|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 894
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
The first trenches that were cut into a 500-acre site at [#permalink]
 18 Feb 2005, 12:18
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
The first trenches that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administred complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simulaneously with but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia, in what is now southern Iraq.
A) that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but
B) that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, yields strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously with but also
C) having been cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administred complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously but
D) cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, yields strong evidence of centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arising simultaneously but also
E) cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose simultaneously with but
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1544
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
I go with "A". Don't see anything wrong with "A". Trenches have to be cut, so needs passive voice. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
DLMD wrote: rthothad wrote: I will go with 'D' how can you have "Trenches" yields? We are not talking about just "Trenches" we are talking about " The first trenches"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 894
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
hmm, various different answer... I will wait for a little longer.
Also please explain if possible even if you get wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
I'll go with E
A) wrong use of active tense(present participle) -- sounds like the arising is still ongoing
B) main error here is wrong subject verb agreement "yields"
C and D have wrong prepositional form --> simultaneously with but also...
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1544
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: I'll go with E
A) wrong use of active tense(present participle) -- sounds like the arising is still ongoing
B) main error here is wrong subject verb agreement "yields"
C and D have wrong prepositional form --> simultaneously with but also...
Paul, shudn't the first part be "trenches were cut" instead of "trenches cut"....what does it mean when it says "trenches cut"....makes it sound that trenches cut something by themselves ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
It is just 2 ways of expressing the same thing
While A introduces a restrictive clause with "that", E's form is a participial one.
For example, you can say:
The letter that was written by Eddy --> restrictive clause
The letter written by Eddy --> use of participial phrase
Either form are good and remember that "cut" is the past participle form of "to cut"
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Posts: 224
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
Problem areas highlighted bold, reasoning at the end in color.
A) that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but makes it too wordy
B) that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, yields strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously with but also Typical use is Not only But also. Makes it too verbose
C) having been cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administred complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously but The use of simultaneously with but independently of is important.
D) cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, yields strong evidence of centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arising simultaneously but also Same here
E) cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose simultaneously with but BINGO!
Well bingo makes it sound simple this one was tricky. Where do you guys get these questions?
_________________
Believe in yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Posts: 224
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: It is just 2 ways of expressing the same thing
While A introduces a restrictive clause with "that", E's form is a participial one.
For example, you can say:
The letter that was written by Eddy --> restrictive clause
The letter written by Eddy --> use of participial phrase
Either form are good and remember that "cut" is the past participle form of "to cut"
Paul,
I am still not clear about the use of Restrictive Clauses. From your previous posts, i gather that a absolute phrase can have a restrictive clause within it. In that event, are the ones I have highlighted Restrictive clauses?
The first trenches that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administred complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simulaneously with but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia, in what is now southern Iraq.
Please could you clarify. I am a little worried. I typically look out for tense, singluar plural, modifiers and the usual but haven't trained mysels for the Restrictive Clauses as yet.
Thanks
_________________
Believe in yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
You are right. Remember that
"in northern regions of the Middle East"
and
"in what is now southern Iraq"
are two prepositional phrases giving extra information on "centrally administred complex societies"
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Posts: 224
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: You are right. Remember that
"in northern regions of the Middle East"
and
"in what is now southern Iraq"
are two prepositional phrases giving extra information on "centrally administred complex societies"
Great. Thanks for the explanation.
Now just for reference and further discussion on taking these into consideration. What are the warning signs I am looking for in restrictive clauses or prepositional phrases.
1. They can be used incorrectly [Doesn't seem probable]
2. Prepositional phrases however can be used incorrectly as in their placement might be wrong nothing else. Is that correct?
I guess I need more practise of these types.
Thanks again.
_________________
Believe in yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1544
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: I'll go with E
A) wrong use of active tense(present participle) -- sounds like the arising is still ongoing
B) main error here is wrong subject verb agreement "yields"
C and D have wrong prepositional form --> simultaneously with but also...
Paul,
You said that "A" has wrong use of present participle....it uses "were arising", how do u deduce that it sounds like the arising is still going on", isn't it clearly talking abt the past ? Thx for ur help
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 993
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
I also picked (A) but realized after reading Paul's expalination.
banerjeea_98
Some useful info here:
http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/sequence.htm
I write it down here:
Present Perfect or Past Perfect
Purpose of Dependent Clause/Tense in Dependent Clause
For any purpose, use the past tense.
She has grown a foot since she turned nine.
The crowd had turned nasty before the sheriff returned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 103
Location: San Jose,USA- India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
E.
On the first look "yields" is wrong.So B and D are out.
Next look, "having been cut" sounds wrong.C is out.
A has unncessary "were arising"
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
banerjeea_98 wrote: Paul wrote: I'll go with E
A) wrong use of active tense(present participle) -- sounds like the arising is still ongoing
B) main error here is wrong subject verb agreement "yields"
C and D have wrong prepositional form --> simultaneously with but also... Paul, You said that "A" has wrong use of present participle....it uses "were arising", how do u deduce that it sounds like the arising is still going on", isn't it clearly talking abt the past ? Thx for ur help You should read about past progressive tense here: http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/tens ... essive.htm
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
The first trenches ..............have yielded strong evidence that
I think that is the key here.
I will also go with E
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1544
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: banerjeea_98 wrote: Paul wrote: I'll go with E
A) wrong use of active tense(present participle) -- sounds like the arising is still ongoing
B) main error here is wrong subject verb agreement "yields"
C and D have wrong prepositional form --> simultaneously with but also... Paul, You said that "A" has wrong use of present participle....it uses "were arising", how do u deduce that it sounds like the arising is still going on", isn't it clearly talking abt the past ? Thx for ur help You should read about past progressive tense here: http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/tens ... essive.htmThx for the link, but "A" talks abt a continuous action in the past though, not in present. It is making it sound that arising was still going on with respect to other city-states, but was happening independently. I am unable to see how "E" is better than "A", where "E" states that the action was completed in the past changing the original meaning slightly.
  Plz help
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1548
Location: Germany
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
banerjeea_98 wrote: Paul wrote: banerjeea_98 wrote: Paul wrote: I'll go with E
A) wrong use of active tense(present participle) -- sounds like the arising is still ongoing
B) main error here is wrong subject verb agreement "yields"
C and D have wrong prepositional form --> simultaneously with but also... Paul, You said that "A" has wrong use of present participle....it uses "were arising", how do u deduce that it sounds like the arising is still going on", isn't it clearly talking abt the past ? Thx for ur help You should read about past progressive tense here: http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/tens ... essive.htmThx for the link, but "A" talks abt a continuous action in the past though, not in present. It is making it sound that arising was still going on with respect to other city-states, but was happening independently. I am unable to see how "E" is better than "A", where "E" states that the action was completed in the past changing the original meaning slightly. Plz help IMO, it must be clear that the first action "have yielded" happened after the second action "arose" because otherwise they cannot find an evidence. if it uses "were arising" the two actions might overlap
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1544
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
christoph wrote: banerjeea_98 wrote: Paul wrote: banerjeea_98 wrote: Paul wrote: I'll go with E
A) wrong use of active tense(present participle) -- sounds like the arising is still ongoing
B) main error here is wrong subject verb agreement "yields"
C and D have wrong prepositional form --> simultaneously with but also... Paul, You said that "A" has wrong use of present participle....it uses "were arising", how do u deduce that it sounds like the arising is still going on", isn't it clearly talking abt the past ? Thx for ur help You should read about past progressive tense here: http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/tens ... essive.htmThx for the link, but "A" talks abt a continuous action in the past though, not in present. It is making it sound that arising was still going on with respect to other city-states, but was happening independently. I am unable to see how "E" is better than "A", where "E" states that the action was completed in the past changing the original meaning slightly. Plz help IMO, it must be clear that the first action "have yielded" happened after the second action "arose" because otherwise they cannot find an evidence. if it uses "were arising" the two actions might overlap But "have yielded" is talking abt a present action while "were arising" is talking abt a past event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1548
Location: Germany
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
banerjeea_98 wrote: christoph wrote: banerjeea_98 wrote: Paul wrote: banerjeea_98 wrote: Paul wrote: I'll go with E
A) wrong use of active tense(present participle) -- sounds like the arising is still ongoing
B) main error here is wrong subject verb agreement "yields"
C and D have wrong prepositional form --> simultaneously with but also... Paul, You said that "A" has wrong use of present participle....it uses "were arising", how do u deduce that it sounds like the arising is still going on", isn't it clearly talking abt the past ? Thx for ur help You should read about past progressive tense here: http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/tens ... essive.htmThx for the link, but "A" talks abt a continuous action in the past though, not in present. It is making it sound that arising was still going on with respect to other city-states, but was happening independently. I am unable to see how "E" is better than "A", where "E" states that the action was completed in the past changing the original meaning slightly. Plz help IMO, it must be clear that the first action "have yielded" happened after the second action "arose" because otherwise they cannot find an evidence. if it uses "were arising" the two actions might overlap But "have yielded" is talking abt a present action while "were arising" is talking abt a past event. "have yielded" started in the past and ended in the present. we dont know when it started and so it must be clear that the past event ended before the other action started. that is only clear with "arose". "were arising" would mean an ongoing event that might overlap with the other ongoing action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, Marcab, Narenn, GetThisDone
|
close
