Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Dec 1511:00 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.
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
01 Aug 2022, 00:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
himanshu0123
"could date back to 2 million years ago" and "could date back 2 million years"
These both mean the same thing: it COULD be true that this practice began 2 million years ago. 2 mya would be the first time when it occurred, so it "dates back" that far, or to that point in time. (As I've said above, just don't mix the two usages together.)
"could be dated back"
This would mean something entirely different: it COULD be possible for someone to perform the act of dating these back to 2 mya. In other words, it's not making a statement about what might actually be TRUE, but about what someone could PROVE using some technique (e.g. carbon dating). This doesn't make sense in context; the anthropologist is theorizing about what may have happened, not about dating methods.
"could date back to 2 million years ago" and "could date back 2 million years"
These both mean the same thing: it COULD be true that this practice began 2 million years ago. 2 mya would be the first time when it occurred, so it "dates back" that far, or to that point in time. (As I've said above, just don't mix the two usages together.)
"could be dated back"
This would mean something entirely different: it COULD be possible for someone to perform the act of dating these back to 2 mya. In other words, it's not making a statement about what might actually be TRUE, but about what someone could PROVE using some technique (e.g. carbon dating). This doesn't make sense in context; the anthropologist is theorizing about what may have happened, not about dating methods.
03 Aug 2022, 14:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
himanshu0123
In this question,
''could be dated back to almost two million years'' v/s ''could date back to almost two million years''
is there a difference how the expression ''date back'' can be used.
There's a really subtle difference, but it's not likely to matter much on the GMAT. ''could be dated back to almost two million years'' v/s ''could date back to almost two million years''
is there a difference how the expression ''date back'' can be used.
- If an artifact "dates back" to a certain period, we're simply describing how old the artifact is, without any reference to the people who might have determined the age.
- If an artifact "could be dated back," it implies there's some entity that could, in theory, verify the age of the artifact. In other words, there's a hypothetical person doing the dating.
Are those a little bit different? Sure. Is it an important distinction, and would the GMAT ever test you on it? Nah.
I hope that clears things up!
Moderators:
