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 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 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 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.
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
There's a really subtle difference, but it's not likely to matter much on the GMAT.
- 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:
189 posts
