A Harvard anthropologist has proposed that using fire to cook food cou

A Harvard anthropologist has proposed that using fire to cook food could be dated back to almost
two million years and that it could explain hominid features like having a large brain and small
teeth.
A. using fire to cook food could be dated back to almost two million years and that it could explain
hominid features like having
B. the use of fire to cook food could date back almost two million years and could explain such
hominid features as
C. cooking food with fire could date back to almost two million years, explaining hominid features
like
D. fire used to cook food could date back almost two million years, explaining hominid features
such as having
E. fire used for cooking food could be dated back to almost two million years and explain hominid
features like

First split:
Use of "such as" versus "like"
In this case we need to use "such as" since the author is trying to state an example (examples).
Thus, we eliminate (A) (C) (E), left with (B) and (D)

I thought of two reasons why I cancelled (D).
First is parallelism. The author is trying to state two ideas that should be parallel.
Second is use of tense. We don't need to use "such as having."
Hence, we eliminate (D)

We have (B).

This question is based on Idiomatic Usage and Parallelism.

The options give us a choice between the expressions ‘like’ and ‘such ‘as’. ‘Like’ is used to compare two nouns or phrases. The expression ‘such as’ is used to give an example. Since the last part of the sentence gives examples of hominid features, ‘such as’ is the clear choice here.

The underlined portion of the sentence tells us the two things that were proposed by the Harvard anthropologist. So, the two things should be in a parallel structure.

The expression “dated back to” must be followed by a date or year and not a period. In Options A, C, and E, the phrase ‘dated back to’ is followed by the phrase “almost two million years”, which is a period.

This inappropriate usage – date back to almost two million years – helps us rule out Options A, C, and E. All three options A, C, and E also contain the conjunction ‘like’ instead of ‘such as’.

Further, there is a lack of parallelism in Option A – “could be dated back to” is not parallel to “that it could explain”.

In Option C, the participles ‘cooking’ and ‘explaining’ seem to be parallel. However, the structure of the sentence is such that the first participle phrase supposedly tells us what the anthropologist said, but the second participle phrase is a modifier that modifies the phrase placed before it.

In Option E, the meaning conveyed is that fire could be dated back and fire could explain. This is a distortion of meaning.

In Option D, the meaning conveyed is that “fire” could be dated back. The participle modifier “explaining hominid features such as having” also seems to modify “fire”.
There is also a lack of parallelism. So, Option D can be eliminated.

In Option B, the subject “the use of fire” is clear and logical. “The use of fire” can date back and can explain. Parallelism is also thus maintained because of the similar verb structures - could date back almost two million years and could explain. Therefore, B is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.
_________________

'could date' and 'could explain' need to be parallel. Also, 'such as having' is unnecessary. 'features' infers the hominid's have a large brain and small teeth.

Hence, IMO, answer is B.

Though I marked the correct OA, but it took me 3:28 min to make out the meaning.
I marked B for:
1. could date....could explain
2. the use of fire to cook food - (a noun phrase) is a method which can be traced back not the fire
3. such hominid features as Vs like


I hope in the real GMAT such questions are not for me

There is a 3/2 split in the use of the verb be dated/date. The option date back, seems to point to the fact that fire has been used for cooking for almost two million years, not that scientists now can date back the use almost two million years back. It therefore distorts the meaning and can be excluded. E sounds awkward, so the original version remains.

Answer A.

E isn't just awkward, it has a nonsensical meaning:

fire used for cooking food could be dated back to almost two million years and explain hominid features like

implies: fires used for cooking food could be dated back to almost two million years (okay), and fire used for cooking food could explain hominid features (what?). It's not the fires that could explain hominid features, it's the USE of fires could explain the features.

A. using fire to cook food could be dated back to almost two million years and that it could explain hominid features like having
It has no clear antecedent, "could be dated back" is less wordy and less clear than other option

B. the use of fire to cook food could date back almost two million years and could explain such hominid features as
Seems ok, hold it.

C. cooking food with fire could date back to almost two million years, explaining hominid features like
use of "like" to introduce examples isn't the best.

D. fire used to cook food could date back almost two million years, explaining hominid features such as having
Distorted meaning: fire is explaining hominid features?

E. fire used for cooking food could be dated back to almost two million years and explain hominid features
Distorted meaning (see above).

Pick B.

The sentence wants to say that, the use of fire to cook may date back to 2 million years
Now looking at the options - A is wrong - awkward, long and confusing phrase, hence ruling out.

Can't be D for sure, as D says the fire used to cook..., which essentially signifies that the fire dates back to 2 million years!!!
So D is out, hence remaining option is B
If you notice, other options also highlight the fire to cook dates back thing

Let me give this a shot because I feel I could add something that may be helpful to some people.

A THAT using fire to cook food could be dated back to almost two million years and THAT it could explain hominid features like having. 1) Does not seem parallel to me. 2) Use of LIKE is suspect, it should be SUCH AS because we are giving examples of features such as XYZ.

C cooking food with fire could date back to almost two million Years, explaining hominid features like -
Seems parallel but there's no Parallel Marker. Marker is missing, so both are modifiers. Also use of LIKE is problematic.

D FIRE used to cook food could date back almost two million years ,explaining hominid features such as having.
This is the easiest to eliminate. Read this carefully again. It says "FIRE" could date back to almost two million years ago. Does this make any sense? Fire does not date back, it is the method of cooking that dates back. Not fire itself.

E fire used for cooking food could be dated back to almost two million years and explain hominid features like.
Same problem as D, FIRE dates back to 2 million years. Also the use of LIKE.

Think of Like as "similar to" vs Such as "for example". In this case the use of Like is wrong. Should be Such As.

B the use of fire to cook food could date back almost two million years and could explain such hominid features as
Parallel marker = AND.

A Harvard anthropologist has proposed that:
the use of fire to cook food
-- COULD DATE back almost two million years AND -- COULD EXPLAIN such hominid features as

Hope this helps. Kudos if this helps!
_________________

Hi Piyush

I'll try to clear the trouble you are facing with the given problem.

Let's take a step by step approach

Meaning :- the author is trying to say that a Harvard anthropologist has proposed that the use of fire to cook food can be dated back to almost two million years.
The use of fire explains how hominids have features such as large brains and small teeth.

Gramar analysis :- Subject (Harvard anthropologist) is in agreement with the verb (has)

Verb :- Proposed and dated clearly reflect the use of fire in past ,which is what the case should be

Pronoun :- It- in this case refers to fire.This is where the flaw lies.
Rather,than "fire" , we need the sentence to reflect that "usage of fire" is what caused hominids to develop such features.

As u have already mentioned, usage of like is inconsistent

If you closely look at option B
The parallelism drawn is to highlight 2 specifics of use of fire , which should be the case as per the meaning intended by the author.

I hope that helps

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Between B and D, B stands out. some problems with D are already discussed in the previous post. i would like to point out one more -- in D it is stated that "Fire used to cook food could date back almost two million years" - here meaning is changed as it incorrectly implies that it is the fire that could date back to almost two million years and not the use of fire.

A Harvard anthropologist has proposed that using fire to cook food could be dated back to almost
two million years and that it could explain hominid features like having a large brain and small
teeth.
A. using fire to cook food could be dated back to almost two million years and that it could explain
hominid features like having (Usage of like is wrong here while giving examples)
B. the use of fire to cook food could date back almost two million years and could explain such
hominid features as (correct)
C. cooking food with fire could date back to almost two million years, explaining hominid features
like (Same as A)
D. fire used to cook food could date back almost two million years, explaining hominid features
such as having (It implies fire date back almost two million years.)
E. fire used for cooking food could be dated back to almost two million years and explain hominid
features like (Same as D)

Kudos please if you like my explanation

A Harvard anthropologist has proposed that using fire to cook food could be dated back to almost two million years and that it could explain hominid features like having a large brain and small teeth.

A using fire to cook food could be dated back to almost two million years and that it could explain hominid features like having
B the use of fire to cook food could date back almost two million years and could explain such hominid features as
C cooking food with fire could date back to almost two million Years, explaining hominid features like
D fire used to cook food could date back almost two million years ,explaining hominid features such as having.
E fire used for cooking food could be dated back to almost two million years and explain hominid features like.

What could be dated is it the fire or the usage,its the use of fire which is dated in the sentence. Answer B

first split Such as vs Like : Options A,C,E can be eliminated since "Like " cannot be used to introduce examples.
between B and D only B conveys the intended meaning

In GMAT we use SUCH AS (not LIKE) to introduce examples. This rules out A, C and E.

in D:
fire used to cook food could date back almost two million years, explaining hominid features such as having-

Its not FIRE which is dated, its the "use of fire". B conveys this meaning correctly.

Ans: B.
_________________

A. Giving examples of features requires such as and not like.
B. Correct
C. Same as A
D. Changes the meaning to imply that the 'fire' itself dates back 2 million years.
E. Same as A

One doubt regarding choice A. can anyone please justify why don't we think of that and that || here.
'Proposed' is a reporting verb. that why no reasoning for A? I do accept the 'like' fact for selecting the ans as 'B'

Hi Rajashree123

1) Indeed, First THAT and Second THAT are parallel here, and most of the time, you would notice that "SECOND THAT" can be omitted if both verbs refer to the same subject. Think of this as COMPOUND verbs.
2) There is a more definite error with this choice: LIKE is incorrectly used to give examples. 'SUCH AS' should be used to do so.

TAKEAWAY: Explore for definite errors FIRST.

ugimba

The "thats" aren't the problem with A. Several folks have mentioned like vs. such as, although we have actually seen the GMAT break this rule. Two more issues:

*Something can't "date back to" 2 million years. The addition of "to" requires us to provide an actual point in time, not a length of time. Something can "date back 2 million years" or "date back to 2 million years ago," but we can't mix and match those usages.

*"Having" a large & small teeth can't be "features." First, the phrase is singular ("having X and Y"), and second, the brain and the teeth themselves are the features. Having them is not.
_________________

In this question,

''could be dated back to almost two million years'' v/s ''could date back to almost two million years''

is there a difference how the expression ''date back'' can be used.