The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular sc

Dear niyantg,
I'm happy to respond. Actually, this concept is not detailed at all: it's so intuitive that it's hard to put into words at all.

A prepositional phrase beginning with "of" almost always modifies the word directly before it. This is true in 99% of all cases --- the only exceptions I know are sophisticated sentences with the structure: [subject]+"is"+"of"-prepositional-phrase.
The decor in this town is of an different era.
That's a bit more sophisticated than you are likely to see on the GMAT. The point is, the word "of" is almost always attached the noun immediately in front of it.

A prepositional phrase beginning with "with" is much more flexible, and can modify the verb as well as the noun. In some sense, it might be more correct to say the "with" phrase in the Anasazi sentence modifies the verb "were built" rather than any noun. That's debatable, but it certainly doesn't modify "scale."

Part of the distinction here has to do with idioms. The construction "scale of" is a typical idiom:
... built on a scale of several inches.
... seen on the scale of distant galaxies.
By contrast, "scale with" is not an idiom at all, so the "with" must be doing something else besides modifying the word "scale."

My friend, all of this is stuff you need to "hear" in order to be successful at GMAT SC. If your command of English is not good enough to hear these distinctions, you need to READ. You need to read an hour a day, every day -- that's over and above any GMAT preparations. You need to read hard, challenging material in English. If you are considering getting an MBA, you already should be reading the Wall Street Journal every day and the Economist Magazine from cover to cover every week. For more suggestions on what to read, see:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-reading-list/
There is not magic shortcut for developing all these intuitions about English. You need to do the hard work of reading, every single day, so that over time, you start to see the patterns and get the feel of the language.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

When you read the sentence, you have to give a pause after - on a spectacular scale - and continue Then you may see which preposition sounds better whether of or with. You will appreciate that with will be the right one. So eliminate C, D and E.

Then remove the parenthesis phrase, - of up to 600 rooms each -, and you can see the flaw of having a second verb were for the subject the Anasazi settlements

B which drops the unnecessary second verb is the right choice.

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 this sentence is that the Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale and had more than 75 carefully engineered structures, and these structures had 600 rooms each and were connected by a complex regional system of roads.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Tenses + Grammatical Construction

• In a “noun + comma + phrase” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun; this is one of the most frequently tested concepts on GMAT sentence correction.
• If a list contains only two elements, they must be joined by a conjunction.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.
• The past perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past".

A: This answer choice incorrectly uses a comma to join two elements in a list - "were built..." and "were connected..."; please remember, if a list contains only two elements, they must be joined by a conjunction.

B: Correct. The sentence formed by this answer choice uses the phrase "were built on a spectacular scale with more than 75 carefully engineered structures", conveying the intended meaning - that the Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale and had more than 75 carefully engineered structures. Moreover, Option B correctly modifies "75 carefully engineered structures" with "connected by a complex regional system of roads", conveying the intended meaning - that the structures themselves were connected by a regional system of roads. Further, Option B avoids the tense error seen in Options C and E, as it uses the past participle "connected" rather than an active verb. Additionally, Option B avoids the grammatical construction error seen in Option A, as it presents no elements in a list.

C: The sentence formed by this answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "were built on a spectacular scale of more than 75 carefully engineered structures"; the construction of this phrase leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale and had more than 75 carefully engineered structures. Moreover, Option C incorrectly modifies "600 rooms" with "each that had been...roads", illogically implying that each of the 600 rooms of the 75 structures was connected by a regional system of roads; the intended meaning is that the structures themselves were connected by a regional system of roads; please remember, in a “noun + comma + phrase” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the past perfect tense verb "had been connected" to refer to an event that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past, and the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past".

D: The sentence formed by this answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "were built on a spectacular scale of more than 75 carefully engineered structures"; the construction of this phrase leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale and had more than 75 carefully engineered structures. Moreover, Option D further alters the meaning through the phrase "600 rooms and with each"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that each of the 600 rooms of the 75 structures was connected by a regional system of roads; the intended meaning is that the structures themselves were connected by a regional system of roads.

E: The sentence formed by this answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "were built on a spectacular scale of more than 75 carefully engineered structures"; the construction of this phrase leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale and had more than 75 carefully engineered structures. Moreover, Option E further alters the meaning through the phrase "each had been"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that each of the 600 rooms of the 75 structures was connected by a regional system of roads; the intended meaning is that the structures themselves were connected by a regional system of roads. Further, Option E incorrectly uses the past perfect tense verb "had been connected" to refer to an event that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past, and the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past".

Hence, B is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Phrase Comma Subject" and "Subject Comma Phrase" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1minute):



To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Past Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Would go for B,

"build of" should not be confused with "made of", Build of refers to structure. f.e: "the build of a program is intricate", meanwhile "made of" refers to content. f.e: "the table is made of wood". So use of "build of" is incorrect in this example.

C,D,E out.

A is out because of "were", "were" can logically be verb only of "the settlements" but "setlements" already have a verb.

The question here is "what is/are connected by roads"
If "The Anasazi settlements" is the subject, which is the case..another 'were' is reqd..and if the specacular scale is connected by roads, then 'were' isn't reqd..

On this topic, interestingly, I found four different transcriptions of the original test, essentially in the portion that is underlined, in as many different forums for a question that is from GPREP. Which one should we follow?

1 Urch version

The Anasazi settlements of Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scare with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each were connected by a complex regional system of roads. (note tht there is no comma after each)

2. Beat the GMAT version

The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, were connected by a complex regional system of roads. (note the comma after each)

3 Gmatclub version

The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, were connected by a complex regional system of roads.

4. Manhattan version

The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, were connected by a complex regional system of roads.

1. The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, were connected by a complex regional system of roads.
A. with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, were (No subject of Were) : wrong
B. with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, : Correct ( Were has been omiitted ."connected by a complex regional system of roads " correctly modify the "600 rooms each"
C. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms, each that had been ( No two past events here occurring in diiferent time frame in past and starting with "of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms" changes the intended meaning n makes it ambiguous) :wrongD. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms and with each ( same error discussed in C and and "Conjunction "And" changes the intended meaning of original sentence.) WrongE. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms each had been : Wrong (Error discussed in "C" )

The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, were connected by a complex regional system of roads.
A. with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, were
B. with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each,
C. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms, each that had been
D. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms and with each
E. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms each had been

- In C and D, which noun is being modified by 'each'?, why?

Also, according to other forum:
- In C, we cannot say "each that had..." (can't follow 'each' with a relative pronoun - if we're going to use a relative pronoun, it has to come directly after the thing it's trying to modify). My question: I don't understand this. Does it mean that a relative pronoun can be only after the NOUN and not after another pronoun such as 'he', 'each', etc?

In (C), 'each' is referring to the '600 rooms.' In (D) the 'each' seems ambiguous.

In the correct answer (B), 'each' is clearly referring to the 'structures'.

Hope that helps!

Could anyone please post the official answer for the question? Why is C incorrect? What is connected by roads?

Dear vad3tha,
I'm happy to respond. First of all, the OA is posted for this question already. When you see this:

the gray spoiler bar at the bottom of a question at the head of a post: that's precisely where the OA is. You simply click on "[Reveal]" and you can view the OA.

Now, why is (C) incorrect? Well, first of all, the word "of" is idiomatically incorrect, and this is part of what makes (C), (D), and (E) incorrect. This sentence, by itself, is correct:
The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale.
If we want to indicate more detail, we add detail to the settlements, not to the word "scale" itself.
The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale with more than 75 carefully engineered structures.
Perfectly correct. The "with" phrases are modifying "settlements."
The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale of more than 75 carefully engineered structures.
In this version, the "of" phrase illogically modifies "scale", telling us (??) what kind of scale?? This makes no sense. The choices that use "of" here are incorrect.

Even if choice (C) had the correct word "with" instead of "of", the ending is still awkward, wordy, and not direct.
Version (B) = ... 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, connected by a complex regional system of roads.
Version (C) = ... 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms, each that had been connected by a complex regional system of roads
Use of the past perfect tense is illogical --- had been. Also, this is a wordy and awkward way to express this idea. Also, (C) subtly changes the meaning. In choices (A) & (B), it's clear that the "structures" were "connected by ... roads." Choice (C) changes the meaning, illogically suggesting that each room has its own road!! Thus, if there were a structure with 600 rooms, this structure would have 600 road coming into it? The ancient Anasazi were not building complex highway interchange ramps!! That is 100% illogical, as well as a very different meaning from what is expressed clearly in the prompt.

For all these reasons, (C) is irredeemably incorrect.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hello Mike

Can you please elaborate on how you concluded that "of" will refer to "Scale" while "with" will refer to "settlements".
if it is some detailed concept can you please share the link

Thankyou

Q: The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, were connected by a complex regional system of roads.

Dissect the original sentence:
Clause: The Anasazi settlements..were built...
Sub-clause: (HOW?) with more than 75... were connected..roads.
Here, "were" is extra auxiliary verb and does not point to any subject. Therefore "were" is unnecessary.

A. with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, were - Incorrect as per the explanation above.
B. with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, - CORRECT. Eliminates the redundant "were". The sentence overall has just 1 verb "were built" and 1 subject "The Anasazi settlements"
C. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms, each that had been - "each.." should modify "600rooms". Use of past perfect "had been" is unwarranted, as there is no sequencing needed. This choice implies "were built" and "had been connected" happened one after the other. NO. The sentence is simply giving info on settlements. No need for sequencing.
D. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms and with each - There is a parallelism error here. The sentence now reads "The Anasazi settlements were built...and with each connected". The "settlements" were not "connected", it was the "structures" that were connected.
E. of more than 75 carefully engineered structures of up to 600 rooms each had been - This choice again does not have any verb. It is a run-on sentence.

In answer B,

The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale, with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, connected by a complex regional system of roads.

The idea of the sentence is to describe the scale:
1. first modifier "with more than 75 carefully engineered structures" modifies scale
2. second modifier "of up to 600 rooms each" modifies the noun "structures"
3. third modifier "connected by a complex regional system of roads" modifies the noun "structures" too.


My question is, isn't the sentence ambiguous because "connected by a complex regional system of roads" could illogically modify "600 rooms each"?
Theoretically, noun modifier modifies the noun that immediately precedes it.

Why does the third modifier "connected by a complex regional system of roads" clearly modify "structures" instead of "rooms?

Thank you.

Dear chaojie,
I'm happy to respond.

The structure "of up to 600 rooms each" is set off on both ends by commas, because it is an aside, an extra comment. It would also work to set it off with two em-dashes

The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale, with more than 75 carefully engineered structures---of up to 600 rooms each---connected by a complex regional system of roads.

The whole nature of an aside is that it's a kind of interruption in the flow of the sentence, and to understand the logical flow of the larger sentence, we have to pretend that the aside is not there.

The Anasazi settlements at Chaco Canyon were built on a spectacular scale, with more than 75 carefully engineered structure connected by a complex regional system of roads.

That sentence is 100% unambiguous, and it remains so when we insert the aside. One has to remember that the aside is an extra add-on that interrupts the normal flow of the sentence.

This is an extremely sophisticated grammatical structure about which you have asked here. To get experience with these more sophisticated structures, it is essential to develop a habit of reading. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/how-to-im ... bal-score/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

I am not clear about the use of scaled of and scaled with

"Scale of " is used to compare the sizes of two objects (generally a copy with the original).

This drawing has been made in a scale of 1 to 10..... implies 1 cm on the drawing is equivalent to 10 cm real distance.

Another usage could be as follows:

How would you rate my answer on a scale of 1 to 10? .... implies you have to evaluate my answer with a max / min possible values of 1/10.

However in the subject question, the word " scale" is used in a different way - to convey the meaning "size". Therefore "scale of" is not correct.
(The preposition "with" has no bearing with the word "scale" whatsoever.)