vishalrastogi wrote:
Hey Mike,
I quite did not get the difference between options c & d, especially the place of "there" part. Would you explain it again ?
Thanks !
Dear
vishalrastogi,
I'm happy to help.
Here's the entire problem again:
Because the population is denser there and the automobile is therefore inefficient as a means of transportation, a commuter rail system serving a given population is usually five times more efficient in a European city than it is in an American city.
(A) serving a given population is usually five times more efficient in a European city than it is in an American city
(B) serving a given population will usually be five times more efficient if it is placed in a European city instead of an American city
(C) will usually be five times more efficient in a European city than one serving a comparable population in an American city
(D) in a European city will usually be five times more efficient than will a system serving a comparable population in an American city
(E) that is implemented in a European city will usually be five times more efficient than if it is implemented with a comparable population in an American cityThink about just the beginning of the sentence:
Because the population is denser there and ... If that's all we heard of the sentence, we would have absolutely no clue where on earth the population was denser. We would have absolutely no clue as to the physical location about which the speaker is speaking. The writer or speaker has a specific geographic location in mind, and is telling us important things about that location, but at least at the outset, we are 100% in the dark about where on Earth the writer or speaker might mean.
Ordinarily, ambiguity in sentences is bad. The GMAT loves sentence that are crisp and clear and direct, sentence that efficiently communicate everything they are trying to say. In general, anything unclear or unspecified is a bad thing. Here, though, is a kind of exception. Sometimes, for rhetorical effect, it can be good thing to specify something or someone, the identity of which the reader doesn't know right away. The writer, by using this word "
there" at the beginning of the sentence, has piqued our curiosity. This creates a kind of tension that generates forward momentum through the sentence --- we read the "
there" and we are curious: we want to know the place about which the writer is talking, and this impels us to continue reading the sentence. This is one subtle trick for producing engaging writing.
Imagine if I began a sentence
"
Because she was one of the most intelligent women ever to live, ..."
that sentence beginning would create enormous expectations. Wow! the reader would feel, we are going to find out at least one person's opinion on who the smartest woman of all time was. There's a very clear expectation that immediately following that opening phrase will be the name of this very impressive woman. Creating expectations in a sentence is a good thing if we fulfill those expectations. It becomes awkward if I create expectations, and then don't satisfy them:
"
Because she was one of the most intelligent women ever to live, the university system at the turn of the century, after the Greek requirement had been dropped ...."
WAIT A MINUTE! That sentence cheated us. It created the expectation that we were going to find out the name of this very impressive woman, and then after the comma, it started talking about something else. Yes, the woman probably will be mentioned at some point, but because this mention is delayed, it frustrates the expectation.
BTW, I'm sorry, but I have no idea whom I would name as the smartest woman of all times.
This sentence creates a similar tension with the word "
there", and version
(D) immediate resolves the tension by letting us know right away that "
there" means "
in a European city." Choice
(D) creates tension, creates an expectation, and then promptly resolves it.
By contrast, choice
(C) create the same expectation, but then leaves us hanging longer. It's a little more ambiguous in
(C) exactly which location is the one the author was suggesting in the first half of the sentence. This is somewhat analogous to my red sentence above --- the sentence creates a clear expectation, and then it is not so efficient about satisfying this expectation. That's a somewhat awkward move.
As I said above, the GMAT SC absolutely DO NOT test subtleties of this magnitude. The GMAT does not do a whole lot of this "building rhetorical tension" in sentence. The GMAT is much more straightforward and factual.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test PrepEducation is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)