Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it

You asked for it, kntombat, so here you go. As you can see in the image below, I chose (E) in 1:21 as the least objectionable answer choice of the five presented. I will outline what guided my hand.


Choice (A) fails because of a basic modifier error. Whatever follows the first comma should answer the question of what was descending, and the placeholder it does not deliver to that end. I even gave the sentence the benefit of the doubt and read on, just in case, but the reference to time was a complete dealbreaker: time cannot have descended from a wildcat.

Choice (B) fails because and scarcely places the two-word combination in a tight spot. When we hit and without a comma, we expect to encounter a parallel entity. The first part of the relative clause, which is, does not carry over to the second as an understood element without a second is. Why? Because, to put it plainly, there are too many words between the first and second entities, and it is hard to remember to apply the same stem to the second part. To be clear, which is A and B can be fine, as long as "A" consists of a short description. For instance, which is exceedingly short and scarcely sufficient would work fine on its own. But when the sentence pumps in a bunch of extra words and information as part of "A," we tend to forget the stem and need a reminder before we introduce "B." So, sandwich is between the two words in question, and there would be no problem: and is scarcely. Alternatively, we could remove and to allow the scarcely phrase to comment on the previous clause: which is an exceedingly short time for..., scarcely sufficient for... Ultimately, we cannot negotiate what is on the screen, so even though (B) can be tempting, we cannot justify choosing it.

Choice (C) fails because the parallel marker and should continue a description of the aforementioned domestic cat: the domestic cat has had [something] and has been [something]. It would make no sense to say that the domestic cat has been scarcely sufficient in reference to time.

Choice (D) fails because the relative clause that has scarcely been sufficient seems to be modifying genetic evolution. How can evolution be just good enough to produce a transformation? Evolution, by definition, is change. It is neither a quantitative nor qualitative measure.

Choice (E) is the best answer of the five presented because even though and one which needs to be scrutinized, it is not incorrect. The restrictive which (instead of that) is a nonissue, since GMAC™ has written in the OG that this very split is not tested. The and should join two parallel entities, just as we considered in (B) earlier. So, what are those two entities? What, exactly, is one standing in for? It must refer to an exceedingly recent divergence, although perhaps in truncated form, as in a divergence. Check for clarity:

an exceedingly recent divergence with respect to genetic evolution and [a divergence that] scarcely seems sufficient...

That works. I might stylistically prefer to comment on the divergence by deleting and and replacing it with a comma. Compare:

an exceedingly recent divergence with respect to genetic evolution, one [that] scarcely seems sufficient...

However, once again, I am bound by what is on the screen. Like it or not, in the end, (E) wins out of this lot.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me about the question.

- Andrew

How can descended from be used as a verb here in E? I feel this is incorrect as "descended from" means a literal descending ( verb)

I quote this question for queries

Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

(a)that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved
(b) that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving
(c)suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally evolving
(d) to suggest that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolving
(e) to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved

E is the right answer, as every other option uses descended in the verb form

Thanks

Hi,
There are three usages, which I can think of immediately--
a) descended-- when used alone, literally means to come down from
example:- he descended the staircase..
b) descended from something-- when we want to say how something has evolved/developed/origined
example the Hindu traditions descended from the Bhagwat Gita.
c) Be descended from- a relation with some past ancestors/something
This is the exact usage here, which tells us that th elephant has this ancient animal as his ancestors..

chetan2u
I'd love to post on manhattan, but for some reason I'm not allowed to.
Anyway, this is a response from ron purewal from mgmat regarding the issue with B


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
in B, why " , its trunk originally involving..." is wrong.

i don't think the problem is with that phrase.
two other elements of that answer choice are problematic:
* "has suggested" --> this is the present perfect, which is used to look back on past events that have some sort of relation to the present situation. so, "has suggested" would signify that, at some point in the (probably recent) past, this evidence has suggested what is stated here -- but that it doesn't suggest those notions anymore.
* "descended" (without "is") --> if you mean to state an evolutionary relationship, you should use "is descended". "descended", used alone, signifies literal downward motion.

-----------------------------------------------

Also, on a side note, this is what the dictionary meaning is :

be a blood relative of (a specified ancestor).
"John Dalrymple was descended from an ancient Ayrshire family"
"he is descended from a Flemish family"

hi,
B is wrong for two reasons
1) descended from --- very reason you are mentioning
2) usage of ' its trunk originally evolving' is also incorrect

chetan2u
if B is wrong for the reason that it uses descended from, then how is option E correct in the original question of this thread. It also uses "descended from"

" The domestic cat descended from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years ago, "

I have used the question for reference to pinpoint the error in this thread's question.
Please help me out
Thanks

hi,
I believe the reason here is--
1)the domestic cat descended from african wild cat means the domestic cat has evolved out of african wild cat..
and at present both the animals in Q are present so MAY be the domestic cat 'evolved from' african wild cat is better than ' african wild cat is ancestor of the domestic cat'
2)Had you wanted to say it evolved out of something extinct now, say A..
then it would be better to say the domestic cat is descended from A..

Alright, but by saying the car descended, don't we mean that it had a downward motion? At least that's what mgmat and the dictionary says
chetan2u

Posted from my mobile device

Chetan, I'm not sure whether u get my point. According to the mgmat post and the dictionary, saying " x descended from y" means that x came down from y. Which is what is pointed out in the question about the elephant. " the elephant descended from", hence it is wrong because the elephant did not come down from anything. The question about the African cat says that the car descended from, which means that the cat came down from something. Which is wrong as pointed out in the question about the elephant
chetan2u

Posted from my mobile device

Hi,
You have mentioned car descended so didn't know that you meant cat ...
I think descended from is better used in terms of evolution...
And all these OG examples point towards that.
Can you reproduce the words od mgmat

Following are two possible uses of descend from:

1. descend from someone/something: to develop from something that happened or existed earlier

2. be descended from: to be related to a person or animal that lived long ago

Both the senses seem to be correct in this context.

The above also implies that in your example the usage the elephant descended from an aquatic animal would also be correct.

However option B is wrong not because of usage ..the elephant descended from..., but because of the present perfect usage ...has suggested...

It appears that both descended from and is descended from are acceptable, given the meanings above.

If you are not clear after reading Chetan's posts above and this post of mine, please feel free to write back again. We shall be happy to help.

Hi Rahul,

Both forms would be correct - descended from and is descended from; the options A to D are wrong for other reasons as discussed in other posts, not because of usage of descended from. I have replied to a similar query of yours here:

descending-approximately-4-000-years-ago-from-the-african-67148-20.html#p1655504

The answer is E. All other answer choices sound awkward. Choices E and B place the subject (i.e. domestic cat) at the beginning of the sentence; however, B uses "which" to introduce a specific modifier clause (i.e. the cat's genetic evolution). On the other hand, choice E uses "which" correctly, because "which" modifies a general modifier clause -- genetic evolution as a whole. A is wrong because of the position of"domestic cat"; also, the reference of "it" is unclear. In option C, "has" is used incorrectly. Option D splits "has been", and the preposition "for" is used incorrectly, seeing as "for" means purpose -- there is no purpose regarding genetic evolution and time. The preposition "to" means, in this context, direction and time; "to" expresses the relationship between "recent divergence" and "generic evolution" better than "for"; therefore, after eliminating all other choices, E remains.

Hope this helps.

Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it has been an exceedingly short time for the domestic cat with respect to genetic evolution and it

A. Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it has been an exceedingly short time for the domestic cat with respect to genetic evolution and it scarcely seems sufficient to allow the marked physical changes that transformed the animal. - The modifier is modifying "it" instead of the intended 'domestic cat'

B. The domestic cat descended from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years ago, which is an exceedingly short time for the domestic cat’s genetic evolution and scarcely sufficient for the marked physical changes that transformed the animal. - 4,000 years ago is a point in time , not a period

c. Descending from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years ago, the domestic cat has had an exceedingly short time for its genetic evolution and has been scarcely sufficient for the marked physical changes in the animal. - the period for the cat to evolve has been scarcely sufficient not the cat itself

D.Having descended from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years ago, the domestic cat has had an exceedingly short time for its genetic evolution that has scarcely been sufficient for the marked physical changes that transformed the animal. 1. For indicates that the cat has an intention to evolve and 2.the 'that' here modifies the domestic cat's evolution rather than the time period to the domestic cat to evolve

E. The domestic cat descended from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years ago, an exceedingly recent divergence with respect to genetic evolution and one which scarcely seems sufficient to allow the marked physical changes in the animal. -Correct

Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it has been an exceedingly short time for the domestic cat with respect to genetic evolution and it scarcely seems sufficient to allow the marked physical changes that transformed the animal.


A. Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it has been an exceedingly short time for the domestic cat with respect to genetic evolution and it scarcely seems ( it can refer to multiple things…what is scare here? the time Or the cat?) sufficient to allow the marked physical changes that transformed the animal.
Option A is incorrcect

B. The domestic cat descended from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years(noun) ago, which( which doesn’t necessarily have to refer to everything before it…which refers to the nearest noun ..here the nearest noun is ‘4000 years’ and not ‘4000 years ago’.Hence this is correct) is an exceedingly short time for the domestic cat’s genetic evolution and scarcely sufficient for the marked physical changes that transformed the animal.
Option B is correct


C. Descending from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years ago, the domestic cat has had an exceedingly short time for its genetic evolution and has been( domestic cat has been scarcely sufficient….incorrect) scarcely sufficient for the marked physical changes in the animal.
Option C is incorrcect

D. Having descended from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years ago, the domestic cat has had an exceedingly short time for its genetic evolution that has ( domestic cat has been scarcely sufficient….incorrect) scarcely been sufficient for the marked physical changes that transformed the animal.
Option D is incorrcect

E. The domestic cat descended from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years ago, an exceedingly recent divergence with respect to genetic evolution and one which scarcely seems sufficient( an excecedingly recent divergence that scarcely seems sufficient to allow….this is incorrect because its not the process that is insufficient..it’s the time ) to allow the marked physical changes in the animal.
Option E is incorrcect

jeevanR

B is wrong as parallelism is violeted...

"The domestic cat descended from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years(noun) ago, which is an exceedingly short time (NOUN) for the domestic cat’s genetic evolution and scarcely sufficient (ADJECTIVE) for the marked physical changes that transformed the animal.

IMO by POE only E remains

A. Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it has been an exceedingly short time for the domestic cat with respect to genetic evolution and it scarcely seems sufficient to allow the marked physical changes that transformed the animal.

B. See above

C. Descending from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years ago, the domestic cat has had an exceedingly short time for its genetic evolution and has been scarcely sufficient for the marked physical changes in the animal. The domestic cat has been scarcely sufficient?

D. Having descended from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years ago, the domestic cat has had an exceedingly short time for its genetic evolution that has scarcely been sufficient for the marked physical changes that transformed the animal. Wrong meaning - It was the time that was not sufficient, NOT the evoultion

E. The domestic cat descended from the African wildcat approximately 4,000 years ago, an exceedingly recent divergence with respect to genetic evolution and one which scarcely seems sufficient to allow the marked physical changes in the animal.

in E everything seems to work.

1. Divergence clearly refers to the whole main clause and is correct.

Example: "Last year I stopped playing football, decision which turned out to be sound as otherwise I would have risked to break my knee."

2. Parallelism works correctly as the word "ONE" recalls divergence.

My question to the experts here is: Can a DIVERGENCE seems INSUFFICIENT? shouldn't insufficient be referred to the amount of time rather than to the phenomenon of divergence?

AndrewN, I would love to know your thoughts on this question.
I narrowed it down to B and E ,but chose B.