A patient accusing a doctor of malpractice will find it difficult to

A question from our SC "ask me anything" thread... along with a probably-unsatisfying answer :


This is one of my least-favorite official SC questions, just because it doesn't really test any idea or rule or principle that you're likely to see on any other question. There really aren't any official questions that look like this one, so I don't think that it's worth a ton of your time. You could dissect this question until the cows come home, and I'm skeptical that it would help you get other official questions right.

For whatever it's worth, the mistake you're making is a logical one, not really a grammatical one. You're essentially saying that because one aspect of the grammatical structure in (A) is acceptable, that it must be the best answer -- and that all of the other answer choices are wrong. Sure, it can be fine to have a conditional statement in the structure "if (present tense action) happens, then (future tense action) will happen." But that doesn't mean that it's automatically correct.


So why is (C) better than (A)? I don't think that the answer is terribly fulfilling, unfortunately. (C) is just much more direct, clear, and elegant: it is "difficult to prove damage without another doctor's testimony" is much more succinct than saying that it is "difficult to prove damage if there is a lack of some other doctor to testify." And that's not a terribly helpful reason, but the absence of any real grammatical issue, there's absolutely no reason to pick muddy, clunky (A) over clear, direct (C).

I hope this helps a bit!

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Tenses + Modifiers + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "lacking" in this sentence)" is the correct modifier construction.
• The simple future tense is used to refer to actions that will take place in the future.
• The simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.

A: This answer choice uses then needlessly wordy and indirect construction "if there is a lack of some other doctor to testify", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple future tense verb "will be" to refer to a conditional action in the present; remember, actions in the current time frame are referred to with the simple present tense, and the simple future tense is used to refer to actions that will take place in the future. Further, Option B uses the needlessly wordy construction "there will be another doctor to testify", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: Correct. This answer choice avoids the tense error seen in Option B and the modifier error seen in Option E, as it uses the phrase "without another doctor’s testimony" rather than an active verb - as in Option B - or the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing")" construction - as in Option E. Further, Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

D: This answer choice uses then needlessly wordy and indirect construction "should there be no testimony from some other doctor", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

E: This answer choice fails to maintain the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "lacking" in this sentence)" construction, as it omits the comma; remember, "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "lacking" in this sentence)" is the correct modifier construction.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Unless grammar rules:
https://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/IF9.cfm

Please explain why is b wrong? unable to understand..

This sentence provides a condition: A patient will find it difficult to prove damage if he/she doesn't have testimony of another doctor. --> Answer should clearly identify the condition. --> D&E is eliminated.
A. Yes, there's condition here, but "some other doctor" isn't correct. "Some other" should go with "doctors" --> incorrect.
B. Main clause (A patient... will find it difficult...) has "will" --> unless should have simple tense. --> incorrect
C. Concise and clear --> correct

@mun - How is B redundant?? I think it is correct, but C is more compact. GMAT prefers compact answers over lengthy statements.

Hey mehulsayani,

I don't think that B is redundant. B is incorrect because B uses "will" in the "unless" clause. Let's take an example. I will go fishing unless it rains. Unless clause is simply the conditionnal clause. Hence, "will" shouldn't be used.

Hope it's clear!

I think the only problem with A is that it is wordy as compared to C. Official guide also says this.

Would agree with Tarun: without another doctor's testimony is just more concise and elegant than if there is a lack of some other doctor to testify.

Unless means the same as if...not. Like if, unless is followed by a present tense, a past tense, or a past perfect tense (never by a conditional). Unless is used instead of if...not in conditional sentences of all types. The order of the clauses doesn't matter with sentences using unless.

TYPE 1 CONDITIONAL: UNLESS + PRESENT TENSE


With IfYou will be sick if you don't stop eating.Equivalent with Unless You'll be sick unless you stop eating.
With IfI won't pay if you don't provide the goods immediately. Equivalent with UnlessI won't pay unless you provide the goods immediately.
With IfIf you don't study dilligently, you'll never understand trigonometry.Equivalent with UnlessUnless you study dilligently, you'll never understand trigonometry.

TYPE 2 CONDITIONAL: UNLESS + PAST TENSE


With IfIf he wasn't very ill, he would be at work. Equivalent with UnlessUnless he was very ill, he would be at work.
With IfI wouldn't eat that food if I wasn't really hungry.Equivalent with UnlessI wouldn't eat that food unless I was really hungry.
With IfShe would be here by now if she wasn't stuck in traffic.Equivalent with UnlessShe would be here by now unless she was stuck in traffic.

TYPE 3 CONDITIONAL: UNLESS + PAST PERFECT


With IfOur director would not have signed the contract if she hadn't had a lawyer present.Equivalent with UnlessOur director would not have signed the contract unless she had had a lawyer present.
With IfI wouldn't have phoned him if you hadn't suggested it.Equivalent with UnlessI wouldn't have phoned him unless you'd suggested it.
With IfThey would have shot her if she hadn't given them the money.Equivalent with UnlessThey would have shot her unless she'd given them the money.

Hi guys,

Sharing my thoughts on this answer. Would like to know your thoughts

A patient accusing a doctor of malpractice will find it difficult to prove damage if there is a lack of some other doctor to testify about proper medical procedures.

(A) if there is a lack of some other doctor to testify about proper medical procedures.
Idiom should be to testify against (someone/something) and not to testify about

(B) unless there will be another doctor to testify about proper medical procedures.
Idiom should be to testify against (someone/something) not to testify about

(C) without another doctor's testimony about proper medical procedures.
testimony about someone/something is correct. Concise and better worded than D

(D) should there be no testimony from some other doctor about proper medical procedures.
wordy

(E ) lacking another doctor to testify about proper medical procedures.
Idiom should be to testify against and not to testify about

Testify idiom usage consist of : Testify against, Testify for, and Testify to (Source: Idiom tab, Free Dictionary)

Look forward to hearing your thoughts

A patient accusing a doctor of malpractice will find it difficult to prove damage if there is a lack of some other doctor to testify about proper medical procedures.

A patient who want to accuse a doctor of malpractice find it difficult to prove damage unless there is testimony from another doctor about proper medical precedures

(A) if there is a lack of some other doctor to testify "lack of some other doctor" is a hot mess
(B) unless there will be another doctor to testify "will" in a conditional phrase is wrong
(C) without another doctor’s testimony Yes. Good enough. Meaning OK
(D) should there be no testimony from some other doctor "some other doctor" is wrong. It should be "other doctors"
(E) lacking another doctor to testify damage is the subject of "lacking" --> make no sense

Hello Experts,
MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, GMATGuruNY, AjiteshArun, AndrewN, EducationAisle
It seems that choices A and C are same regarding meaning issue, aren't they? Could you share your thought on the basis of 'some other' and 'another' issue?
Thanks__

Generally, an infinitive (to + VERB) expresses an INTENDED action -- an action that is not actually happening but is only intended.
As a result, option A does not convey that testimony from some other doctor is needed.
The usage of to testify in A conveys only that testimony from some other doctor is INTENDED.
This meaning seems strange.
Common sense tells us the following:
For damage to be proven, some other doctor must do more than just INTEND to testify -- the doctor must ACTUALLY testify.

The meaning conveyed by the OA is far more logical.
OA: A patient...will find it difficult to prove damage without another doctor's testimony.
Here, the phrase in blue implies that testimony from another doctor is NEEDED -- that without the testimony, a patient will find it difficult to prove damage.

Since C conveys a more logical meaning than A, eliminate A and choose C.

Another error in A:

Generally, a lack of must refer to a noun that can be modified by much or many.
Since it is possible to have MUCH motivation, it is possible to suffer from A LACK OF motivation.
Since it is possible to have MUCH money, it is possible suffer from A LACK OF money.
Since it is possible to have MANY friends, it is possible to suffer from A LACK OF friends.

A: a lack of some other doctor
It is not possible to have MUCH some other doctor or MANY some other doctor.
Thus, the phrase above is nonsensical.
The following would be acceptable:
a lack of OTHER DOCTORS
The referent in green is viable because it is possible to have MANY other doctors.

Whether the use of "other " or "another" is not in play over here?. Shouldn't the option A is wrong because of useof "other doctor" rather than "another doctor"?

AjiteshArun
Why option D is wrong

Posted from my mobile device

Hi saby1410,

D is grammatically correct, but it is awkward and ambiguous, whereas C is much more direct.

1. A patient... will find it difficult to prove damage without another doctor’s testimony about {something}.

2. A patient... will find it difficult to prove damage should there be no testimony from some other doctor about {something}.

There be no... is awkward, and (2) is clearly longer than (1). D also inserts from some other doctor between testimony and a modifier for testimony.