reduced the amount that municipalities were allowed to dump. Now in this sentence, the verb tense - past perfect tense - had been allowed - is incorrect because it non-sensically implies that municipalities were allowed to dump a certain amount sometime in the past - (they are no longer allowed to dump now, since the action is already completed) and then the next event in the past happened - the agreement reduced this amount. It is not possible to reduce an amount for something that has already happened (had been allowed).
Therefore Choice A is incorrect for the reason discussed above.
Choice D: reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump.
This choice conveys the intended meaning. In general, the municipalities are allowed to dump a certain amount of phosphate. However, an agreement between Canada and the US reduced that amount in 1972.
Therefore this option is correct.
The thing to note here is that both "were" and "are" can be correct. So, if any one of these is given in the option statements, we can mark that option statement.
Now, the question is: what difference does it make to use "are" over "were"?
The school reduced the fine that Joe was supposed to pay.
The school reduced the fine that Joe is supposed to pay.
Can you identify the difference between these two sentences?
In the first sentence, Joe "was" supposed to pay the fine sometime in the past and we do not know whether he has paid the fine till now or not.
In the second sentence, Joe "is" supposed to pay the fine presently and we know that he has not yet paid the fine.
Similar is the case with the use of "were" and "are" in the original sentence.
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the US reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities were allowed to dump into the Great Lakes
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the US reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump into the Great Lakes
The first sentence means that we are referring to amount of phosphates that municipalities were allowed to dump in the past whereas the second sentence means that we are referring to the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump currently.
Do you get the difference?
So, both "are" and "were" are grammatically correct but convey different meanings.
What does "it" refer to? The entire clause of "Proceeding without a plan...." maybe? That isn't right.
Also, like is not the correct word.
Hold
Our verb tenses make sense.
Past Perfect error. There is no need for the "had" in "had agreed."
Also, like is not the correct word.
"without the presence of a plan" is a very weird thing to say.
Would you say: "Going to basketball practice without the presence of proper bball shoes is an ankle injury waiting to happen." Heck no.
The only error I see here, as DmitryFarber pointed out, is that we have the past perfect "had agreed" and "have proven" without another past event that precedes the past perfect.
TBH, this one sounds fine to me from a verb tense perspective. The introductory infinitive "To proceed" probably throws a lot of people off from spotting the past perfect error.
"without the presence of a plan" is a very weird thing to say.
Would you say: "To host a sales meeting without the presence of a powerpoint slide deck would be a bad decision." Heck no.
(E) Never even introduces the subject (the firm), yet we're using several pronouns? Yikes.
“They” has to refer back to a plural noun, but our only options are “studies” (which makes no sense, because studies can’t think) or “wild animals” (which also makes no sense, unless you think wild animals moonlight as nutritionists. (A) is out.
There’s no pronoun here, so that’s cool. And I think the meaning works: “wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain” is fine. The second part seems fine, too: “wild animals have… more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health.”
I don’t see any huge issues, so let’s keep (B).
As described in our rambling guide to the word “that”, “that” is a singular pronoun in this type of situation. In (C), I guess it has to refer to “total fat,” but that doesn’t really make sense: “wild animals have less total fat than the total fat of livestock fed on grain…”
That’s kind of a mess. Wild animals have less fat than livestock, but it wouldn’t make sense to say that “wild animals have less total fat.. than the total fat…” That comparison is thoroughly wrong. (C) is out.
This comparison is very clearly wrong: “total fat… is less than livestock.” You could, I suppose, also argue that the “they” isn’t 100% clear – but the illogical comparison is the most straightforward issue. (D) is out, too.
There’s a lot of clunkiness here, but the biggest issue is the word “they”: the only possible referents are “wild animals”, “livestock”, or “studies.” And none of those are likely to “think [that fat] is good for cardiac health.” (E) is gone, and (B) is the best answer.
1D
This is one of my favorites, just because I see a lot of errors on it – but it’s actually really straightforward, and is easy to solve if you follow a couple of simple rules. And that doesn’t happen as often as we’d like on GMAT SC, unfortunately.
Quote:
OK, the thing that should jump out at us is the word “both.” In this case, “both” is paired with the word “and” – and this is a very strict parallelism “trigger”. The word “both” and the word “and” must be followed by two parallel elements.
And in this case, we don’t have those parallel elements: “…both rooted… and Duke Ellington…” Nope: “rooted” is an adjective in this situation, and “Duke Ellington” definitely is not. So we can eliminate (A).
(And for anybody who was paying extremely close attention in our YouTube webinar on parallelism and meaning: when I mentioned “special parallel triggers”, this both/and construction is one of the most important examples I had in mind.)
Quote:
I’m OK with the use of “that” here: “that was rooted” just modifies the “body of work.” You could probably argue that the words “that was” aren’t strictly necessary, but they also aren’t doing any harm at all.
The more important thing is the parallelism again: “…both in the stride-piano tradition… and Duke Ellington…”
Nope, that’s definitely not parallel, either. (B) is out.
Quote:
Hm, no more “both”! That’s cool. Now the parallelism isn’t a problem at all: Willie (The Lion) Smith and Duke Ellington are parallel to each other in the non-underlined portion.
But now there’s a more subtle problem: this thing isn’t a legitimate sentence anymore, because the presumed subject of the sentence (“Jazz pianist and composer Thelonious Monk”) never actually “performs” a main verb. I think we can agree that the part beginning with “who” is just modifying Thelonious Monk, so let’s strip that out for just a moment to see what we have: “Jazz pianist and composer Thelonious Monk,… yet in many ways he stood apart from the mainstream jazz repertory.”
Huh? That makes no sense. Basically, the sentence is structured as a noun, followed by a modifier, followed by a dependent clause. That’s not a sentence. So (C) is out.
Quote:
As in (C), we don’t have any parallelism issues here, since “both” has been removed. But unlike (C), (D) is actually a real sentence, since it starts with a nice, independent clause: “…Thelonious Monk produced a body of work…”
So let’s keep (D).
Quote:
And we’re right back to the same parallelism problem as in (B): “…both in the stride-piano tradition… and Duke Ellington…” That’s just plain wrong, and we’re left with (D) as the correct answer.
********
2 E
Quote:
That second "it" is the big problem here: "makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble..." I suppose that "it" could refer to "heavy commitment" or "course of action", but neither of those would make any sense. (A) is gone.
Quote:
This is fairly subtle, but the subject doesn't make a whole lot of sense with the main verb here. "An executive... makes missing signs of incipient trouble... likely when they do appear." The pronoun "they" is OK, but it doesn't make logical sense to say that "an executive makes missing signs of trouble likely..." Also, I see no good reason use "ones" here -- in theory, "ones" would refer to very specific signs of trouble, and there's no good reason to use "ones" when a simple "them" would work. (B) is gone.
Quote:
The "it" is a problem here: "it" generally refers to the nearest singular noun. In this case, "it" would seem to refer to "trouble," and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. "Course of action" would work, but that's much farther back in the sentence.
To be fair, ambiguous pronouns aren't always wrong on the GMAT, so if you want to be conservative, you could keep (C) for now. But as we'll see in a moment, (E) is a much better option.
Quote:
"Them" is trying to refer back to a possessive pronoun, "executives'", and that's wrong on the GMAT. Non-possessive pronouns (they, them, he, she, it) can't refer back to possessive nouns on the GMAT. So (D) is gone.
Quote:
There are lots of pronoun issues in the other answer choices, but we're all good with (E): the ambiguous "it" we saw in (C) isn't here at all, and "them" and "they" very clearly refer to "signs of incipient trouble." The subject "being heavily committed to a course of action" works nicely with the main verb phrase ("is likely to make an executive miss signs of trouble..."), so (E) is an upgrade from (B).
That leaves "being" as the only reasonable objection to (E). But "being" is absolutely fine here: it's just a noun, also known as a gerund in this case. "Being" is no different than any other gerund. So (E) is our answer.
*****************
3D
Quote:
(A) is awfully tempting. The agreement happened in the past (1972), so it’s reasonable enough to use “reduced” here.
But what about the use of past perfect tense (“had been allowed to dump”)? Whenever you see the past perfect tense, it has to describe an action that is completed in the past, but BEFORE some other “time marker” in the past – usually another action in simple past tense. And we do have another action in simple past here: “reduced the amount of phosphates.” Superficially, this looks good.
But those verb tenses don’t actually make sense! Literally, (A) is saying that the 1972 agreement “reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump” – meaning that the 1972 agreement changed the amount that municipalities had been allowed to dump BEFORE the agreement went into place. And that makes no sense: how could a 1972 agreement reach even further into the past to change municipalities' behavior?
It’s subtle. And cruel and difficult. And if you wanted to be conservative on your first pass through the answer choices, you certainly could hang onto (A). But as you’ll see in a moment, we definitely have a better option.
Quote:
(B) is an even worse version of (A). How can the 1972 agreement reach back into the even-more-distant past to change the amount that “municipalities had been dumping”? Plus, there’s no good reason to use the progressive tense here, and the phrase “phosphate amount” strikes me as being awfully weird.
But the logic of the sequence of actions is the real problem, just as it is in (A). So (B) is out, too.
Quote:
There are all sorts of little problems with this one. First, I don’t think it’s ideal to say that the 1972 agreement “reduces” the phosphate amount. The agreement reduced that amount when it took effect in the past – so it’s hard to argue that the present tense would work here.
Second, the phrase “phosphate amount” still strikes me as weird. I’m not certain that it’s 100% wrong, and I wouldn’t eliminate (C) solely because of it. But “the amount of phosphates” is clearly better.
Finally, I don’t understand why we would use the present perfect “have been allowed to dump” in this sentence, particularly since it’s accompanied by the present tense “reduces.” “Have been allowed” suggests that the action started in the past and continues in the present. So the sentence is literally saying that municipalities “have been allowed” to dump a certain amount beginning in the past, but only because of a 1972 agreement… which “reduces” that amount only in the present? That doesn’t make sense.
So (C) is out.
Quote:
I know: this one doesn’t sound great. Why are we mixing the past tense with the present tense in this particular case? Superficially, it just doesn’t seem right.
But keep in mind that the simple present tense in English just describes a general characteristic. If we say “Mike surfs like a champion”, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Mike is surfing right now; it just means that he has the general characteristic of surfing like a champion.
So in this case, “the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump” is completely fine: it’s a general statement of how much the municipalities can dump. And back in the past – specifically in 1972 – the agreement reduced that amount to its current levels. So the past tense “reduced” makes sense, and so does the present tense “are allowed.”
It might make us squirm a bit, but we have no reason to eliminate (D).
Quote:
Again, “reduces” doesn’t make a lot of sense here, for the same reasons as we mentioned in answer choice (C). Plus, what the heck is going on with the phrase “allowed for dumping by municipalities”? This is a weird passive construction, and it’s far less clear than “municipalities are allowed to dump.”
So (E) is out, and (D) is the best we can do.
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
let me address your doubt by first understanding the intended meaning of the sentence and analyzing the sentence structure. Then it will be easier to understand the differences between the options. (A and D in this case)
The intended meaning of the sentence is that till 1972, municipalities were allowed to dump a certain amount of phosphate into the Great Lakes. However, a 1972 agreement between Canada and the US reduced this amount. Now let us analyze the sentence structure.
• A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates
o that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.
The only error in this sentence is the use of past perfect tense “had been allowed”.
Let us understand how. Per the sentence, the agreement reduced the amount that municipalities were allowed to dump. Now in this sentence, the verb tense - past perfect tense - had been allowed - is incorrect because it non-sensically implies that municipalities were allowed to dump a certain amount sometime in the past - (they are no longer allowed to dump now, since the action is already completed) and then the next event in the past happened - the agreement reduced this amount. It is not possible to reduce an amount for something that has already happened (had been allowed).
Therefore Choice A is incorrect for the reason discussed above.
Choice D: reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump.
This choice conveys the intended meaning. In general, the municipalities are allowed to dump a certain amount of phosphate. However, an agreement between Canada and the US reduced that amount in 1972.
Therefore this option is correct.
The thing to note here is that both "were" and "are" can be correct. So, if any one of these is given in the option statements, we can mark that option statement.
Now, the question is: what difference does it make to use "are" over "were"?
The school reduced the fine that Joe was supposed to pay.
The school reduced the fine that Joe is supposed to pay.
Can you identify the difference between these two sentences?
In the first sentence, Joe "was" supposed to pay the fine sometime in the past and we do not know whether he has paid the fine till now or not.
In the second sentence, Joe "is" supposed to pay the fine presently and we know that he has not yet paid the fine.
Similar is the case with the use of "were" and "are" in the original sentence.
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the US reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities were allowed to dump into the Great Lakes
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the US reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump into the Great Lakes
The first sentence means that we are referring to amount of phosphates that municipalities were allowed to dump in the past whereas the second sentence means that we are referring to the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump currently.
Do you get the difference?
So, both "are" and "were" are grammatically correct but convey different meanings.
******
4B
Bunuel wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
What does "it" refer to? The entire clause of "Proceeding without a plan...." maybe? That isn't right.
Also, like is not the correct word.
Bunuel wrote:
Hold
Our verb tenses make sense.
Bunuel wrote:
Past Perfect error. There is no need for the "had" in "had agreed."
Also, like is not the correct word.
"without the presence of a plan" is a very weird thing to say.
Would you say: "Going to basketball practice without the presence of proper bball shoes is an ankle injury waiting to happen." Heck no.
Bunuel wrote:
The only error I see here, as DmitryFarber pointed out, is that we have the past perfect "had agreed" and "have proven" without another past event that precedes the past perfect.
TBH, this one sounds fine to me from a verb tense perspective. The introductory infinitive "To proceed" probably throws a lot of people off from spotting the past perfect error.
"without the presence of a plan" is a very weird thing to say.
Would you say: "To host a sales meeting without the presence of a powerpoint slide deck would be a bad decision." Heck no.
Bunuel wrote:
(E) Never even introduces the subject (the firm), yet we're using several pronouns? Yikes.
**************
5 B
Quote:
“They” has to refer back to a plural noun, but our only options are “studies” (which makes no sense, because studies can’t think) or “wild animals” (which also makes no sense, unless you think wild animals moonlight as nutritionists. (A) is out.
Quote:
There’s no pronoun here, so that’s cool. And I think the meaning works: “wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain” is fine. The second part seems fine, too: “wild animals have… more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health.”
I don’t see any huge issues, so let’s keep (B).
Quote:
As described in our rambling guide to the word “that”, “that” is a singular pronoun in this type of situation. In (C), I guess it has to refer to “total fat,” but that doesn’t really make sense: “wild animals have less total fat than the total fat of livestock fed on grain…”
That’s kind of a mess. Wild animals have less fat than livestock, but it wouldn’t make sense to say that “wild animals have less total fat.. than the total fat…” That comparison is thoroughly wrong. (C) is out.
Quote:
This comparison is very clearly wrong: “total fat… is less than livestock.” You could, I suppose, also argue that the “they” isn’t 100% clear – but the illogical comparison is the most straightforward issue. (D) is out, too.
Quote:
There’s a lot of clunkiness here, but the biggest issue is the word “they”: the only possible referents are “wild animals”, “livestock”, or “studies.” And none of those are likely to “think [that fat] is good for cardiac health.” (E) is gone, and (B) is the best answer.
*******
Source: gmatclub.com
Source: gmatclub.com
GMAT VA PREP - One to One Mentorship online - Whatsapp 09674548313
No comments:
Post a Comment