GMAT VA PREP - One to One Mentorship online - Whatsapp 09674548313
1A
Logical predication; Grammatical construction
The sentence presents two reasons the Chinese buildings built under the code described have withstood earthquakes: the white cedar used in them has four times the tensile strength of steel, and the timber frame, which incorporates many joints and few nails, is flexible. The sentence is correct as worded because it clearly specifies these reasons.
A. Correct. As stated above, this version clearly conveys the intended meaning.
B. The construction has four times the tensile strength of steel has is idiomatically incorrect. The correct construction is has four times the tensile strength of steel.
C. The comma after has breaks up the sentence in such a way that only the great tensile strength of white cedar is offered as an explanation of the buildings' ability to withstand earthquakes, rather than both white cedar's tensile strength and the timber frame's flexibility. The statement regarding the timber frame's flexibility is mentioned simply as a separate fact not falling under the scope of because.
D. This choice presents a similar problem to the one in choice C: the comma after steel breaks up the sentence in such a way that only the great tensile strength of white cedar is offered as an explanation of the buildings' ability to withstand earthquakes, rather than both white cedar's tensile strength and the timber frame's flexibility. Furthermore, the timber frame incorporates many joints and few nails, is flexible is ungrammatical.
E. The construction has four times the tensile strength steel does is incorrect. The correct construction is has four times the tensile strength of steel. Furthermore, the comma after does creates the same problem that the initial commas in choices C and D cause, suggesting that the only factor allowing the buildings to withstand the earthquakes is the white cedar's tensile strength. Finally, the sentence ends with the same ungrammatical construction as in choice D: the timber frame incorporates many joints and few nails, is flexible.
The correct answer is A.
***************
2B
There is an adage which says that be wary of the obvious. The first obvious is to say that when there was an earlier event in 1990, a later event as in 1920 should never be assigned a past perfect. Second, obvious is that use of less is inappropriate because 17 million pounds is countable. Therefore, a lower amount should be the right one. Both these assumptions are wrong as per the custom of American English, including GMAT.
It is customary to use a past perfect for a later event, when there is a time reference such as 1920. Don’t we say that I started my GMAT preparation in 2005 and by 2015, I had completed it. As there are exceptions to every rule, the use of past perfect is taken for granted in such rare cases.
17 million pounds is taken as a mass quantity rather than as countable individual pounds. Therefore the use of less is justified
By this token of reasoning, B is an acceptable answer.
(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams have
reduced landings to less that have blocked is a wrong tense for an event that was completed in the past
(B) That blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less ------ Correct
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount ----- 'lower' is out of sync
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less ---Shad migrations were blocked by the hurdles and not the shads themselves
(E) Having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower –amount lower is out of sync
***************
3 E
The economic forces which may affect the new public offering of stock include sudden downturns in the market, hedging and other investor strategies for preventing losses, loosening the interest rates in Washington, and fearing that the company may still be undercapitalized.
there are four facts which should be parallel with each other. They are:
1.Sudden downturns in the market
2.Hedging and other investment strategies for preventing loss (note that hedging is not a ing form of verb but a strategy hence used as noun here)
3.loosening the interest rates in Washington
4.fearing that the company may still be undercapitalized.
Error Analysis:
3rd and 4th point -Loosening and fearing are not noun, which is required for sentence to follow parallelism.
POE:
(A) loosening the interest rates in Washington, and fearing that the company may still be undercapitalized - wrong for reason mentioned above
(B) loosening the interest rates in Washington, and a fear of the company still being undercapitalized - wrong as loosening is still not a noun also being undercapitalized is wordy
(C) a loosening of the interest rates in Washington, and fearing that the company may still be undercapitalized - Wrong as 4th part is still not in parallel
(D) a loosening of the interest rates in Washington, and a fear of the still undercapitalized company - it corrects original mistake by making loosening and fear in parallel with other part of the sentence, but it also changes the intended meaning of the original sentence.(fear of the undercapitalized company or fear that company is still undercapitalized??)
(E) a loosening of the interest rates in Washington, and a fear that the company may still be undercapitalized - Right- it corrects parallelism mistakes and also convey the intended meaning of original sentence.
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
Golden rule about parallelism : In a list every component should be of the same type. I.e. if the first item in the list is a verb then everything should be a verb, similarly if the first item is a noun then all items should be nouns (as in this case)
The biggest hint in this statement is to look for the first item in the list...it is "sudden (adj) downturns (NOUN)". So we need nouns and not verbs in the following items. If we use "a loosening" and "a fear" we have nouns everywhere
( "loosening" = verb )
***************
4 E
Following is the correct version of the sentence (with Choice E):
A professor at the university has taken a sabbatical to research the books (that) James Baldwin wrote while he lived in France.
(Blue = subjects, Green = verbs)
In the correct answer choice, that, the relative pronoun modifier that refers to the preceding noun entity the books is understood. It is so because that, the modifier, does not act as the subject of the dependent clause it starts. Let's take a few simple examples here to understand the usage:
I like the pizza that contains only vegetables.
In the above-mentioned sentence, that refers to the preceding noun the pizza and acts as the subject of the dependent clause that it starts. Hence, it must be explicitly mentioned in the sentence.
Now look at the following sentence:
I like the pizza that my mother makes at home.
In the above-mentioned sentence, that refers to the preceding noun the pizza but does not act as the subject of the dependent clause that it starts. The subject of the dependent clause started by that is my mother. Hence, it it not necessary to mention that in the sentence. The sentence can be written as follows:
I like the pizza my mother makes at home.
Same is the case with the correct answer choice of this official sentence. Since that does not act as the subject of the dependent clause it starts, it has been kept understood in the sentence.
***************
5D
313. Found throughout Central and South America, sloths hang from trees by long rubbery limbs and sleep fifteen hours a day, moving infrequently enough that two species of algae grow on its coat and between its toes.
(A) sloths hang from trees by long rubbery limbs and sleep fifteen hours a day, moving infrequently enough
(B) sloths hang from trees by long rubbery limbs, they sleep fifteen hours a day, and with such infrequent movements
(C) sloths use their long rubbery limbs to hang from trees, sleep fifteen hours a day, and move so infrequently
(D) the sloth hangs from trees by its long rubbery limbs, sleeping fifteen hours a day and moving so infrequently
(E) the sloth hangs from trees by its long rubbery limbs, sleeps fifteen hours a day, and it moves infrequently enough
The way to get great at Sentence Correction is to always be categorizing as you look at splits. In this case, the first split you'll probably notice is "sloths" versus "the sloth". Now, a split like this should TYPICALLY lead you towards the category of SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT, but if you look at all the verbs, they work fine (sloths hang and the sloth hangs). The only other category that might apply when you see singular and plural verbs in the splits is PRONOUNS. That's right! This is actually a common trope. So look elsewhere for a pronoun. This will get rid of A, B, and C, as many have said (because the pronoun "its" at the end can only go with singular "the sloth").
From there, you may notice PARALLELISM happening here. You should know this because you see a list (comma, comma, "and"). This is dangerous here, though not if you noticed the PRONOUN issue already. As many have stated, answer choice E is NOT parallel, because it puts the pronoun "it" before the third verb.
HOWEVER, even if that "it" weren't there, this would still be incorrect. Before reading my explanation of why, see if you can work it out for yourself. Ready?
Okay. So even though E would be very beautiful (three verbs in the same tense and form...what parallel!), it would not retain the original meaning of the sentence. When you have total parallelism like you see in answer choice C, it implies three things that happen in a serial fashion (one after the other, or at least all separately).
But the point here is that there IS a connection. Notice the last point, "algae grow...between its toes." Why would that happen? The only explanation is that the sloth sleeps and barely moves WHILE it is hanging. When you have that kind of construction, you want to use subordinate verbs to imply a subordinate relationship. Watch:
All day long he sits in that chair, reading the newspaper and sometimes falling asleep.
See how we use the -ing form of the verb (participles) to imply that the reading and sleeping occurs WHILE he sits. Because of this, we need the answer to look just as D does.
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
This sounds great. But it’s wrong.
Hopefully, you noticed the word “its” at the end of the sentence. That means that “sloth” needs to be singular. So (A) is spectacularly wrong because of the non-underlined pronouns buried at the end of the sentence.
(B) has exactly the same error as (A): “its toes” and “its coat” need to refer to a singular sloth, and (B) only gives us the plural “sloths.”
The parallelism is also pretty wackball in (B). (And no, “wackball” isn’t a word. But it should be.) We have: “…sloths hang from trees by long rubbery limbs, they sleep fifteen hours a day, and with such infrequent movements…” So we have a verb (“hang”), a noun with a verb (“they sleep"), and a weird prepositional phrase (“with such infrequent movements…”). That’s very much not parallel.
So (B) is out.
The parallelism is defensible in (C). Sloths use their limbs to do three things: “hang from trees”, “sleep 15 hours a day” (I'm totally jealous!!), and “move so infrequently…”. Not bad.
Trouble is, “its coat” and “its toes” still require a singular referent, and “sloths” is plural in (C). So (C) can be eliminated.
Let’s compare our last two options side-by-side:
“Sloth” is singular in both, so the pronouns are cool now. That’s nice.
So then the only real difference is the parallelism. In (E), we have “the sloth hangs from trees…, sleeps 15 hours a day, and it moves…” Nope, that’s wrong: we have a verb, a verb, and then a noun and a verb. That’s not parallel.
But what about (D)? People like to tell me that it’s not parallel, either. But (D) is structured differently than (E): it’s a nice clause (“the sloth hangs from trees…”), followed by two parallel “-ing” modifiers (“sleeping” and “moving”). That’s great: “sleeping 15 hours a day” and “moving infrequently” both make perfect sense as modifiers for “the sloth hangs from trees”, since both of those “-ing” words tell us more about what happens when the sloth hangs from trees.
So (D) might not SOUND parallel, but it is. And it’s the best answer.
******************
6 A
So I've seen a lot of test-takers make mistakes on this question, usually because of overreliance on an idiom “rule” that doesn’t really exist. If you see the phrase “not only”, that does NOT automatically mean that you need to have a “but also” somewhere else in the sentence! There’s no reason why you couldn’t use the phrase “not only” by itself, as long as it makes logical sense with the context of the sentence.
Don’t get me wrong: “not… but” phrases are pretty important on the GMAT, but only because they require parallelism. Basically, whatever follows the word “not” (or “not only”) must be structurally parallel to whatever follows the word “but” (or “but also”). (Similar parallelism rules apply to both/and and either/or constructions – more on these in an upcoming Topic of the Week.)
But again, there’s nothing wrong with having “not only” without the “but also.”
“They” jumps out at me right away, but I think it’s fine, since it refers to “thieves.” I suppose “they” could also refer to “bank accounts,” but I don’t think the pronoun is automatically wrong. Ambiguity isn’t an absolute rule (see our YouTube webinar on this pronouns for more), and “they” isn’t particularly confusing here.
The parallelism also seems OK, even if it doesn’t sound great. We have two different lists going on in (A). First, we have a pair of parallel verbs: “…they can also pilfer information… and sell data…” That seems fine. We also have a list of the types of information that thieves pilfer: “…such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans…” That’s just three parallel nouns – no problem. Keep (A).
(B) is very similar to (A), except that the final “and” is followed by “selling.” And that’s a problem, because I don’t know what “selling” is parallel to: nothing in the sentence is in the same format. Logically, “selling” should be parallel to “pilfer”, but in that case, it should be “…they pilfer… and sell…”, as in answer choice (A). (B) can be eliminated.
The big change here is that “pilfering” and “selling” are now “-ing” words – modifiers, in this case. (Feel free to check out our guide to “-ing” words for more on this topic.)
But that doesn’t really make any sense. “As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticated, not only are thieves able to divert cash from company bank accounts, pilfering valuable information…” For this to be correct, “pilfering valuable information” would have to modify “not only are thieves able to divert cash…” – and it simply doesn’t. These are completely different types of criminal activity, and the “pilfering valuable information” does not modify “diverting cash.”
Similarly, “selling” is basically hanging out on its own. I guess it’s trying to modify the previous phrase beginning with “pilfering”, but I can’t make much sense of that, either. (C) is out.
OK, now we really do have a “not only… but also” structure, which means that we need to think about parallelism again. There’s not much wiggle-room here: whatever follows “not only” needs to be parallel to whatever follows “but also.”
So we have: “not only are thieves able to divert cash… but also pilfer valuable information…” This isn’t awful, but it doesn’t quite seem parallel to me: “not only are thieves” gives us a subject and a verb, but the “but also” is followed only by a verb.
Plus, “to sell” seems to only modify “contract bidding plans”, and that’s not quite right: the thieves are selling the strategies and specifications, too. (A) makes much more sense than (D).
The parallelism is much more thoroughly flawed in (E). We have: “not only are thieves able to divert cash… but also pilfering valuable information…” Definitely not parallel. (E) is out, and (A) is the correct answer.
_________________
7 C
A tricky one when choosing between A and C; B and D can be dumped for using unparallel terms such as ‘developing’ something and ‘the use of’ something; E can be cast off for using the unidiomatic ‘no less remarkable as’.
A is a jumble of tenses; It is not clear why something that was as remarkable as something else is also sought to called as ‘has been’ and whether it is still remarkable. This muddle has been rectified in choice C, which avoids the pitfall of A by using a noun phrase with a perfectly built idiom ‘no less than
*************
8 B
he clue lies in reading the full question
when we read the full question, we see the word "them". Now if we see them on an underlined portion we are immediately alerted and we look for the antecedent. Here the problem is reversed. We have them in the non-underlined part, so it is our job to make them point to the correct antecedent.
them can refer to any of the following -- aircraft, aircraft manufacturer's and wings.
Clearly them has to point to wings, so we add the extra wing as in B.
********
9 E
The structure of this sentence took me a moment to digest, so I went with the simple pronoun split first ("cows" versus " cow").
The first "them" is not underlined, so we must be looking for a plural subject--lose B and D.
Examining the remaining choices shows us two more splits -- the progressive tense verb ("are producing" ) versus the future tense ("will produce"), and the type of modifier (-ing versus past participle).
Whenever I see a list of things, I tend to check for parallelism right away--the items in the list should be parallel OR the nonparallel items should be subordinate/have a clear-in-meaning reason for being structurally different from the rest of the items in the list. Parallelism is good not because of any intrinsic value, but because the clarity of a sentence's meaning is served by that parallel structure. If the meaning doesn't warrant parallelism, don't force the issue.
If we look at choice A, then "providing them.....regularly" would have to be considered a subordinate clause ("providing" is not parallel to "cool" because "providing" refers back to the farmer rather than the cows, so it cannot be part of a properly parallel list).
The structure of A would then seem to be--
For the farmer who takes care to keep them cool,
(1) providing them with high-energy feed,
(2) and milking them regularly
Holstein cows....
The structure is still a little awkward because we have not one but TWO additional -ing modifiers that are subordinate before we reach the subject of the sentence (the cows). Are these two additional modifiers, separated by a comma (which would seem to suggest a list of 3+ items), of same "weight" and both less important than the fact that the cows are kept cool?
Whereas in E, the meaning is clear, and clearly supported by parallel structure--
For the farmer who takes care to keep them
(1) cool,
(2) provided with high-energy feed,*
(3) and milked regularly,*
Holstein cows....
Choice C is a mix of A and E (provided/milking) so can be considered neither a proper subordinate clause nor a proper parallel list-- lose C.
E has clean parallelism and avoids that unnecessary usage of the present progressive (are providing) in A that the above poster mentioned.
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
Well, this question is certainly confusing and not written in the best possible manner. However let’s get into the logic of this sentence. The sentence is saying that for the farmers who takes care of the Holstein cows in certain ways, these cows produce an average of 2,275 gallons of milk each per year. Now here comes the tricky part. The ways in which the farmers takes care of these cows is that he takes care:
a. to keep them cool,
b. to keep them provided with high-energy feed, and
c. to keep them milked regularly.
1. From the original sentence, it is clear that the entities in the list are not parallel. While “cool” is an adjective, “providing…” and “milking…” are working as gerunds (nouns) in this sentence.
2. In case, if you could not figure out the correct parallel list to rectify it, look at the problem this way. “providing…” and “milking…” are the verb-ing modifiers preceded by comma. This means that they are modifying the preceding clause. However, it does not make sense to say that the farmer keeps the cows cool by providing them good feed and by milking them. So these modifiers do not fit here.
3. Also notice the inconsistent verb tenses. This sentence is providing general information about the Holstein cows. Using present continuous tense “are producing” does not make sense here.
POE:
a. providing them with high-energy feed, and milking them regularly, Holstein cows are producing: Incorrect for the reasons stated above.
b. providing them with high-energy feed, and milked regularly, the Holstein cow produces: Incorrect.
1. The verb-ing modifier “providing…” does not make sense as in choice A.
2. The entities in the list are still not parallel.
3. The singular antecedent “the Holstein cow” does not agree in number with plural pronoun “them”.
c. provided with high-energy feed, and milking them regularly, Holstein cows are producing: Incorrect.
1. Verb-ing modifier “milking…” does not make sense.
2. The entities in the list are still not parallel.
3. Use of “are producing” is incorrect.
d. provided with high-energy feed, and milked regularly, the Holstein cow produces: Incorrect. The singular antecedent “the Holstein cow” does not agree in number with plural pronoun “them”.
e. provided with high-energy feed, and milked regularly, Holstein cows will produce: Correct. The use of future “will produce” is correct because we have a causal relationship here. If the farmers take care of the cows in certain ways, then the cows produce certain amount of milk. The cause is written in the simple present. Hence, the effect can be written in either simple present tense or simple future tense.
***************
10 D
(A) In despite of the steady population flow out from rural areas into urban clusters, nearly 5 million farm households are still in Japan --- In despite of is awful.
(B) In spite of the steady population flow out from rural areas into urban clusters, nearly 5 million farm households are still in Japan-- the correct idiom is from rural areas to urban clusters and not into urban clusters.
(C) Despite the steady population flow from rural areas into urban clusters, Japan’s farm households are still nearly 5 million-- same from into idiom problem as in B.
(D) Despite the steady population flow from rural areas to urban clusters, there are still nearly 5 million farm households in Japan -- proper idiom from … to used. Correct choice.
(E) In Japan, despite the steady population flow out from rural areas into urban clusters, still there are nearly 5 million farm households - from … into idiom problem
There may be other more serious mistakes such modifiction etc. But this much analysis is enough for this topic I suppose.
*************
source : gmatlub.com
GMAT VA PREP - One to One Mentorship online - Whatsapp 09674548313
1A
Logical predication; Grammatical construction
The sentence presents two reasons the Chinese buildings built under the code described have withstood earthquakes: the white cedar used in them has four times the tensile strength of steel, and the timber frame, which incorporates many joints and few nails, is flexible. The sentence is correct as worded because it clearly specifies these reasons.
A. Correct. As stated above, this version clearly conveys the intended meaning.
B. The construction has four times the tensile strength of steel has is idiomatically incorrect. The correct construction is has four times the tensile strength of steel.
C. The comma after has breaks up the sentence in such a way that only the great tensile strength of white cedar is offered as an explanation of the buildings' ability to withstand earthquakes, rather than both white cedar's tensile strength and the timber frame's flexibility. The statement regarding the timber frame's flexibility is mentioned simply as a separate fact not falling under the scope of because.
D. This choice presents a similar problem to the one in choice C: the comma after steel breaks up the sentence in such a way that only the great tensile strength of white cedar is offered as an explanation of the buildings' ability to withstand earthquakes, rather than both white cedar's tensile strength and the timber frame's flexibility. Furthermore, the timber frame incorporates many joints and few nails, is flexible is ungrammatical.
E. The construction has four times the tensile strength steel does is incorrect. The correct construction is has four times the tensile strength of steel. Furthermore, the comma after does creates the same problem that the initial commas in choices C and D cause, suggesting that the only factor allowing the buildings to withstand the earthquakes is the white cedar's tensile strength. Finally, the sentence ends with the same ungrammatical construction as in choice D: the timber frame incorporates many joints and few nails, is flexible.
The correct answer is A.
***************
2B
There is an adage which says that be wary of the obvious. The first obvious is to say that when there was an earlier event in 1990, a later event as in 1920 should never be assigned a past perfect. Second, obvious is that use of less is inappropriate because 17 million pounds is countable. Therefore, a lower amount should be the right one. Both these assumptions are wrong as per the custom of American English, including GMAT.
It is customary to use a past perfect for a later event, when there is a time reference such as 1920. Don’t we say that I started my GMAT preparation in 2005 and by 2015, I had completed it. As there are exceptions to every rule, the use of past perfect is taken for granted in such rare cases.
17 million pounds is taken as a mass quantity rather than as countable individual pounds. Therefore the use of less is justified
By this token of reasoning, B is an acceptable answer.
(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams have
reduced landings to less that have blocked is a wrong tense for an event that was completed in the past
(B) That blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less ------ Correct
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount ----- 'lower' is out of sync
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less ---Shad migrations were blocked by the hurdles and not the shads themselves
(E) Having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower –amount lower is out of sync
***************
3 E
The economic forces which may affect the new public offering of stock include sudden downturns in the market, hedging and other investor strategies for preventing losses, loosening the interest rates in Washington, and fearing that the company may still be undercapitalized.
there are four facts which should be parallel with each other. They are:
1.Sudden downturns in the market
2.Hedging and other investment strategies for preventing loss (note that hedging is not a ing form of verb but a strategy hence used as noun here)
3.loosening the interest rates in Washington
4.fearing that the company may still be undercapitalized.
Error Analysis:
3rd and 4th point -Loosening and fearing are not noun, which is required for sentence to follow parallelism.
POE:
(A) loosening the interest rates in Washington, and fearing that the company may still be undercapitalized - wrong for reason mentioned above
(B) loosening the interest rates in Washington, and a fear of the company still being undercapitalized - wrong as loosening is still not a noun also being undercapitalized is wordy
(C) a loosening of the interest rates in Washington, and fearing that the company may still be undercapitalized - Wrong as 4th part is still not in parallel
(D) a loosening of the interest rates in Washington, and a fear of the still undercapitalized company - it corrects original mistake by making loosening and fear in parallel with other part of the sentence, but it also changes the intended meaning of the original sentence.(fear of the undercapitalized company or fear that company is still undercapitalized??)
(E) a loosening of the interest rates in Washington, and a fear that the company may still be undercapitalized - Right- it corrects parallelism mistakes and also convey the intended meaning of original sentence.
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
Golden rule about parallelism : In a list every component should be of the same type. I.e. if the first item in the list is a verb then everything should be a verb, similarly if the first item is a noun then all items should be nouns (as in this case)
The biggest hint in this statement is to look for the first item in the list...it is "sudden (adj) downturns (NOUN)". So we need nouns and not verbs in the following items. If we use "a loosening" and "a fear" we have nouns everywhere
( "loosening" = verb )***************
4 E
Following is the correct version of the sentence (with Choice E):
A professor at the university has taken a sabbatical to research the books (that) James Baldwin wrote while he lived in France.
(Blue = subjects, Green = verbs)
In the correct answer choice, that, the relative pronoun modifier that refers to the preceding noun entity the books is understood. It is so because that, the modifier, does not act as the subject of the dependent clause it starts. Let's take a few simple examples here to understand the usage:
I like the pizza that contains only vegetables.
In the above-mentioned sentence, that refers to the preceding noun the pizza and acts as the subject of the dependent clause that it starts. Hence, it must be explicitly mentioned in the sentence.
Now look at the following sentence:
I like the pizza that my mother makes at home.
In the above-mentioned sentence, that refers to the preceding noun the pizza but does not act as the subject of the dependent clause that it starts. The subject of the dependent clause started by that is my mother. Hence, it it not necessary to mention that in the sentence. The sentence can be written as follows:
I like the pizza my mother makes at home.
Same is the case with the correct answer choice of this official sentence. Since that does not act as the subject of the dependent clause it starts, it has been kept understood in the sentence.
***************
5D
313. Found throughout Central and South America, sloths hang from trees by long rubbery limbs and sleep fifteen hours a day, moving infrequently enough that two species of algae grow on its coat and between its toes.
(A) sloths hang from trees by long rubbery limbs and sleep fifteen hours a day, moving infrequently enough
(B) sloths hang from trees by long rubbery limbs, they sleep fifteen hours a day, and with such infrequent movements
(C) sloths use their long rubbery limbs to hang from trees, sleep fifteen hours a day, and move so infrequently
(D) the sloth hangs from trees by its long rubbery limbs, sleeping fifteen hours a day and moving so infrequently
(E) the sloth hangs from trees by its long rubbery limbs, sleeps fifteen hours a day, and it moves infrequently enough
The way to get great at Sentence Correction is to always be categorizing as you look at splits. In this case, the first split you'll probably notice is "sloths" versus "the sloth". Now, a split like this should TYPICALLY lead you towards the category of SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT, but if you look at all the verbs, they work fine (sloths hang and the sloth hangs). The only other category that might apply when you see singular and plural verbs in the splits is PRONOUNS. That's right! This is actually a common trope. So look elsewhere for a pronoun. This will get rid of A, B, and C, as many have said (because the pronoun "its" at the end can only go with singular "the sloth").
From there, you may notice PARALLELISM happening here. You should know this because you see a list (comma, comma, "and"). This is dangerous here, though not if you noticed the PRONOUN issue already. As many have stated, answer choice E is NOT parallel, because it puts the pronoun "it" before the third verb.
HOWEVER, even if that "it" weren't there, this would still be incorrect. Before reading my explanation of why, see if you can work it out for yourself. Ready?
Okay. So even though E would be very beautiful (three verbs in the same tense and form...what parallel!), it would not retain the original meaning of the sentence. When you have total parallelism like you see in answer choice C, it implies three things that happen in a serial fashion (one after the other, or at least all separately).
But the point here is that there IS a connection. Notice the last point, "algae grow...between its toes." Why would that happen? The only explanation is that the sloth sleeps and barely moves WHILE it is hanging. When you have that kind of construction, you want to use subordinate verbs to imply a subordinate relationship. Watch:
All day long he sits in that chair, reading the newspaper and sometimes falling asleep.
See how we use the -ing form of the verb (participles) to imply that the reading and sleeping occurs WHILE he sits. Because of this, we need the answer to look just as D does.
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
Quote:
This sounds great. But it’s wrong.
Hopefully, you noticed the word “its” at the end of the sentence. That means that “sloth” needs to be singular. So (A) is spectacularly wrong because of the non-underlined pronouns buried at the end of the sentence.
Quote:
(B) has exactly the same error as (A): “its toes” and “its coat” need to refer to a singular sloth, and (B) only gives us the plural “sloths.”
The parallelism is also pretty wackball in (B). (And no, “wackball” isn’t a word. But it should be.) We have: “…sloths hang from trees by long rubbery limbs, they sleep fifteen hours a day, and with such infrequent movements…” So we have a verb (“hang”), a noun with a verb (“they sleep"), and a weird prepositional phrase (“with such infrequent movements…”). That’s very much not parallel.
So (B) is out.
Quote:
The parallelism is defensible in (C). Sloths use their limbs to do three things: “hang from trees”, “sleep 15 hours a day” (I'm totally jealous!!), and “move so infrequently…”. Not bad.
Trouble is, “its coat” and “its toes” still require a singular referent, and “sloths” is plural in (C). So (C) can be eliminated.
Let’s compare our last two options side-by-side:
Quote:
“Sloth” is singular in both, so the pronouns are cool now. That’s nice.
So then the only real difference is the parallelism. In (E), we have “the sloth hangs from trees…, sleeps 15 hours a day, and it moves…” Nope, that’s wrong: we have a verb, a verb, and then a noun and a verb. That’s not parallel.
But what about (D)? People like to tell me that it’s not parallel, either. But (D) is structured differently than (E): it’s a nice clause (“the sloth hangs from trees…”), followed by two parallel “-ing” modifiers (“sleeping” and “moving”). That’s great: “sleeping 15 hours a day” and “moving infrequently” both make perfect sense as modifiers for “the sloth hangs from trees”, since both of those “-ing” words tell us more about what happens when the sloth hangs from trees.
So (D) might not SOUND parallel, but it is. And it’s the best answer.
******************
6 A
So I've seen a lot of test-takers make mistakes on this question, usually because of overreliance on an idiom “rule” that doesn’t really exist. If you see the phrase “not only”, that does NOT automatically mean that you need to have a “but also” somewhere else in the sentence! There’s no reason why you couldn’t use the phrase “not only” by itself, as long as it makes logical sense with the context of the sentence.
Don’t get me wrong: “not… but” phrases are pretty important on the GMAT, but only because they require parallelism. Basically, whatever follows the word “not” (or “not only”) must be structurally parallel to whatever follows the word “but” (or “but also”). (Similar parallelism rules apply to both/and and either/or constructions – more on these in an upcoming Topic of the Week.)
But again, there’s nothing wrong with having “not only” without the “but also.”
Quote:
“They” jumps out at me right away, but I think it’s fine, since it refers to “thieves.” I suppose “they” could also refer to “bank accounts,” but I don’t think the pronoun is automatically wrong. Ambiguity isn’t an absolute rule (see our YouTube webinar on this pronouns for more), and “they” isn’t particularly confusing here.
The parallelism also seems OK, even if it doesn’t sound great. We have two different lists going on in (A). First, we have a pair of parallel verbs: “…they can also pilfer information… and sell data…” That seems fine. We also have a list of the types of information that thieves pilfer: “…such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans…” That’s just three parallel nouns – no problem. Keep (A).
Quote:
(B) is very similar to (A), except that the final “and” is followed by “selling.” And that’s a problem, because I don’t know what “selling” is parallel to: nothing in the sentence is in the same format. Logically, “selling” should be parallel to “pilfer”, but in that case, it should be “…they pilfer… and sell…”, as in answer choice (A). (B) can be eliminated.
Quote:
The big change here is that “pilfering” and “selling” are now “-ing” words – modifiers, in this case. (Feel free to check out our guide to “-ing” words for more on this topic.)
But that doesn’t really make any sense. “As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticated, not only are thieves able to divert cash from company bank accounts, pilfering valuable information…” For this to be correct, “pilfering valuable information” would have to modify “not only are thieves able to divert cash…” – and it simply doesn’t. These are completely different types of criminal activity, and the “pilfering valuable information” does not modify “diverting cash.”
Similarly, “selling” is basically hanging out on its own. I guess it’s trying to modify the previous phrase beginning with “pilfering”, but I can’t make much sense of that, either. (C) is out.
Quote:
OK, now we really do have a “not only… but also” structure, which means that we need to think about parallelism again. There’s not much wiggle-room here: whatever follows “not only” needs to be parallel to whatever follows “but also.”
So we have: “not only are thieves able to divert cash… but also pilfer valuable information…” This isn’t awful, but it doesn’t quite seem parallel to me: “not only are thieves” gives us a subject and a verb, but the “but also” is followed only by a verb.
Plus, “to sell” seems to only modify “contract bidding plans”, and that’s not quite right: the thieves are selling the strategies and specifications, too. (A) makes much more sense than (D).
Quote:
The parallelism is much more thoroughly flawed in (E). We have: “not only are thieves able to divert cash… but also pilfering valuable information…” Definitely not parallel. (E) is out, and (A) is the correct answer.
_________________
7 C
A tricky one when choosing between A and C; B and D can be dumped for using unparallel terms such as ‘developing’ something and ‘the use of’ something; E can be cast off for using the unidiomatic ‘no less remarkable as’.
A is a jumble of tenses; It is not clear why something that was as remarkable as something else is also sought to called as ‘has been’ and whether it is still remarkable. This muddle has been rectified in choice C, which avoids the pitfall of A by using a noun phrase with a perfectly built idiom ‘no less than
*************
8 B
he clue lies in reading the full question
when we read the full question, we see the word "them". Now if we see them on an underlined portion we are immediately alerted and we look for the antecedent. Here the problem is reversed. We have them in the non-underlined part, so it is our job to make them point to the correct antecedent.
them can refer to any of the following -- aircraft, aircraft manufacturer's and wings.
Clearly them has to point to wings, so we add the extra wing as in B.
********
9 E
The structure of this sentence took me a moment to digest, so I went with the simple pronoun split first ("cows" versus " cow").
The first "them" is not underlined, so we must be looking for a plural subject--lose B and D.
Examining the remaining choices shows us two more splits -- the progressive tense verb ("are producing" ) versus the future tense ("will produce"), and the type of modifier (-ing versus past participle).
Whenever I see a list of things, I tend to check for parallelism right away--the items in the list should be parallel OR the nonparallel items should be subordinate/have a clear-in-meaning reason for being structurally different from the rest of the items in the list. Parallelism is good not because of any intrinsic value, but because the clarity of a sentence's meaning is served by that parallel structure. If the meaning doesn't warrant parallelism, don't force the issue.
If we look at choice A, then "providing them.....regularly" would have to be considered a subordinate clause ("providing" is not parallel to "cool" because "providing" refers back to the farmer rather than the cows, so it cannot be part of a properly parallel list).
The structure of A would then seem to be--
For the farmer who takes care to keep them cool,
(1) providing them with high-energy feed,
(2) and milking them regularly
Holstein cows....
The structure is still a little awkward because we have not one but TWO additional -ing modifiers that are subordinate before we reach the subject of the sentence (the cows). Are these two additional modifiers, separated by a comma (which would seem to suggest a list of 3+ items), of same "weight" and both less important than the fact that the cows are kept cool?
Whereas in E, the meaning is clear, and clearly supported by parallel structure--
For the farmer who takes care to keep them
(1) cool,
(2) provided with high-energy feed,*
(3) and milked regularly,*
Holstein cows....
Choice C is a mix of A and E (provided/milking) so can be considered neither a proper subordinate clause nor a proper parallel list-- lose C.
E has clean parallelism and avoids that unnecessary usage of the present progressive (are providing) in A that the above poster mentioned.
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
Well, this question is certainly confusing and not written in the best possible manner. However let’s get into the logic of this sentence. The sentence is saying that for the farmers who takes care of the Holstein cows in certain ways, these cows produce an average of 2,275 gallons of milk each per year. Now here comes the tricky part. The ways in which the farmers takes care of these cows is that he takes care:
a. to keep them cool,
b. to keep them provided with high-energy feed, and
c. to keep them milked regularly.
1. From the original sentence, it is clear that the entities in the list are not parallel. While “cool” is an adjective, “providing…” and “milking…” are working as gerunds (nouns) in this sentence.
2. In case, if you could not figure out the correct parallel list to rectify it, look at the problem this way. “providing…” and “milking…” are the verb-ing modifiers preceded by comma. This means that they are modifying the preceding clause. However, it does not make sense to say that the farmer keeps the cows cool by providing them good feed and by milking them. So these modifiers do not fit here.
3. Also notice the inconsistent verb tenses. This sentence is providing general information about the Holstein cows. Using present continuous tense “are producing” does not make sense here.
POE:
a. providing them with high-energy feed, and milking them regularly, Holstein cows are producing: Incorrect for the reasons stated above.
b. providing them with high-energy feed, and milked regularly, the Holstein cow produces: Incorrect.
1. The verb-ing modifier “providing…” does not make sense as in choice A.
2. The entities in the list are still not parallel.
3. The singular antecedent “the Holstein cow” does not agree in number with plural pronoun “them”.
c. provided with high-energy feed, and milking them regularly, Holstein cows are producing: Incorrect.
1. Verb-ing modifier “milking…” does not make sense.
2. The entities in the list are still not parallel.
3. Use of “are producing” is incorrect.
d. provided with high-energy feed, and milked regularly, the Holstein cow produces: Incorrect. The singular antecedent “the Holstein cow” does not agree in number with plural pronoun “them”.
e. provided with high-energy feed, and milked regularly, Holstein cows will produce: Correct. The use of future “will produce” is correct because we have a causal relationship here. If the farmers take care of the cows in certain ways, then the cows produce certain amount of milk. The cause is written in the simple present. Hence, the effect can be written in either simple present tense or simple future tense.
***************
10 D
(A) In despite of the steady population flow out from rural areas into urban clusters, nearly 5 million farm households are still in Japan --- In despite of is awful.
(B) In spite of the steady population flow out from rural areas into urban clusters, nearly 5 million farm households are still in Japan-- the correct idiom is from rural areas to urban clusters and not into urban clusters.
(C) Despite the steady population flow from rural areas into urban clusters, Japan’s farm households are still nearly 5 million-- same from into idiom problem as in B.
(D) Despite the steady population flow from rural areas to urban clusters, there are still nearly 5 million farm households in Japan -- proper idiom from … to used. Correct choice.
(E) In Japan, despite the steady population flow out from rural areas into urban clusters, still there are nearly 5 million farm households - from … into idiom problem
There may be other more serious mistakes such modifiction etc. But this much analysis is enough for this topic I suppose.
*************
source : gmatlub.com
GMAT VA PREP - One to One Mentorship online - Whatsapp 09674548313
https://www.admissioninbangalore.in/admission-in-bms-college-of-engineering
ReplyDelete