|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Location: work chair
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
giant means one of preparatory courses, the book of which i [#permalink]
 08 Oct 2003, 03:40
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
giant means one of preparatory courses, the book of which i purchased. i am only not disclose the name in order to avoid copyright matter. 
so, sentence correction:
early success and the arrogance it often fosters may lead growing companies to the creation of new divisions that are, increasingly, less related to their core business.
1. the creation of new divisions that are, increasingly, less related
2. the creation of new divisions that are increasingly less related
3. create new divisions that are increasingly unrelated
4. be increasingly less related while creating new divisions
5. increasingly create new divisions with less relation
??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Location: work chair
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
stolyar wrote: 2?
hey, stolyar
every time i see your image i am getting surprised: you are becoming stranger and stranger. 
no, actually B was my choice as well, but the answer is C... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1683
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
from http://www.dictionary.com:
TO LEAD
To serve as a route for; take: The path led them to a cemetery.
To guide the behavior or opinion of; induce: led us to believe otherwise.
LEAD TO A NOUN and LEAD TO DO SMTH are both OK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Location: work chair
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
stolyar wrote: from http://www.dictionary.com: TO LEAD To serve as a route for; take: The path led them to a cemetery. To guide the behavior or opinion of; induce: led us to believe otherwise. LEAD TO A NOUN and LEAD TO DO SMTH are both OK. agree with you. the only tiny problem is that on gmat they don't accept two answers... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Location: work chair
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
stolyar wrote: do you have an official explanation?
unfortunatelly, no.. 
this question was on one of the tests of cd, supplied with book, i just screen-printed the question to discuss..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Posts: 238
Location: United States
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
My guess at the explanation would be:
Not only the use of create instead of creation plays part in this, the use of word unrelated (more sufficient) instead of less related also plays part. So as styolar mentioned to lead to can be used with noun and verb, the use of unrelated just makes the sentence more efficient and to the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 12
Location: INDIA
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
hey guys,
I guess I POSTED THE EXPALNATION to mr surat twice,thinking it is for the forum.
here it is (or so ),
lets examine the underlined part of the sentence,''to the creation of divisions that are'',
the subject here is ''creation''(noun),''divisions'' also is a subject but the question is, what are we talking about here -we are talking about the ''creation of divisions'', which shows that ''creation'' is the main subject.
RULE 1,the verb follows the subject,hence it should be ''the creation of divisions that is (instread of are)'', but we do not have a given choice of that kind here.hence the ''divisions ''( as in choice C) takes over as the main subject, as given in the choce C) TO '' CREATE DIVISIONS THAT ARE'' SUITS THE BEST.COS ''TO CREATE'' HERE ADORNS THE GARB OF a verb than a subject. AND ''ARE'' folllows ''DIVISIONS''(plural).
RULE 2, avoid WORDINESS.
HENCE THE ISSUE Of ''less related '' to ''unrelated'' arises.
welcome any comments,
have fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Location: work chair
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Re: SC explanation [#permalink]
10 Oct 2003, 04:07
LIONHEART wrote: hey guys,
I guess I POSTED THE EXPALNATION to mr surat twice,thinking it is for the forum.
................
HENCE THE ISSUE Of ''less related '' to ''unrelated'' arises.
welcome any comments,
have fun!
no comments at all, everything is clear, alisher...  (alisher is arabian name, translation from lionheart.. )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 32
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
You guys are going about it all wrong....this one's actually pretty easy.
surat wrote: early success and the arrogance it often fosters may lead growing companies to the creation of new divisions that are, increasingly, less related to their core business.
1. the creation of new divisions that are, increasingly, less related
2. the creation of new divisions that are increasingly less related
3. create new divisions that are increasingly unrelated
4. be increasingly less related while creating new divisions
5. increasingly create new divisions with less relation
Using the words "increasingly less" doesn't make sense. It's unclear and unidiomatic...how can you have something increasing when it's declining?
This eliminates 2 & 4.
Now the term "less related" is unidomatic. For example, would I be less related to a co-worker than to my brother? That doesn't make sense, does it? You are either related or unrelated. I am UNRELATED to my co-worker.
This eliminates 1 & 5 along with 2 & 4 as well. In each of these there are other errors too that I won't go into.
I've found in SC, that you'll usually find more than one error in an incorrect sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 12
Location: INDIA
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
hey ,
thanks ''look''!( I belive it the NOUN here not the VERB pal.I believ surat means ur ''look '' in hindi!)or may be ''handsome (khoobsurat)!
have fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 12
Location: INDIA
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
hey ,
hota!Must agree quite a scientific way of explaining!
nice, anyway .Thanks!
have fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1356
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
Re: sc. i am not agree with one of giants... [#permalink]
18 May 2006, 21:00
surat wrote: early success and the arrogance it often fosters may lead growing companies to the creation of new divisions that are, increasingly, less related to their core business.
1. the creation of new divisions that are, increasingly, less related
2. the creation of new divisions that are increasingly less related
3. create new divisions that are increasingly unrelated
4. be increasingly less related while creating new divisions
5. increasingly create new divisions with less relation
B.
unreleted is a correct expression.
we prefer "unreleted" to "less related" as we do with "regardless" to irregardless"
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1744
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
3 for me. The only reason I chose 3 was IMO creation of did not fit here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1138
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
I'll go with C. 'Increasingly less' is a turn off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, Marcab, Narenn, GetThisDone
|
close
