vibhav wrote:
Isotopes in the recently excavated bones of a 14-year-old girl from the Jamestown archaeological site indicate
that she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant.
(A) that she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant
(B) that she ate a high protein diet, so probably had been the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant
(C) that she had eaten a high protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant’s
(D) she ate a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and had not been a maidservant
(E) she had eaten a high-protein diet, thereby had probably been the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant’s
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/science/evidence-of-cannibalism-found-at-jamestown-site.htmlThe girl’s remains were discovered last summer in a refuse dump containing horse and dog bones. From the state of her molars, she is judged to have been 14 years old. Isotopes in her bones
indicate that she had eaten a high-protein diet, so she was probably not a maidservant but the daughter of a gentleman.
The easiest way to eliminate several possibilities in this problem is to focus on the overall structure at the end. The logical meaning is: she had eaten a high protein diet, so was probably was this type of person, not this type person.
It is illogical to say that she was this type of person, AND not this type of person (as if she was both – a person and not a person?). For instance you say: John bought a VW, not a Toyota.
You would not say: John bought a VW, and not a Toyota (which means he bought a VW and bought “not a Toyota”
While there are other errors to consider in (B), (C) they are both wrong for this reason.
(D) delivers an illogical timeline and tacks on the random “she had not been a maidservant” at the end, which means she did something before she was a daughter.
(E) also has illogical past perfect after thereby and incorrectly uses the possessive at the end, creating a structure that is not parallel.
Only (A) correctly conveys the logical meaning and uses the proper structures required by the sentence.
This is what the sentence tells us:
Isotopes in the bones indicate:
1. She ate a high protein diet when she was alive
2. She was the daughter of a gentleman; she was not a maidservant.
The use of "maidservant" is a hint that we are talking about her, not her parents. Else, we might have said "she was not the daughter of a servant". In those times, the father's occupation used to decide the children's fortune. In any case, you don't have to know this. The available options clarify what is meant.
(A) that she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant
(B) that she ate a high protein diet, so probably had been the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant
(C) that she had eaten a high protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant’s
(D) she ate a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and had not been a maidservant
(E) she had eaten a high-protein diet, thereby had probably been the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant’s
The logical structure here would be: She was A, not B
e.g. She was intelligent, not stupid.
This does not make a lot of sense here: She was A, and not B.
e.g. She was intelligent, and not stupid. - Incorrect
'and' implies two qualities. But we are talking about one quality only - intelligence. 'Not stupid' implies 'intelligent'.
It would be alright to say: She was intelligent and not lazy.
Here we are talking about two of her qualities: intelligent & not lazy (which implies hard working to whatever extent)
So we should write: ... she was the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant
Also, use of past perfect in "she had eaten a high-protein diet" is fine. There is a point in time in the past when the action stopped (when she died).
But use of past perfect in "she had been the daughter of a gentleman" is not correct. She was the daughter of a gentleman and will always be. That state does not change. Just like we say "A invented B". We do not say "A had invented B" because the state is still the same.
If she were alive today, we would say: She is the daughter of a gentleman.
Since she is not alive today, we say: She was the daughter of a gentleman.
It is a state that does not change. There is no point in time in the past that changes this state. So use of past perfect is not correct.
So (B), (C), (D) and (E) all are eliminated.
Only (A) remains in which we are given " ... she was the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant"
If the sentence wanted to tell us that she was the daughter of a gentleman, not the daughter of a maidservant, then to be parallel, (A) would have been: "... she was the daughter of a gentleman, not of a maidservant"
"..... she was the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant's"
is not good parallelism.
Answer (A)
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep