Conflicting scientific studies have variously cited as the

+1 D

Beautiful question.
E sounds better, but it changes the meaning. We need "AND" instead of "OR" because the part of the pizza is compounded by "the tomato sauce AND the bottom of the cheese".

A conflicting choice involves selecting ‘this or that’. ‘This and that’ denotes same direction and no debate... In my opinion except choice E, all others flounder on this count. Then how can D be the answer? Can the OE give a clue?

In addition, ‘the tomato sauce and the bottom of the cheese topping’, are two distinct items and hence they are parts rather than simply ‘part’.

I disagree!

The bottom of the cheese topping and the tomato sauce are 2 separate entities and must be classified as such. Using the logic followed in D, the following sentence should also be correct right:

Conflicting scientific studies have variously cited the leaf and the branch as the part of a tree most likely to fall off.

How on earth does that sound correct?

Actually, it IS correct. Within the group of scientific studies one will find both studies that cite the leaf and studies that cite the branch. Therefore, within the group of studies the leaf AND the branch are cited. The individual studies conflict one another among themselves.

Correct me if I am wrong but is the meaning of the original sentence basically that, there are different studies being conducted concurrently , some that state that the tomato sauce is the part of the pizza most likely to burn your mouth and others that state that the bottom of the cheese is the part most likely to burn the part of the mouth?

If that is the case then, while it makes a little more sense, I am still not fully sold on the relevance of such a question to the GMAT. Having solved the entire SC section of the Official Guide, I have never come across even a single question where I felt that there was ambiguity involved regarding the correct answer.

Perhaps I am over analyzing here but, the official answer, in the case of this question , is open to interpretation because one can get easily confused given the use of the word 'several', which does not imply 2 separate studies given that there are 2 parts of the pizza being cited here. Then there is of course the more apparent use of the word 'part' which is singular and does not make sense when put together with 2 different parts of the pizza.

If I am wrong, it would be helpful if you could direct me to the format of sentence correction that I may need to study in order to better understand this pattern.

Thank you!

If that is the case then, while it makes a little more sense, I am still not fully sold on the relevance of such a question to the GMAT. Having solved the entire SC section of the Official Guide, I have never come across even a single question where I felt that there was ambiguity involved regarding the correct answer.

Perhaps I am over analyzing here but, the official answer, in the case of this question , is open to interpretation because one can get easily confused given the use of the word 'several', which does not imply 2 separate studies given that there are 2 parts of the pizza being cited here. Then there is of course the more apparent use of the word 'part' which is singular and does not make sense when put together with 2 different parts of the pizza.

If I am wrong, it would be helpful if you could direct me to the format of sentence correction that I may need to study in order to better understand this pattern.

Thank you!

Conflicting scientific studies have variously cited as the part of a pizza most likely to burn the roof of your mouth the tomato sauce and the bottom of the cheese topping.


A)Conflicting scientific studies have variously cited as the part of a pizza most likely to burn the roof of your mouth the tomato sauce and the bottom of the cheese topping
B)The part of a pizza most likely to burn the roof of your mouth have been variously cited by conflicting scientific studies as the tomato sauce and the bottom of the cheese topping.
C)The part of a pizza most likely to burn the roof of your mouth has been variously cited as the tomato sauce and the bottom of the cheese topping, by conflicting scientific studies
D)Conflicting scientific studies have variously cited the tomato sauce and the bottom of the cheese topping as the part of a pizza most likely to burn the roof of your mouth
E)It has been variously cited in conflicting scientific studies that the part of a pizza most likely to burn the roof of your mouth is the tomato sauce or the bottom of the cheese topping

rustypolymath wrote:

"Or" is used to indicate a conflict giving rise to a necessary dichotomy, whereas "conflicting" has already done so. We are referring to a group of scientific studies taken together and not one after another individually. This is why:

we would say: "Each of several scientific studies cites either the tomato sauce or the bottom of the cheese topping..."
we would say: "Several conflicting scientific studies cite the tomato sauce or the bottom of the cheese topping..."

As for "part" versus "parts," "parts" in this case would imply that the same scientific study cites both the tomato sauce AND the bottom of the cheese topping. Given the conflict at play, however, it is pretty clear that each study is in agreement at least on the point that there is only one part of a pizza most likely to burn the roof of the mouth.

E, meanwhile, is just a little bit convoluted. "It has been claimed that..." is a common and aesthetically acceptable use of the "it" as a subject opener, but "It has been cited that..." is a bit mentally jarring.



That is the intended meaning.



The key word is "conflicting," which implies that each study cites only one part, so "parts" would not make sense. On the other hand, since both parts are being cited and not one or the other, we need to use "and." Confusing, I know!

It has to do with the semantic layers of the sentence. Here, I'll post a nifty little sentence diagram and maybe this will help.


Now, as you can see, the subject of the sentence is "studies" and the object of the verb "have cited" is compound. Since both of these have been cited in the studies, we need to use "and," not "or.

However, the prepositional phrase "as the part" is in another layer of the sentence. It is not a modifier of these two noun objects ("sauce" and "bottom") but rather of the verb phrase "have cited." Were we to say "parts" this would seem to contradict the notion that the studies were "conflicting."

On the other hand, were we to use "or," this would imply a dichotomy that is not warranted, because in the collective pool of studies BOTH the sauce AND the bottom do appear.

Basically, "as the part," being an adverb, needs to appropriately modify the action. The studies do not all cite the two parts together at once and to imply so by writing "as the parts" would be abusive.

(This diagram is based on the Reed-Kellogg diagramming method but has been slightly simplified in order to facilitate its execution with MS Word tables rather than with PhotoShop objects.)

Notice the superlative. "The part MOST likely" can only be one thing. Like "the most likely to succeed." The word "variously" here also makes it clear that its either the "tomato sauce" or the "bottom of the cheese."