crejoc wrote:
After moving to Switzerland in the 1890’s, Albert Einstein attended the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, receiving in-depth training in quantitative analysis and developing a foundation for his future work in mathematical physics.
(A) attended the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, receiving in-depth training in quantitative analysis and developing
(B) attended the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, receiving in-depth training in quantitative analysis and developed
Harshgmat wrote:
minwoswoh wrote:
I believe answer choices A and B are very close...
However, answer choice B is not grammatically incorrect. It just changes the original meaning of the sentence.
Answer choice A says:
After moving to Switzerland, Einstein attended a school in Zurich. There, he did 2 things:
a- received in-depth training in quantitative analysis and
b- developed a foundation for his future work in mathematical physics.
These 2 things are consequences of Einstein attending that school in Zurich.
This makes sense. This answer is correct grammatically.
Answer choice B says.
After moving to Switzerland, Einstein did 2 things:
1- he attended a school in Zurich. There, he received in-depth training in quantitative analysis (the ING Modifier "receiving in-depth training..." modifies "attended the Swiss Federal...")
2- developed a foundation for his future work in mathematical physics.
This means that the foundation for his future work was not developed as a consequence of attending the school in Zurich but was indeed developed after moving to Switzerland.
This also makes sense and it is correct grammatically.
So, how you tell the difference?
1- You know the biography of Einstein cold (not required for the GMAT)
2- You refer to the intended meaning of the original sentence. In other words, answer choice A states the correct sequence of events. Answer choice B states a slightly different scenario and thus distorts the intended original meaning.
mikemcgarry,
GMATNinja,
generisIs there possibility of having 2 grammatically correct choices on GMAT as in above case?
Can you please guide how to tackle such problems? Your expert insights will be very valuable.
Thanks.
, wow, the post that you quote is probably confusing.
Before I answer your question I will address two errors. They are common and hence understandable, but too significant to leave alone.
Error #1: option A does NOT establish original or intended meaningQuote:
How do you tell the difference [between A and B]?
. . .You refer to the intended meaning of the original sentence.
In other words, answer choice A states the correct sequence of events.
NO.•
MYTH : Option A determines or sets the tone for the meaning of the sentence.
•
FACT: Option A does NOT determine the meaning of the sentenceIntended or original meaning is not determined or demonstrated by Option A.
If that myth were true, questions in which option (A) creates illogical, nonsensical, or unclear meaning could not exist.
Such questions exist. Below are a few examples.
•
Official Guide 2012:
In this question,option (A) is illogical. In option A, the bad guys (defendants) attribute their criminal behavior to an allergy.
No. The attorneys argued for that proposition.
•
Official Guide 2016:
In this question,option (A) is confusing and ambiguous.
•
Official Guide 2018 SC # 676
In this question,,
option (A) creates nonsensical meaning.
Some "official explanations" from NON-GMAC sources have contributed to the confusion.
As late as
2017 , on the Economist blog,
the official Economist explanation for
this SC question about Iceland and global warming stated that
Options C and E could be eliminated because both changed the meaning as expressed in (A).
WRONGSee also
this post.
The official explanation in full can be found
here.
Marty Murry — an expert who earned a perfect score of 800 — highlighted one part of that official explanation by the Economist:
"Notice how answer option C changes the meaning of the original sentence. 'Likely' is not the same as 'most likely'. So, you can eliminate C."Quote:
The highlighted portion of the above official explanation for this question is based on a myth. The myth is that the meaning conveyed by the sentence created via the use of the correct answer to a GMAT Sentence Correction question has to match the meaning conveyed by the original sentence, i.e., the version created via the use of choice A.
There is no such rule.
The correct answer to a Sentence Correction question is the one the use of which results in a sentence that makes sense - end of story.
My emphasis. That post can be found
here.Another issue needs to be addressed.
Error #2: option B is NOT grammatical Double negatives coming . . .
In reply to the statement that
"answer choice B is not grammatically incorrect" (= B is grammatically correct).
NO.•
B is grammatically incorrect("Grammatical" and "ungrammatical" are enough, but I am using language parallel to that of the writer.)
We have an "and" after the "receiving" phrase, i.e. "and developed."
Developed is not parallel to
receiving.
Could it be that
developed belongs with
attended?
NO. Option B is missing a crucial comma that would make the two past tense verbs parallel.
Specifically, option (B) lacks a comma after
analysis and before
and-- If
attended and
developed are parallel, we have a compound verb ("compound predicate")
--
Any intervening phrase in a compound predicate must be set off with commas*
"Receiving in-depth training in quantitative analysis" is now an intervening phrase in a compound verb
That participial phrase needs a comma before and after it. See the footnote.
If (B) were a viable option, it would state:
After moving to Switzerland in the 1890’s, Albert Einstein
attended the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, receiving in-depth training in quantitative analysis[,] and developed a foundation for his future work in mathematical physics.
In the original B, I see
one comma only, right before receiving. I do not see two commas.
What if the intervening phrase does not have TWO commas to set it off? Fatal. Option B is not grammatical.
If there is not a second comma to set off the "receiving" phrase, then
attended and
developed cannot be parallel, a fact that means
receiving and
developed are now paired. They cannot be paired. They are not parallel.
Option B is ungrammatical.
Answer A *********
STRATEGIES: if two options seem equally correctOkay, let's discuss your good question.
In hindsight we know that Option B is grammatically incorrect.
What should we do if we cannot see that fact?
Quote:
Is there possibility of having 2 grammatically correct choices on GMAT as in above case?
Yes, two grammatically correct choices are possible.
That said, more than 90 percent of the time, the other grammatically correct option is a stylistic disaster.
In this case, plenty of people believed that (B) was grammatically correct.
The meanings of A and B are different. We have to choose.
Neither A nor B is a stylistic disaster, so we cannot use that property to eliminate one of them.
PURELY HYPOTHETICAL EXERCISESuppose option (B) were grammatically correct (WHICH, just for the broken record, is it NOT)?
Then option (B) would be:
After moving to Switzerland in 1910, Einstein attended a school in Zurich, receiving XYZ, and developed the foundation for ABC.What should we do we if we think there are two grammatically correct answers, neither of which is a stylistic disaster?
That phenomenon is fairly rare. I am tallying, which will take awhile.
Original prompt with B:
After moving to Switzerland in the 1890’s, Albert Einstein
attended the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, receiving in-depth training in quantitative analysis, and developed a foundation
for his
future work in mathematical physics.
WHAT TO DO?• Read the non-underlined part
again for clues in the context of whatever problem you face. Find key words and then compare the two options.
(The issue could be direct causation, for example. In that case you would look for clues that implied "A therefore B.")
Options A and B present time sequence issues. Look for words related to time, timing, segments of time, etc.
In the non-underlined part is the word
future.Hold on here a minute.
Why does the author separate "the development of the foundation" in time from the future work in physics?
In option B, "developed the foundation" came
after his time at school.
Well, that's one future.
Why is this author talking about a second future in the non-underlined portion (as an adjective)?
Aren't there now a lot of confusing time periods? YES.
Now compare to (A). There is a
before [moving to Switzerland], a
during [school], and a
future [work in physics]. Simple. Conclude that:
This author is
not talking about a second future as option B suggests --
because
the development of the foundation happens while Einstein is in school.I suspect that the simple act of considering time as an issue a bit more carefully than the first time around would often lead quickly to option A.
What happens while we attend school? We get training and we develop foundations (for later use).
The latter sentence contains the temporal logic that drives the core of this question.
• ask questions about "larger" sentence structure IF you happen to notice
(Thinking about B): Why would one sentence try to jam together all that happened
AFTER he moved, WHILE he attended school, and AFTER he left school?
(It wouldn't, not compared to the simplicity of answer A.)
Why is the prompt talking about some vague "future," given that
the prompt began with a very particular time period?
One answer that may strike: Because the sentence is focused on a specific time period, namely, the period in which he attended school.
That period is "framed" by a past without content and a future whose content is hazy.
We know the future work is in physics, but not when or where.
In addition, the introductory phrase chops off a chunk of time ("before").
Both a non-existent past and a vague future serve as a sort of background picture frame, bringing into focus what must be . . .
what happened
while Einstein attended school.In that context, option A makes more sense.
• Read the two options in quick succession one more time.
Take a breath. I'm serious. We have seen dozens or hundreds or thousands of sentences. This is doable.
Neither (A) nor (B) has more style than the other. After you take a breath and exhale, pick one and move on.
Hope that helps.
*• If a sentence contains compound verbs and no intervening phrases, the coordinating conjunction is not preceded by a comma
She studied the subject thoroughly and performed well on the test.
Same subject, two verbs
• If a sentence contains a compound verb and an intervening phrase, however, the
intervening phrase must be set off by commas
Same subject, two verbs, intervening phrase:
She studied the subject thoroughly, making hundreds of note cards, and performed well on the test.
The intervening phrase modifies only the previous clause. She was not making hundreds of note cards during the test.
With gratitude to Harshgmat , whose advice about this edited answer I both sought and took. :thumbup:
close
Updated on: 26 Feb 2019, 03:21
45%
(medium)
44%
(01:24)
wrong 
. 
