Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
02 Mar 2022, 00:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
67% (01:20) correct
33%
(01:24)
wrong
based on 369
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A famed alchemist in the early sixteenth century, Paracelsus' contributions to modern science included the rudiments of what later became toxicology as well as the name of the element zinc.
A) A famed alchemist in the early sixteenth century, Paracelsus' contributions to modern science included
B) Paracelsus's famous alchemical contribution to modern science in the early sixteenth century included
C) Paracelsus was a famed alchemist in the early sixteenth century including in his contributions to modern science
D) Paracelsus, a famed alchemist in the early sixteenth century, his contributions to modern science included
E) Paracelsus, the famous early sixteenth century alchemist, made contributions to modern science, including
02 Mar 2022, 00:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
THE PROMPT
Paracelsus was a famous alchemist in the early 1500s whose contributions to modern science include (1) the basic elements of what is now toxicology, and (2) the name of the element zinc.
("Alchemist"? If you do not know a word in any verbal question, save perhaps in RC when you stare at some horrible technological jargon that is clearly not a vocabulary word, look up that word. An alchemist practiced alchemy. The word alchemy is defined here. I am never sure whether to think of alchemy as cool or crazy.)
THE OPTIONS
→ a person's contributions are not "a famed alchemist." (An alchemist is a person.)
→ The first part of this sentence is called an appositive, which is explained efficiently on this site, here.
That appositive, a famed alchemist, must refer to Paracelsus himself, not to his contributions.
Eliminate A.
→ The non-underlined portion of the sentence discusses more than one contribution.
Saying "contribution" is both illogical and inelegant.
• nonsensical: what, exactly, is "modern science in the early sixteenth century"?
• slightly confusing because it describes his contributions as both famous and alchemical.
We want to say that Paracelsus himself was a famous alchemist, not label his contributions as both "famous" and "alchemical."
Eliminate B.
→ The phrasing in pink, including in his contributions to modern science is logically unsound because it sounds as though Paracelsus consciously chose, before modern science arrived, which contributions to modern science he would make.
I really dislike this answer, but to be conservative, I will keep it and look for an answer better than this one.
KEEP, tentatively
→ Strip the sentence.
Paracelsus . . ., his contributions to modern science included XYZ and ABC.
The subject of the first clause is Paracelsus. The sentence contains no verb for him. Fatal
(The subject of the second clause is contributions, whose verb is included.)
• Very close to a comma splice: this option tries to "stick" two wanna-be sentences together with nothing more than a comma.
→ To join two independent clauses that are logically related to each other, we have five choices (and the fifth is fairly rare):
1. COMMA + CONJUNCTION (often and, but, or)
2. SEMICOLON (by itself)
3. SEMICOLON + conjunctive adverb (such as consequently or however) after the semicolon
4. A period.
5. A colon.
Notice that "a comma by itself without a conjunction" is NOT a possibility.
This option is not quite a comma splice because the first part is not a full clause, but its error is similar and similarly ungrammatical.
→ Run-on: The dictator is barbaric his army slaughters children and fires at nuclear reactors. ← ← TWO complete sentences not separated at all.
→ Comma splice: The dictator is barbaric, his army slaughters children and fires live rounds at nuclear reactors. ← ← TWO complete sentence, separated by only a comma. (Not allowed.)
→ Correct, semicolon joins: The dictator is barbaric; his army slaughters children and fires live rounds at nuclear reactors.
→ Correct, comma plus conjunction: The dictator is barbaric, for his army slaughters children and fires live rounds at nuclear reactors.
Option D is a hot mess.
Eliminate D.
• Paracelsus, the famous early sixteenth century alchemist = noun + appositive phrase, a structure that correctly identifies the man himself as the famous alchemist.
• we have a direct and active verb structure.
"Paracelsus … made contributions to modern science": the core of the sentence has a clear, concise, efficient structure.
• the modifier is simple and effective.
That is, "including," introduces the rest of the sentence in a simple, sleek, and elegant manner.
• FAQ: doesn't COMMA + INCLUDING modify the entire previous clause somehow?
→ No. Including is an exception to participle [verbING] rules.
→ TAKEAWAY: Including is not a "normal" present participle (verbING) word.
Including is typically considered a preposition (look here at its definition) that modifies nouns; that must be followed by nouns; and that can be thought of as meaning "for example."
Option E is far superior to option C (the one I conservatively kept): option E contains clear structure and meaning, whereas option C makes it sound as though Paracelsus himself intended to include his contributions to modern science.
How can a person compel the future to include specific contributions?
Answer: he cannot. It may turn out that history and science collide in favor of the contributions of Paracelsus—but he cannot will that matter.
The best answer is E.
COMMENTS
I am glued to news—recording different channels, switching tabs between laptops, scribbling notes that are driven by my ever-present writer's instinct . . . as if words could make sense.
Still, we must try.
Enforced silence and inaction are the enemies of peace.
The atrocities defy description.
We can all help.
Click on the link in my signature.
My thoughts are with Ukrainians and their loved ones everywhere.
THE PROMPT
Quote:
• Meaning?
Paracelsus was a famous alchemist in the early 1500s whose contributions to modern science include (1) the basic elements of what is now toxicology, and (2) the name of the element zinc.
("Alchemist"? If you do not know a word in any verbal question, save perhaps in RC when you stare at some horrible technological jargon that is clearly not a vocabulary word, look up that word. An alchemist practiced alchemy. The word alchemy is defined here. I am never sure whether to think of alchemy as cool or crazy.)
THE OPTIONS
Quote:
• Modifier error
→ a person's contributions are not "a famed alchemist." (An alchemist is a person.)
→ The first part of this sentence is called an appositive, which is explained efficiently on this site, here.
That appositive, a famed alchemist, must refer to Paracelsus himself, not to his contributions.
Eliminate A.
Quote:
• contribution should be plural contributions
→ The non-underlined portion of the sentence discusses more than one contribution.
Saying "contribution" is both illogical and inelegant.
• nonsensical: what, exactly, is "modern science in the early sixteenth century"?
• slightly confusing because it describes his contributions as both famous and alchemical.
We want to say that Paracelsus himself was a famous alchemist, not label his contributions as both "famous" and "alchemical."
Eliminate B.
Quote:
• Serious construction, diction, and style problem, but not quite ungrammatical
→ The phrasing in pink, including in his contributions to modern science is logically unsound because it sounds as though Paracelsus consciously chose, before modern science arrived, which contributions to modern science he would make.
I really dislike this answer, but to be conservative, I will keep it and look for an answer better than this one.
KEEP, tentatively
Quote:
• the case of the missing verb
→ Strip the sentence.
Paracelsus . . ., his contributions to modern science included XYZ and ABC.
The subject of the first clause is Paracelsus. The sentence contains no verb for him. Fatal
(The subject of the second clause is contributions, whose verb is included.)
• Very close to a comma splice: this option tries to "stick" two wanna-be sentences together with nothing more than a comma.
→ To join two independent clauses that are logically related to each other, we have five choices (and the fifth is fairly rare):
1. COMMA + CONJUNCTION (often and, but, or)
2. SEMICOLON (by itself)
3. SEMICOLON + conjunctive adverb (such as consequently or however) after the semicolon
4. A period.
5. A colon.
Notice that "a comma by itself without a conjunction" is NOT a possibility.
This option is not quite a comma splice because the first part is not a full clause, but its error is similar and similarly ungrammatical.
→ Run-on: The dictator is barbaric his army slaughters children and fires at nuclear reactors. ← ← TWO complete sentences not separated at all.
→ Comma splice: The dictator is barbaric, his army slaughters children and fires live rounds at nuclear reactors. ← ← TWO complete sentence, separated by only a comma. (Not allowed.)
→ Correct, semicolon joins: The dictator is barbaric; his army slaughters children and fires live rounds at nuclear reactors.
→ Correct, comma plus conjunction: The dictator is barbaric, for his army slaughters children and fires live rounds at nuclear reactors.
Option D is a hot mess.
Eliminate D.
Quote:
• I do not see any errors
• Paracelsus, the famous early sixteenth century alchemist = noun + appositive phrase, a structure that correctly identifies the man himself as the famous alchemist.
• we have a direct and active verb structure.
"Paracelsus … made contributions to modern science": the core of the sentence has a clear, concise, efficient structure.
• the modifier is simple and effective.
That is, "including," introduces the rest of the sentence in a simple, sleek, and elegant manner.
• FAQ: doesn't COMMA + INCLUDING modify the entire previous clause somehow?
→ No. Including is an exception to participle [verbING] rules.
→ TAKEAWAY: Including is not a "normal" present participle (verbING) word.
Including is typically considered a preposition (look here at its definition) that modifies nouns; that must be followed by nouns; and that can be thought of as meaning "for example."
Option E is far superior to option C (the one I conservatively kept): option E contains clear structure and meaning, whereas option C makes it sound as though Paracelsus himself intended to include his contributions to modern science.
How can a person compel the future to include specific contributions?
Answer: he cannot. It may turn out that history and science collide in favor of the contributions of Paracelsus—but he cannot will that matter.
The best answer is E.
COMMENTS
I am glued to news—recording different channels, switching tabs between laptops, scribbling notes that are driven by my ever-present writer's instinct . . . as if words could make sense.
Still, we must try.
Enforced silence and inaction are the enemies of peace.
The atrocities defy description.
We can all help.
Click on the link in my signature.
My thoughts are with Ukrainians and their loved ones everywhere.
02 Mar 2022, 01:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
My answer is (E). It took me 01:32.
(A) "A famed alchemist" cannot modify (Or: be appositive for) "Paracelsus' contributions".
(B) Two areas that are concerning but I won't eliminate it right away.
1) Should "famous" modify the person or the contribution?
2) "modern science in the early sixteenth century"? The location of "in the early sixteenth century" is rather odd.
(C) "the early sixteenth century including" does not make sense. "including" should be used after a noun that provides an overview of the items after "including": "authors including ..", "problems including ...", "contributions including..." and so on.
(D) Double subjects.
(E) Much better version than (B).
(A) "A famed alchemist" cannot modify (Or: be appositive for) "Paracelsus' contributions".
(B) Two areas that are concerning but I won't eliminate it right away.
1) Should "famous" modify the person or the contribution?
2) "modern science in the early sixteenth century"? The location of "in the early sixteenth century" is rather odd.
(C) "the early sixteenth century including" does not make sense. "including" should be used after a noun that provides an overview of the items after "including": "authors including ..", "problems including ...", "contributions including..." and so on.
(D) Double subjects.
(E) Much better version than (B).
