sonamlodhi89 wrote:
(D) If a tornado is of a given size and strength, a researcher claims, it is more likely, both proportionately and in absolute numbers, to cause death if it is in the southeastern region of the United States rather than in the northeastern region.
What is the error in this option?
GMATNinja egmatIf any of you can explain.
There's no clear grammatical error in (D), but if you compare it side-by-side with (A), you can see why (D) is so much more confusing.
First, here's (A) again:
Quote:
(A) A researcher claims that a tornado of a given size and strength is likely to cause more deaths, both proportionately and in absolute numbers, in the southeastern region of the United States than in the northeastern.
Pretty clear what the writer wants to communicate. A researcher is making a claim: big tornados kill more people in the southeast than in the northeast. Certainly good enough to hold on to.
Contrast that with (D):
Quote:
(D) If a tornado is of a given size and strength, a researcher claims, it is more likely, both proportionately and in absolute numbers, to cause death if it is in the southeastern region of the United States rather than in the northeastern region.
As soon as I see that first clause "If a tornado is a given size and strength..." my expectation is that this will be followed by some conditional outcome. For instance, "If a tornado is very big, it may hurl a cow into an adjacent yard where Bill Paxton is trimming his toenails."
But that's not what we get in (D). Instead we get this: "If a tornado is a given size and strength, a researcher claims," Now I'm thrown off. If a tornado is a certain size, a researcher is going to make a claim? But if there were a smaller tornado, the researcher would remain silent? That's certainly weird, but maybe not inherently wrong, so let's keep going to see
what the researcher is claiming.
Quote:
If a tornado is of a given size and strength, a researcher claims, it is more likely, both proportionately and in absolute numbers, to cause death, if it is in the southeastern region...
You can feel this sentence going off the rails a little bit, can't you? I guess the "it" refers to "tornado," so now, when we read the part in blue, we basically have the following meaning: If a tornado is big, a researcher will claim that a tornado is more likely. That seems totally incoherent. How can a tornado that already exists be likely? It just is!
You can start to get the gist of the sentence when we get to the phrase, "to cause death," but then we get another 'if' clause!
If there's a big tornado, researchers will claim that this tornado is more likely to cause deaths
if this tornado is in the southeast. Now we've got two hypotheticals to wrap our heads around. Is the researcher
claiming the second hypothetical? Or is the second hypothetical necessary for the researcher to make her initial claim?
This is when I begin to feel my brain melting.
Theoretically, can you make sense of what's happening? Sure. But this construction is awfully confusing and seems utterly incoherent without multiple reads. Inherently wrong? No. But worse than (A), which was crystal clear and logical? Without question.
The takeaway: SC isn't always about definitive errors. Sometimes it's about a side by side comparison in which you're trying to determine what's clearer or more logical.
I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @
www.gmatninja.com (
hiring!) |
YouTube |
Articles |
IG Beginners' Guides:
RC |
CR |
SC |
Complete Resource Compilations:
RC |
CR |
SC YouTube LIVE webinars:
all videos by topic +
24-hour marathon for UkraineQuestion Explanation Collections:
RC |
CR |
SC