aaba wrote:
Archaeologists, architects, and civil engineers trying to repair the 2,500- year-old architectural wonder known as the Parthenon are still struggling to understand several aspects of its genius: the flawless proportions and balance, the remarkable precision that should have been impossible to achieve without modern tools, and its rapid construction in less than ten years
A the remarkable precision that should have been impossible to achieve without modern tools, and its rapid construction in less than ten years
B the remarkable precision that should have been impossible to achieve without modern tools, and it was rapidly constructed in less than ten years
C the remarkable precision should have been the remarkable precision [THAT?]should have been impossible to achieve without modern tools, and in less than ten years it was rapidly constructed
D should have been impossible to achieve without modern tools was the remarkable precision, and in less than ten years its construction
E should have been impossible to achieve without modern tools was that remarkable precision, and the construction that took place in less than ten years
source: ready4gmat
aaba , would you please check Answer C and edit the prompt if the transcription is inaccurate?
It looks like a copy-and-paste error.
Priyansha7 wrote:
the flawless proportions and balance, the remarkable precision that should have been impossible to achieve without modern tools, and its rapid construction in less than ten years
What about its?
Priyansha7 , I suspect you are uncomfortable with "the . . ., the . . ., its . . ."
The sentence gives three examples of the Parthenon's architectural "genius": proportions and balance; precision; and rapid construction.
All three are nouns.
"Its construction" is okay here.
First, and by far the most important decision point, the other four answers are
clearly wrong. Truly awful. All four butcher parallelism.
Answer B:
it was rapidly constructed is not a noun
Answer C:
in less than ten years does not maintain the structure of [article - adjective - noun(s)]. In addition,
it was rapidly constructed is not a noun.
Answer D: "
should have been" . . . remarkable precision" is not parallel and is not grammatically correct.
"should have been . . . precision" needs an "it" or a "that which" before "
should have been. . . " Finally,
and in less than ten years its construction makes the
entire sentence incomplete.
Answer E:
"should have been . . . THAT remarkable precision" has the same problems as D, plus the incorrect use of "that" instead of "the."
Answer E has the trap:
the construction that took place in less than ten years. Do not fall for the trap. The phrase "construction that took place" is redundant. The phrase is similar to saying, "the occurrence that occurred." Really, you should not even get to the trap. Read the "should have been" clause, see that it is a mess, and cross off both D and E immediately.
Second, in Answer A, although
its is a possessive pronoun instead of a definite article,
its still introduces [adjective-noun] in keeping with the list of examples.
Answer A is the only sentence that maintains parallelism of exemplary nouns that describe architectural genius.
Third, in a sentence thick with description about architecture,
its is probably better than
the to introduce a very broad categorical noun, "construction." Take a look at the sentence with "the" instead of "its":
Archaeologists, architects, and civil engineers trying to repair the 2,500- year-old architectural wonder known as the Parthenon are still struggling to understand several aspects of its genius: the flawless proportions and balance, the remarkable precision that should have been impossible to achieve without modern tools, and THE rapid construction in less than ten years.
Problem? My next question is, "The construction OF WHAT? Is there something else inside the building that this author forgot to mention?"
This sentence discusses the architecture of a huge building. Many things -- pillars, walls, and gables -- underwent "construction."
Stated differently, the word "construction" as a categorical noun in this architectural-construction context could cause confusion without the modifier "its."
"Its" tells us
which construction happened in less than ten years. (Which construction? The construction of the
whole building.)
This third point is subtle. There is no rule for it. But there
is logic to it. This section requires verbal reasoning.
Hope that helps.
close
78% (01:20) correct 
