An archaeological excavation at what might have been a workshop where

daagh DmitryFarber GMATNinja generis hazelnut please let me know if my reasoning is wrong:

(B) what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures and

(C) the site of a possible workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures and

Between B) and C), "possible workshop" stood out to me as being wrong in meaning. A workshop is a concrete noun, so using "possible" as an adjective doesn't make sense here. We can say "a possible terrorist threat" because this is an abstract concept but saying a "possible building" doesn't work the same way, at least in this sentence.

The issue is that C) changes the meaning from "the remains were possibly a structure" to "the remains were a possible structure"

I think if C) said "the site of what was possibly a workshop" that would be OK (it's basically what B says). This is because the idea is that the remains of whatever is there were possibly a workshop in the past, not that the workshop was a possible thing itself.

Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow down our options quickly so we know how to answer questions like this when they pop up on the GMAT! To begin, let's take a quick look at the question and highlight any major differences between the options in orange:

An archaeological excavation at what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including 7 intact statues.

(A) what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including
(B) what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures and
(C) the site of a possible workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures and
(D) the site of a possible workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including
(E) the site of a possible workshop where statues might have been reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including

After a quick glance over the options, there are a few key differences we can focus on:

1. what might have been a workshop / the site of a possible workshop
2. were / might have been
3. and / , including

These are all "either/or" splits, which is great - any one of these issues will eliminate wrong options quickly. Let's start with #1 in our list: "what might have been a workshop" versus "the site of a possible workshop." The problem here lies with "possible workshop." As it's been mentioned in the forum already, there is no such thing as a "possible workshop." It makes a lot more sense to say "what might have been a workshop" because it clearly puts the workshop in the past tense and makes logical sense to readers. Let's eliminate any options that talk about a "possible workshop."

(A) what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including
(B) what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures and
(C) the site of a possible workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures and
(D) the site of a possible workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including
(E) the site of a possible workshop where statues might have been reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including

We can eliminate options C, D, & E because they use the nonsensical phrase "possible workshop." Now that we have it narrowed down to only 2 options, let's tackle the rest of our list. To make mistakes easier to spot, let's add back in the non-underlined parts:

(A) An archaeological excavation at what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including 7 intact statues.

This is INCORRECT because the 7 intact statues are NOT fragments - they're intact. Using the word "including" makes it sound like the intact statues are part of the pile of fragments, which doesn't make sense.

(B) An archaeological excavation at what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures and 7 intact statues.

This is CORRECT! By using "and," it's clear to readers that the archaeologists found BOTH a pile of fragments AND 7 intact statues, which makes much more sense.


There you have it - option B is our choice!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

An archaeological excavation at what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including 7 intact statues.

(A) what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including

Including 7 intact statues modify fragments- How can fragments include intact statues? Illogical.
Eliminate

(B) what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures and

An archeological excavation at what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded-
1,532 fragments of human figures and 7 intact statues.
Correct.

(C) the site of a possible workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures and
“Possible” workshop- Is that a type of workshop? Doesn't make sense.
Eliminate.

(D) the site of a possible workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including
Same as A and C. Eliminate.

(E) the site of a possible workshop where statues might have been reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including
Same as A and C. Eliminate.

Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME

Official Explanation

Logical predication; Grammatical construction

The sentence tells us that an excavation yielded fragments of human figures as well as 7 intact statues. However, as written, the sentence implies that these 7 intact statues were actually fragments. This contradiction is presumably not intended.

A. This choice is incorrect because it incorrectly implies that the 7 intact statues are fragments.

B. Correct. The use of the word might makes clear that the suggestion that the structure was a workshop and that statues were reproduced there is just a hypothesis.

C. This choice is incorrect because it suggests, nonsensically, that the statues were reproduced in a possible workshop.

D. This choice is incorrect because it suggests, nonsensically, that the statues were reproduced in a possible workshop. Furthermore, it incorrectly implies that the 7 intact statues are fragments.

E. This choice is incorrect because it suggests, nonsensically, that the statues were reproduced in a possible workshop. Furthermore, it incorrectly implies that the 7 intact statues are fragments.

The correct answer is B.

I eliminated options A,D,and E because of the word "including". After the discovery of the human fragments the only item discovered is the 7 intact statute,so i see no reason to introduce the discovery of just 7 intact statute with the word including.

I will choose option C over B because of the preposition "at", in my opinion it is meant to modify the site directly,which option C does.
Expert opinion plsss

Posted from my mobile device

Adedami First, none of C-E can work because we don't have a "possible workshop." We have a place that may (possibly) have been a workshop.

As for the "at" issue, the GMAT is trying to trick us with an ungainly noun phrase: "what might have been a workshop." This doesn't sound nearly as nice and neat as "possible workshop," but it is still a noun phrase describing the same place, so it can connect to "at" just as well as "workshop" can.

DmitryFarber
GMATNinja

Could anyone of you be so kind and explain to me the use of 'where' in this sentence. I always felt like the GMAT was very strict with the use of where.
"Use it for locations such as Berlin, Rome, NYC, the village, the town etc."

I immediately eliminated splits (A) (B) because I felt the where is miss used in this context.
"The site where ..." makes still better logical sense for me as to say "the workshop where ..."

Wouldn't we use "the workshop in which ..."
I don't see the connection between where <-> and the workshop here.

Santa: "Where did I leave my sleigh keys?"
Elf: "You left your sleigh keys in the workshop."

So where will Santa go to look for his keys? He'll go to the workshop where he left his keys! The workshop is a location, so it makes perfect sense to use "where" to modify it.

I hope that helps! (And where's that elf emoji when we really need it?)

Aviral1995
Responding to a pm:

Between (B) and (C), (C) is incorrect.

When we say "possible workshop", possible is modifying workshop, not the possible role played by the workshop. This doesn't make sense. These aren't different kind of workshops - possible and impossible. You can't have a possible apple or a possible table. The object could possibly be a table. Possible cannot be the modifier of a concrete object.

Option (B) clarifies that is might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced.

I am really puzzled as to why "What might" option B is correct and not option C with "at the site".
Can you please help!
GMATNinja

A couple of points to understand before we look at the problem in the sentence:

1. “What might have been a workshop” is a noun clause. Noun clauses are clauses that act as nouns in a sentence. In this case, this noun clause acts as an object of the preposition “at”. Noun clauses are actually quite common in regular English, even though some people must have been turned off by this noun clause in the original sentence. Read more about noun clauses here. Also, start observing noun clauses even in CR and RC sentences. This will make you comfortable with them.

2. Comma+including is an exception to the normal comma+verb-ing rule. Comma+including can modify not only the preceding clause but also the preceding noun. In this case, comma+including modifies the preceding noun “fragments”. The modification is grammatically fine.

The sentence has no grammatical issue but one meaning issue: the fragments cannot include 7 ‘intact’ statues.



A. what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including
Incorrect. For the reason mentioned above.

B. what might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures and
Correct.

C. the site of a possible workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures and
Incorrect. “the site of a possible workshop” means that we are talking about a site where a ‘possible workshop’ happened. It doesn’t make sense. We have to talk about “excavation at what was probably the site of a workshop’.

D. the site of a possible workshop where statues were reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including
Incorrect. This option has the error of option A as well as the error of option C.

E. the site of a possible workshop where statues might have been reproduced yielded 1,532 fragments of human figures, including
Incorrect. This option has the error of option A as well as the error of option C.

the difference boils down to fragments and statues
clearly these are distinct entities , hence A , D and E are out
Between B and C , possible workshop sounds wrong
Thus , B

Hello everyone,

Many students reject the correct answer Choice B because they think that the usage of the structure what might have been a workshop is incorrect. I agree that in a few official questions, this structure has been used in the incorrect answer choices. But this does not mean that this structure is inherently incorrect. The test makers capitalize on this very false notion of the test takers n this official question.

So, let's take a closer look at the apparently "wordy" structure what might have been a workshop and the simple and elegant phrase the site of a possible workshop. I will start with the second expression. Drawing examples from our day to day life, we have certainly heard of the acting workshop, the dance workshop, the painting workshop, etc. And we perfectly understand the meaning of these expressions as well. Continuing in the same line of thought, if I talk about a possible workshop, does this expression make sense? So, now you know the reason why Choice C is incorrect. It is incorrect because it uses this illogical phrase "a possible workshop".

The sentence actually wants to say that the excavation took place at a site that probably was a workshop, or in other words, the excavation took place at what might have been a workshop. What kind of workshop? The sentence gives us this information - workshops where statues were reproduced. So, Choice B uses the correct structure to present the correct intended meaning perfectly.

The "sounds incorrect" approach may work sometimes but the logical approach as to what the given structure really means always work.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

VeritasKarishma wrote a great explanation of B vs C here. Check it out, if you haven't already!

Building on that same idea, notice that in (C) we have, "the site of a possible workshop where statues were reproduced" -- this wording makes it sound as though a possible workshop does in fact exist at that site.

Did the archaeologists, after some digging, exclaim, "Here it is... the possible workshop! And it looks like statues were reproduced at this possible workshop!" At best, it sounds like statues definitely were reproduced at this workshop that may or may not have existed.

It makes a lot more sense for the archaeologists to say, "This might have been a workshop! In fact, it might have been a workshop where statues were reproduced!" This allows for the possibility that it might NOT have been a workshop where statues were reproduced.

To be fair, this is a very subtle point that you're unlikely to see again, so if this question is making your brain explode, I recommend moving on .

Hi tutor,

I managed to narrow it down to B or C. What is wrong with a possible workshop? In the context - doesn't a possible workshop sound and look more 'efficient' and less 'wordy'. We understand the excavation took place at some location that may or may not have been a workshop - why is it wrong to say 'possible workshop'?

Consider the usage of "possible" in another context. For example, if we say that something is "a possible solution", we mean that it's a potential solution -- one that may not yet exist.

But a "possible workshop"? I suppose, in theory, you could write about a potential workshop -- perhaps an abandoned warehouse that could one day be converted into a workshop, for instance.

But that interpretation makes no sense in the context of the sentence. We're talking about an old excavation site. Whatever function the site served has already happened. So it might have once been a workshop in the past. But it's certainly not a potential or "possible" one.

Because (C), (D), and (E) create an illogical meaning, we can eliminate them.

I hope that clears things up!

Hello,

I can't understand why a "possible workshop" is wrong? Can anyone precisely explain please ?

With which nouns can we use "possible"?

Are there other words similar to "possible", (restricted when used as adjectives)?

Would be very helpful, thanks!