It will not be possible to implicate melting sea ice in the coastal

This question provides an excellent example of how knowing different idioms can be helpful but is not entirely necessary. As many others have pointed out on this thread, the idiom “just as...so...” is certainly preferable to “just like...so....” But with over 20,000 idioms in the English language, it’s impossible to memorize all of them, and it’s hard to know which idioms will be tested and which idioms won’t.

So with that in mind, let’s consider the answer choices and see if we can find better reasons to eliminate the incorrect choices:


First, the word “like” on the GMAT always introduces a comparison between two things. In this sentence, the comparison is between a glass of water and melting sea ice. But this comparison is illogical and doesn't fit with the author’s intention. It would make sense to compare a glass of water to the ocean or to compare melting ice cubes to melting sea ice. But comparing a glass of water to melting sea ice doesn’t really work.

Moreover, the phrase “due to” should modify a noun, but here “due to melting ice cubes” modifies the verb "will not overflow" (telling us how the glass of water will not overflow).

For those two reasons, we can get rid of (A).


Initially, the comparison seems better in (B): melting ice cubes are compared to melting sea ice.

But when we take a closer look, the underlined portion describes “melting ice cubes that do not cause a glass of water to overflow.” The “that” makes this part of the comparison essentially a noun (with a modifier). This is problematic because the noun (+ modifier) is then compared to a clause (“melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume”).

We cannot compare a noun to a clause here, so we can eliminate (B).


(C) has neither “like” nor “as” to introduce a comparison. Instead, it proceeds by saying “just a glass of water... so melting sea ice....” The sentence clearly intends to compare two phenomena, and (C) fails to make the comparison. When we read (C) for meaning, without “like” or “as”, it seems to introduce a causal relationship. It reads as if melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume BECAUSE "just a glass of water will not overflow because of melting ice cubes."

This is illogical and clearly not the author’s intention. Eliminate (C).


(D) has the same problem as (B): “Melting ice cubes that do not cause a glass of water to overflow” are compared with “melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume.” The comparison is illogical in that it compares a noun (“ice cubes”) to an action (“does not increase”).

Also, the word “as” should introduce a comparison of two actions/clauses, and the underlined portion in (D) does not constitute a clause. Therefore, we can eliminate (D).


(E) looks promising. It rectifies the comparison issues identified in (B) and (D), and it eliminates the improper use of “due to” as found in (A). It compares the fact that ice cubes “do not cause...to overflow” to the fact that melting sea ice “does not increase volume.” The comparison between two actions is logical, and (E) contains no other definite errors.

So (E) is our winner.
_________________

Hi Suryakumar,

That that does create a subordinate clause (a relative clause). Relative clauses with only a verb after the that are quite common, and we should not worry too much about them. For example:

1. A book that you like...
2. A book that is good...

The first one has both a subject and a verb after the that, but the second has only a verb after the that. We cannot say that either one of these structures is impossible.

The point that you mentioned applies to just as... so. We need subject-verb combinations after both just as and so. Using a that after melting ice cubes leaves us with only a noun.

3. melting ice cubes that do not cause a glass of water to overflow ← This is a noun phrase.
4. melting ice cubes do not cause a glass of water to overflow ← This is a subject-verb combination.
_________________

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 of the crucial part of this sentence is that in the same way that melting ice cubes do not cause a glass of water to overflow, melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Comparisons + Idioms

• A comparison can only be made between similar elements.
• “as A + comma + so B” is an idiomatic construction, used to compare two elements; A and B must be comparable and parallel.
• "due to" is used to modify nouns and "because of" is used to modify verbs and clauses.

A: This answer choice incorrectly compares “a glass of water that will not overflow due to melting ice cubes” to “melting sea ice”; the intended comparison is between “melting ice cubes” and “melting sea ice”. Further, Option A incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction “like A + comma + so B”; please remember, “as A + comma + so B” is an idiomatic construction, used to compare two elements; A and B must be comparable and parallel. Additionally, Option A incorrectly modifies the verb phrase “will not overflow” with the phrase “due to melting ice cubes"; please remember, “due to” can only be used to modify nouns.

B: This answer choice incorrectly compares the noun phrase “melting ice cubes that do not cause a glass of water to overflow” to the clause “melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume”; please remember, a comparison can only be made between similar elements. Further, Option B incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction “like A + comma + so B”; please remember, “as A + comma + so B” is an idiomatic construction, used to compare two elements; A and B must be comparable and parallel.

C: The sentence formed by this answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “a glass of water will not overflow because of melting ice cubes, so”; the omission of a comparison marker – such as “as” or “like” – illogically implies the because a glass of water will not overflow due to melting ice cubes, melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume; the intended meaning is that in the same way that melting ice cubes do not cause a glass of water to overflow, melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume.

D: This answer choice incorrectly compares the noun phrase “melting ice cubes that do not cause a glass of water to overflow” to the clause “melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume”; please remember, a comparison can only be made between similar elements.

E: Correct. This answer choice correctly compares the clauses “melting ice cubes do not cause a glass of water to overflow” and “melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume”. Further, Option E maintains the idiomatic construction “as A + comma + so B"; this construction’s inclusion of the comparison marker “as” correctly conveys the intended meaning – that in the same way that melting ice cubes do not cause a glass of water to overflow, melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume. Additionally, Option E avoids the error related to the use of “due to” seen in Option A, as it utilizes neither of these phrases.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

E)..."just as...so" is the right idiom ! D) is out b/c its not parallel !

As for comparing similiar actions.

(E)

Interesting sentence

Just as.........so is the structure.

so we have D and E. D is not ||
so E is the correct choice.

E is right. Correct idiom "just as .. so".

A/B/C wrong because they are not paralell. D is wrong.

"like" cant be used for example, "Such as" should be used instead.

Can someone highlight the parallel error in D please.

But I think we should instead treat "that do not cause a glass of water to overflow" as an adverbial clause, thus D is without a verb.
Ted

Yes. The comparison is between two clauses/actions: Melting ice cubes do not cause a glass of water to overflow. In the same way, melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume.

Consider this sentence: The flowers that are red look good.
The "that" identifies a subset of all flowers--those that are red.
So you can condense "that are red" and rephrase the sentence:
The [red] flowers look good.

In D, the "that" in "melting ice cubes that do not cause a glass of water to overflow" identifies a specific set of ice cubes [that do not cause a glass of water to overflow; let's call this qualifier X], so you can condense this portion and rewrite the sentence:
Just as X melting ice cubes, so melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume.

Thus, the portion before the comma is missing a verb.
_________________

The idiom tested is "just as X so Y" or "as X so Y" -> both are correct. "Just like X so Y" is not correct.

Hence Option D) and E) remain.
(D) as melting ice cubes that do not cause a glass of water to overflow, -> that is redundant and the sentence could be written as
as melting ice cubes do not cause a glass of water to overflow -> Incorrect
(E) as melting ice cubes do not cause a glass of water to overflow, -> Correct

I haven't seen the following splits mentioned in any explanations to this question. I'll lay out my thinking below - please double check my thinking to see if it makes sense.

When I went through this question, I noticed that the tense of the verb changes. In the Y portion of the "Just as X, so Y" construction, we are using a present tense ("...so melting sea ice does not increase..."). More importantly, this use of the simple present tense is meant to indicate that this is an "eternal" state. Thus, we need the X portion to represent an "eternal" state so that it's parallel in meaning. After all, the author is talking about general characteristics of melting water, not a specific incident.

With that thinking in mind, here's how I went through the answer choices:
(A) ...a glass of water that will not overflow... -- future tense is wrong
(B) ...melting ice cubes that do not cause a glass of water... -- simple present, looks fine
(C) ...a glass of water will not overflow... -- future tense is wrong
(D) ...melting ice cubes that do not casue... -- simple present, looks fine
(E) metling ice cubes do not cause... -- simple present, looks fine

The above split is just based on the verb and is meant to get the right meaning. There are other errors (e.g. "that") which I"m ignoring.

Let me know if the above makes sense

Thanks!

Hello guys!
It's my first post here so I hope I am asking in the right place...

I have seen this question on my diagnostic test and it was just one of the three that I failed in Sentence Correction.

But it was because there is something that I don't get to understand:

- I get the point that it should be E, but the problem with that answer is that it sounds better for me:

As melting ice cube does not cause a glass of water to overflow (and not "do not cause")

I think that 'melting ice cube' is third person... As I am not a native speaker I cannot fully understand the difference.

Thank you in advance!!

Javi
Hi
Please check again. It is the melting ice cubes (plural) in all the five choices. How did you get the singular melting cube?
_________________

Hi Daagh,
I have finally got the point.

I understood "melting ice cubes" as if the whole construction "melting ice cubes" was the subject (as, for example, in the sentence: "Being in silence is compulsory in this room"). Thus, I considered melting as a verb, and not as an adjective.

Problem solved!
Thanks Daagh

"E" is the correct choice - just as.... so is the correctly used and parallel in the sentence.

Eliminate - A, B and C for not being parallel and D - 'that' is incorrectly used that violates parallelism.
_________________

Here the question tests the idiomatic structure. The first point here is to notice ‘like’.
‘Like’ signifies similarity and is usually used before a noun.
‘As’ means ‘the same’. It is usually used before a clause.

So, we can eliminate Options A, B, and C

Now, Option D uses ‘that’ which changes the meaning and does not maintain parallelism.

Option E is the best choice.

Hope this helps!
_________________

Can D be rejected based on the reasoning that "Use of THAT (in this context) creates a subordinate clause and demands "comma+Independent clause", but the non-underlined portion doesn't suit this construction"?

If it were written: Just as melting ice cubes that do not cause a glass of water to overflow, melting sea ice does not increase oceanic volume. (I think this modified version would be correct)

Correct me if I am wrong. hazelnut