Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a millio

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning is that a whale beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids, and its fossils have been recovered by paleontologists.

Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Meaning + Parallelism + Verb Forms + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past.
• Any elements linked by a conjunction ("and then" in this sentence) must be parallel.
• "which/who/whose/where" when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.

A: Correct. This answer choice correctly refers to the plural noun "Fossils" with the plural verb "have been recovered" and to the singular noun "whale" with the singular verb "was butchered". Further, Option A uses the phrase "and was subsequently butchered by hominids", conveying the intended meaning - that the whale was subsequently butchered by hominids. Additionally, Option A correctly uses the simple past tense verbs "beached" and "was butchered" to refer to actions that concluded in the past. Option A also maintains parallelism between "beached on an African shore more than a million years ago" and "was subsequently butchered by hominids". Besides, Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "Fossils" with the singular verb "has been recovered". Further, Option B redundantly uses "then" alongside "subsequently", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "Fossils" with the singular verb "has been recovered". Further, Option C incorrectly modifies "more than a million years ago" with the phrase "which was subsequently butchered by hominids", producing an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the whale was subsequently butchered by hominids; remember, "which/who/whose/where" when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.

D: This answer choice incorrectly refers to actions that concluded in the past with the present participle ("verb+ing" - "having" in this sentence) phrases "having been beached" and "having been...butchered"; remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past.

E: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "whale with the plural verb "were butchered". Further, Option E fails to maintain parallelism between "having beached on an African shore more than a million years ago" and "were butchered by hominids"; remember, any elements linked by a conjunction ("and then" in this sentence) must be parallel. Additionally, Option E redundantly uses "then" alongside "subsequently", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

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



To understand the concept of "Which, Who, Whose, and Where" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

'That' is a relative pronoun which refers to the preceeding word. Therefore in this case that is refering to whales.

D & E are out - inadequate use of 'having been'.
Fossils is plural and requires have and not has - S&V agreement;B & C are out.
The sentence has a passive tone and requires simple past. Therefore 'was subsequently butchered' is used.

A overcomes all the mentioned errors

You ask a good question here, and although others have given completely correct explanations I want to boil it down to a key point:

Unless there is a clear reason to use a more complex tense, you want to use the simplest tense possible. In this example, the whale beached (simple past tense) and was butchered (simple past tense). This is clear, parallel, and simple.

Hope that helps!

Fossils of a whale that (beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids) have been recovered by paleontologists.

"was subsequently ......" is parallel with "beached on an ..." and describes "whale".

The subject of the sentence is Fossils, not Whale. So, the correct form of "have" should be "have", not "has". Hence, eliminate B and C.

In choice D and E, HAVING BEEN makes sense that the verb beached already happen and ambiguously modified either FOSSILS or WHALE. Therefore, we can eliminate choice D and E.

The remain correct one is A.

My doubt is related to the usage of "that" in this problem.

Is there any difference between the below two sentences? ( I intentionally removed "subsequently")

1. Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

2. Fossils of a whale beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

My doubt is can we always replace a "that clause modifying a noun" with an "-ed modifier" ?

I want to quote another example from an official question.

1. Neutrinos are harmless elementary particles that are produced in nuclear reactions.
2. Neutrinos are harmless elementary particles produced in nuclear reactions.

I fee there is a difference in the above two sentences. Kindly comment.

this is a case in which a modifier is far away from the noun. ex :
Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

Could somebody help me on the below, please?

My doubt is related to the usage of "that" in this problem.

Is there any difference between the below two sentences? ( I intentionally removed "subsequently")

1. Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

2. Fossils of a whale beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

My doubt is: can we always replace a "that clause modifying a noun" with an "-ed modifier" ?

I want to quote another example from an official question.

1. Neutrinos are harmless elementary particles that are produced in nuclear reactions.
2. Neutrinos are harmless elementary particles produced in nuclear reactions.

I feel there is a difference in the above two sentences. Kindly comment.

Hello gmatter0913

Here is my take on your sentences. I hope you'll find my explanations useful.

Lets take these sentences first-

1. Neutrinos are harmless elementary particles that are produced in nuclear reactions.
2. Neutrinos are harmless elementary particles produced in nuclear reactions.

Now, your question is Can "That" be removed in this construction. The short answer is "Yes".
Because, "produced" in sentence 2 is working as Past Participle, and past participles "ed forms" are used for receiving the action i.e Nouns in question must act as Object.
If in doubt..Ask Did Elementary particles produced something?? The answer is No, rather they are being produced in Nuclear Reactions. Hence, "Produced" is working as Past Participle.
Second Trick: Whenever you see that+is/am/are/was/were, you can safely remove "that+ verb", because this is the construction used in passive voice, and ed modifiers just do the same. i.e represent Passive Voice.

Second Set - Lets analyze each sentence individually here,

1. Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

Here, beached is working as VERB- How?because "That " is a relative modifier modifying "Whale". If in doubt, who beached on African Shore -> Whale -> Subject.
was butchered -> verb.
Now, your question" Can That be Removed here"? -> I would say No, because then the sentence would be Fragment. I mean, subject Verb pair would not be same.
Lets Remove "That", so the sentence would become

Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

Lets Find - Subject verb pair -
Fossils - have been
What is the subject of beached ann was butchered? Fossils or Whale? It shoule be Fossils because subject doesn't reside in Prepositional phrase. Hence , the construction is wrong. Retrospectively, if you see, that is in ellipsis. See below.

Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and{that} was butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

2. Fossils of a whale beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

Lets analyze this one -
Firstly, beached is following the same logic as above. i.e. what is the subject of this verb? Fossils or Whale.
Secondly- "butchered" here is working as Participle not verb. because the whole sentence is in passive voice. Have provided an explanation above.
Let me know if it makes sense.

1. You said that beached is a verb here [I agree.]
Clause: Whale(Subj) that beached(Verb) on an African shore more than a million years ago and [that] was(verb) butchered (verb) by hominids.

My question here is: Why is it "beached" and not "was beached"? Is there any change in the meaning if I say the below:
Fossils of a [whale that was beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was butchered by hominids] have been recovered by paleontologists. --> [color=#7b2e00]This is not making any sense. This means that Whale didn't do the action of beaching and someone else helped Whale in doing the action. Here, beached is equivalent to "Swam"

[/color]
I understand that it is the whale that did the action "beached", whereas "butchered" has to be in passive because it is done by "hominids". Am I correct? --> This is the correct understanding.

In such case, will the 3rd sentence (posted below) be wrong?
Fossils of a [whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and butchered by hominids] have been recovered by paleontologists. -> This is wrong because of Parallelism. We need verb not Participle. Butchered is Past Participle here

Because this sentence says - "whale butchered by hominids" - not, "whale [that] was butchered by hominids". Honestly, I am not seeing a difference between "whale butchered by hominids" and "whale [that] was butchered by hominids". --> that is how past participle works.

See, whale butchered by Hominids. Ask.. who butchered.. and you l get the reply.. Homininds.. so, who done the action --> Hominids and whom the action have been done..? Its on WHALE. .. right.. So, Whale is not the subject... IT is the object who is recieving the ACTION(butchered).. right. So, the phrase butchered by Hominids is nothing but a modifier.

So, in that case why can't we also say "whale that was beached"?

Here, -- "was beached" is Passive Voice, depicting the action of beached is done by someone else not by WHALE. However,the action is done by "Whale", and you need a VERB. Hence, it is incorrect.

Generally, two issues usually go hand in hand in such questions --
One is parallelism and another is verb.

Let me know if it makes sense, else feel free to post your doubts. [/color]

Great explanation!! Thanks a lot, and I promise this is the last post. Just need a confirmation from you.

So, you're saying:

1. Fossils of a [whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and butchered by hominids] have been recovered by palaeontologists.
The above sentence is wrong because "that" will be carried to the second part "[that] butchered by hominids". In such case, we have to use the verb "was butchered", and we cannot "that + past participle(butchered)". Is my understanding correct?

I didn't think that "that" would be carried to the second part "was butchered". "that" in ellipsis tricked me.
Lesson Learnt: Both of them have to be participles or verbs. Parallelism.

Following are the four cases on which I need your confirmation and comments.

1. participle + participle construction
Fossils of a [whale beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and butchered by hominids] have been recovered by palaeontologists.
In the above sentence, both "beached" and "butchered" are past participles.The above sentence is a right construction.

2. verb+ verb construction
Fossils of a [whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and (that) was butchered by hominids] have been recovered by palaeontologists. This is correct construction.

3. verb + participle construction
Fossils of a [whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and butchered by hominids] have been recovered by palaeontologists. This is wrong as we require a verb in the second part because "that" is carried (ellipsis).Earlier, I thought this construction is valid. Lesson learnt.

4. participle + verb construction
Need your comment on the below

Fossils of a [whale beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was butchered by hominids] have been recovered by palaeontologists.
This is wrong as we don't have a object for "was butchered"

Fossils of a [whale beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and that was butchered by hominids] have been recovered by palaeontologists.
Is this a valid construction? Can "that" work as an object here? I assumed "beached" and "was" are parallel, and hence "that" may refer to "whale"

Basically, all you need to see that of the construction is using participles then, they must be parallel.
Otherwise, if constructions is using "verb form", then that is being used in parallel forms and should not have "participles"
Thats pretty much of it.

Let me know if there is any doubt

Let's split the sentence:

Subject relative clause predicate

Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

Fossils - have been recovered by the paleontologists
(Fossils- plural subject) agrees with (have- plural verb)

parallelism in relative clause

- whale that
1)beached - (verb)
and
2)was subsequently butchered- (verb)


A. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids have- looks good

B. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and then was subsequently butchered by hominids has

Fossils has- subject verb agreement error
then subsequently- redundancy

C. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago, which was subsequently butchered by hominids, has-
Fossils has- subject verb agreement error

D. having been beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and subsequently butchered by hominids, have
participle(having...) is not parallel to verb (butchered)


E. having beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and then subsequently were butchered by hominids have
then subsequently- redundancy
participle(having...) is not parallel to verb (butchered)


OA- A


Hope this helps!
Dolly Sharma
Verbal Trainer
CrackVerbal

In this Question, how is "beached" parallel to "was butchered"

Also "Whale beached on an African shore" is in active voice whereas ""Whale was subsequently butchered by hominids" is in passive voice.

So how is this construction correct?

Hi jrashish,

Thank you for posting your query here.

Let’s take a look at the sentence structure of this sentence:

• Fossils of a whale (Clause-I)
o that (Clause-II)
• beached on an African shore more than a million years ago (Clause-II)
• and was subsequently butchered by hominids (Clause-II)
• have been recovered by paleontologists. (Clause-I)

So, this sentence has two clauses as shown. The subject verb pairs in both the clauses are highlighted.

Now, the dependent clause starting with “that” tells us two things about a whale:
1. It beached on an African shore at a certain time in the past
2. It was butchered by hominids.
So, the verbs "beached" and "was butchered" are parallel to each other.

Note that, active and passive verbs can be parallel to each other if their subject is the same. Let’s take another official example (correct version) with similar structure:

• Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff, Deborah Sampson, the first woman to draw a soldier's pension,
o joined the Continental Army in 1782 at the age of 22,
o was injured three times,
o and was discharged in 1783 because she had become too ill to serve.

Here, the list of the verbs for the subject Deborah Sampson is:
1. joined (Active Voice)
2. was injured (Passive Voice)
3. was discharged (Passive Voice)

As we can see, first verb is written in active voice while second and third verbs are in passive voice. However, these verbs are parallel. Similarly in the given sentence, "beached" and "was butchered" are parallel.



Hope this helps!
Deepak

Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids have been recovered by palaeontologists.

ANSWER IS A
The subject of the sentence is "FOSSILS" which is plural, so the use of a corresponding plural verb "have" is must.

A. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids have
CORRECT:- correct verb "have" and correct simple past tense "beached". "that" correctly refers to the "fossils of the whale"

B. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and then was subsequently butchered by hominids has
WRONG:- has is incorrect tense

C. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago, which was subsequently butchered by hominids, has
WRONG:- has is incorrect tense. placement of "which" is incorrect. Here "which" is modifying million years instead of "whale"

D. having been beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and subsequently butchered by hominids, have
WRONG:- "ing+been+past" is incorrect . Simple past is sufficient

E. having beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and then subsequently were butchered by hominids have
WRONG:- "ing+past" is incorrect . Simple past is sufficient.
Meaning change :- The fossils were not butchered. The whale was butchered and then the whale become a fossil after thousands of years.

mikemcgarry chetan2u Can you please help me with my doubt of why the answer is :A: because FOSSILS are plural and in option A it is clearly violating the S-V Agreement with :WAS:

Thanks in advance.