varotkorn wrote:
Dear
AnthonyRitz IanStewart GMATGuruNY VeritasPrepBrian GMATNinja VeritasPrepBrian VeritasPrepRon ccooley DmitryFarber egmat quixx23,
How to eliminate choice B. and C. decisively?
Q1. For choice B., apart from tense usage, is there any other reason to reject choice B.,
According to Veritas Advanced Verbal's solution on Q39:
Quote:
And note a logical flaw in choice B, which states that one philosophy WAS different from the other. Because the philosophies still exist and are still different, the past tense "was" is illogical - the two philosophies have not ceased to differ!
No other reason is given on why choice B. is wrong. I thought we can use past simple to just describe events in the past.
Q2. For choice C., what's wrong with the V-ing modifier. I think it can modify a noun as well. So, "holding" can modify "john Locke's political philosophy"
John Locke’s political philosophy, holding that revolution against an unjust government is not only a right but also, in certain cases, an obligation, is markedly different than that of Thomas Hobbes, who believed that sovereign power cannot be overthrown.However, according to the solution:
Quote:
The final choice, then, lies between choice C and E. Notice the extra clarify in choice E, which uses "which holds" to modify Locke's theory, instead of choice C's more ambiguous "holding" (which could be considered a temporary tense, for example).
Here is the official example which demonstrates V-ing modifying noun between a comma pair:
The yield per acre of coffee berries varies enormously, because a single tree, depending on its size and on climate and altitude, is able to produce enough berries to make between one and twelve pounds of dried beans a year.B is easy. "believing" begins a (1) participle phrase (2) at the end of the sentence (3) set off by a comma. Given these three criteria, the participle phrase must modify a non-adjacent word earlier in the sentence. But "believing" can only logically modify the adjacent "Thomas Hobbes." So this is a modifier error. And, hey, yes, it's weird to say "was different" when the two philosophies continue to exist and be different, but I'd lean more on the very concrete modifier error than anything else here.
C is harder. It's clearly the closest wrong answer, but all I've really got is that
(1) the "holding" participle phrase modifier sounds a little weird, though I can't pin any specific grammar error on it,
(2) the idiom "different than" might be wrong, though I utterly hate to look at idiom issues, and
(3) C is a tiny bit less parallel than E. You less often see the "apostrophe-'s'" possessive first and the "that of" possessive second in this sort of transitive parallel structure. I guess it's not strictly wrong, but all other things equal I'd take the version that syncs these up better. Plus the sentence uses a participle phrase modifying "Locke's philosophy" in the first part and a relative clause modifying "Hobbes" in the second part. That's a significant shift. This is probably my best basis for concern with C.
I hate to really rely on any of these, but, if I have no other choice, then taken together maybe they're enough. While none of these issues are unequivocally dispositive, I'd certainly pick E over C.
Nobody, including the official Veritas solution, is claiming that a participle phrase cannot modify a noun. It certainly can. The solution simply seems to suggest that there's also another way to read C, with a different meaning. I'm not quite seeing it, but maybe there's something I'm overlooking.