Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes and so

Actually GMAT has exhibited tolerance to pronouns way more ambiguous than this:).

A big issue with A is the presence of demonstrative pronoun those (...resembled those of the apes...).

The intent obviously is that those should refer to vocal tracts, but the issue is that vocal tracts doesn't appear in the sentence; only vocal tract does. So, in that sense, those does not have any valid antecedent.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses this aspect of Pronoun, its application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id, I can mail the corresponding section.

Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes and so were probably without language, a shortcoming that may explain why they were supplanted by our own species.

Before i start i look at the Sentence and see a"they" this needs to have a proper antecedent

And the vocal tract part needs to be parallel as well

(A) Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes :- This can be re written as Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled "the vocal tract - This is singular and Those is Plural" --- Hence incorrect
(B) Neanderthals had a vocal tract resembling an ape's :- Neanderthals give proper antecedent to they and Vocal tract resembling an ape's vocal tract ---- an gives a marker that it is singlular hence on all accounts its correct
(C) The vocal tracts of Neanderthals resembled an ape's :- They becomes ambiguous in this
(D) The Neanderthal's vocal tracts resembled the apes’ :- They directs to vocal tracts here, hence wrong
(E) The vocal tracts of the Neanderthals resembled those of the apes :- They directs to what?? Neaderthals ?? or Vocal Tracts???

IMO B.
Let me try explaining this one in detail..

Meaning: The Neanderthals had a vocal chord similar to the vocal chord of apes, this fact indicates that the Neanderthals were without language and thus were supplanted(replaced) by our species.

Now lets look at the options
We'll first answer why the other options are wrong..and this will lead us to B.

C. The vocal tracts of Neanderthals resembled an ape’s and so were probably without language, a shortcoming that may explain why they were supplanted by our own species.[part of the question]

In this option:
1. The subject of the sentence is "vocal tracts".
2. The two underlined words are acting as the verb of the subject(vocal tracts)

This doesn't make sense. The vocal tracts cannot be without any language and this is thus nonsensical.Considering parallelism, the highlighted "were" is parallel to these verbs and again, nonsensically indicates that the "vocal tracts" were replaced by "our species".
Eliminated.

D. The Neanderthal’s vocal tracts resembled the apes’
This option too, like C, makes the vocal tracts the subject, by using the possessives(apostrophes--> Neanderthal's vocal tracts).
Eliminated.

E. The vocal tracts of the Neanderthals resembled those of the apes
Does the same mistake that C and D do.
Eliminated.

A. Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes.
All is good with this option, but it has a subtle mistake. It has compared two non similar things; in other words, it has compared a singular entity("vocal tract") with a plural entity("those of the apes"). This is considered wrong in the GMAT world.
Eliminated.

B. Neanderthals had a vocal tract resembling an ape’s and so were probably without language, a shortcoming that may explain why they were supplanted by our own species. [Part of the question]

Correct.
What makes it correct?
1. The subject is Neanderthals.
2. The underlined verbs have the correct logical subject, and this also makes the two portions on the either sides of "and" parallel.
3. resembling is a Linking Verb, and a Linking Verb demands parallelism. The two entities on the either sides of "resembling" are singular entities(and are thus "comparable").

Hope it helps. I have done my best to explain

(A) Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes :-
(B) Neanderthals had a vocal tract resembling an ape's
(C) The vocal tracts of Neanderthals resembled an ape's
(D) The Neanderthal's vocal tracts resembled the apes’
(E) The vocal tracts of the Neanderthals resembled those of the apes

Subject of the sentence should be Neanderthal so C,D, and E are out
A is using those instead of that so wrong.
B is best but it also has issue that it uses " ape's " and not " apes' " or this use is correct?

Hello dabhishek87,


I would be glad to help you resolve your doubt.

In Choice B, use of ape's is absolutely fine for two reasons.

Firstly, the sentence intends to present comparison between the vocal tract of Neanderthals and that of apes. The expression ape's stands for ape's vocal tract. If we change ape's to apes, then the sentence will present illogical comparison between the vocal tract of Neanderthals and the apes themselves.

Secondly, the choice uses singular article an that cannot be followed by the plural noun apes.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Past perfect tense correct in option b?

Sent from my Redmi 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hello santro789,


I will be glad to help you with this one.


The helping verbs have, has, and had act as a perfect tense verbs only when they are followed by another verb in its past participle form. Take a look at the following sentences:

They have bought the movie tickets. --> Present Perfect Tense.

He has bought the movie tickets. --> Present Perfect Tense.

They/He had bought the movie tickets. --> Past Perfect Tense.



When these helping verbs (have, has, and had) are used just by themselves and are not followed by any other verb, then act as simple tense verbs. For example:

They have the movie tickets. --> Simple Present Tense.

He has the movie tickets. --> Simple Present Tense.

They/He had the movie tickets. --> Simple Past Tense.



Similar is the usage of had in this official sentence. Please note that in Choice B, had is not followed by any other verb in its participle form. Hence. had is NOT a past perfect tense verb in Choice B. It is rightly a simple past tense verb.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Can someone please explain me in detail why option E is incorrect. For me the intended meaning seems like that the sentence is comparing the vocal tract of the Neanderthals to the vocal tract of the apes and so those in A is incorrect
In B i thought since the sentence uses the past perfect Had and the continuous tense Resembling the use is incorrect and so i choose option E

Hi longhaul123, notice that E (and options C and D as well) change the subject of the sentence from Neanderthals to vocal tracts. So, C, D, and E seem to erroneously suggest that vocal tracts were probably without language (while the meaning of the original sentence is that Neanderthals were without language).


Indeed. The main issue with A is that the pronoun those is intended to refer to vocal tracts (plural), but option A only has vocal tract (singular). So, the pronoun those doesn't really have a valid antecedent in option A.


The presence of had in B does not make this sentence past perfect. had is used as a verb in this sentence (to depict the act of possession). The verb had is used as a simple past tense of the verb have. This confusion arises because both, the simple past tense and the past participle, of the verb have, are had.

Let's see few examples:

John has a car.
- Simple present

John had a car.
- Simple past

John has had a car for five years.
- Present perfect

John had had a car for five years before he sold it off.
- Past perfect

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses this concept of has had/have had, its application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

Why is it wrong to compare vocal tract to vocal tracts of apes (plural)?
still comparing the same organ right?
Or is it because "those" has no plural antecedent to refer to

generis your SC majesty pls advise.

(B) Neanderthals had a vocal tract resembling an ape’s

Neanderthals is in plural form and an ape’s is in singular --- isnt it a parallelism issue

thanks and enjoy a day

(1) No, there is not a parallelism issue.

Why not? Option B leaves out the words
that would help. Those omitted words constitute a singular noun. In other words, we have a case of ellipsis.

The possessive noun "ape's" contains the hint:
the comparison is between singular "vocal tract" that Neanderthals had,
and another singular "vocal tract" that an ape has.

Rewrite:
Neanderthals had a vocal tract resembling an ape’s [vocal tract] and so were probably without language, a shortcoming that may explain why they were supplanted by our own species.

The second vocal tract is implied.
Vocal tract and vocal tract are both singular.
Neither instance of "vocal tract" is the subject of the sentence.
Neither instance is referred to with the wrong possessive pronoun, as in Option A:
a vocal tract that resembled those [that] of

In other words, the issue of parallelism in Option B is
not between Neanderthals and ape(s), but rather
between a singular vocal tract and another unstated singular vocal tract.
Option B is correct. Option A is wrong.

Finally, I wonder whether you were tempted by another answer?
If so, which answer choice tempted you?

If not, I assume you want to understand the (non)issue
in option B in case that issue arises in another SC question.

TIP: If you see a possessive noun or pronoun that is not followed
by a "something" (either what the possessive noun/pronoun "owns" or is related to)
if the issue arises, fill in the something.

Filling in the "something" will clear up most issues.

The ape's WHAT? The ape's vocal tract.
My laugh is similar to yours. Your WHAT? Your laugh.
Their president may be even worse than ours. Our WHAT? Our president.

This suggestion will help often.
Remembering and analyzing what we can see is hard enough under pressure,
never mind what we cannot see.

2) If you still believe Option B is wrong, read on. Otherwise, skip.

Split #1: vocal tracts become the subject of the sentence, such that
both meaning is changed and logic is defied. "Vocal tracts" should not be taking the highlighted verbs.

Vocal tracts can neither be without language nor be supplanted by anatomically modern homo sapiens (our species).

(C) The vocal tracts of Neanderthals resembled an ape’s [vocal tract] and were probably without language . . .[and] were supplanted by [us].

(D) The Neanderthal’s vocal tracts resembled the apes’ [vocal tracts] and were probably without language . . .[and] were supplanted by [us].

(E) The vocal tracts of the Neanderthals resembled those of the apes and were probably without language . . .[and] were supplanted by [us].

Eliminate C, D, and E.

2) Split number two: agreement

(A) Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes
The non-agreement here is prominent.
The noun is A vocal tract, which then gets referred to incorrectly by those

If you feel short on time: by POE, choose B and move on.
If you have a few seconds, read Option B. Insert "vocal tract" after "ape's"
in your mind or write it on your paper.

Neanderthals had a vocal tract resembling an ape’s [vocal tract]
and so [Neanderthals] were probably without language,
a shortcoming that may explain why they [Neanderthals] were supplanted by our own species.

dave13, I hope that helps.

"your SC majesty" :razz: Actually, I think I'm your straight man - a foil. You may know these terms. Just in case:
Straight man: a member of a comedy team who feeds lines to a partner who in turn replies with usually humorous quips, see here. FOIL: a person or thing that makes another seem better by contrast:
The straight man was an able foil to the comic. see here.

lary301254M7 , sorry! I didn't see your recent question when
I answered dave13 's first.

I assume you refer to Option A?
First, yes, "those" should be "that."
The antecedent in Option A is "vocal tract." That antecedent does not agree with the plural pronoun "those." A subtle detail exists; the pronoun is wrong, not the antecedent. The antecedent, as an anatomical term, is typically singular.

That is, reference to anatomical parts typically is singular except in
obvious cases such as wings or antennae.
This preference is stylistic and arcane.

A hyena's jaw, not hyenas' jawbones.
A hornet's stinger, not hornets' stingers.
The trunk of an elephant, not the trunks of elephants.

The preference is just that -- a preference, not a hard rule.

You do not need to know this stylistic inclination toward
anatomical references. The options will give you other reasons
to eliminate the options.

Hope that helps.

Can anyone please explain to me why so can refer to the subject? I never see "so" can use as a pronoun

"so" referring to subject? Which option are you talking about?

"so" in the original sentence is used in the sense of "hence", similar to the following sentence?

I had worked hard and so, scored well.

Also answered on our Ask Me Anything About SC thread, but reposting here in case it helps somebody:


I think I see the confusion. The key here is that "-ing" words such as "resembling" are usually not verbs at all. (They can be verbs, of course, but that's not the case here.) In this context, "resembling" is an adjective, just modifying "a vocal tract." And adjectives NEVER have a tense, so you really don't have to worry about the timeline at all. It's fine to say "a vocal tract resembling an ape's" -- and it would also be fine to say "a vocal tract that resembled an ape's."

This article on the various uses of "-ing" words might help with this issue. And here's another example of the word "resembling" in a really tough GMATPrep question.

I hope this helps!

In (E), isn't it "those of" referring to "vocal tracts", and if we replace it in the original sentence, it compares correctly?