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.
03 Nov 2022, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
79% (01:21) correct
21%
(01:27)
wrong
based on 177
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Assuming that the wave aspect of quantum theory is real, several well-known physicists have poised theories with large cosmological implications in trying to obviate, or subverting, dualism of wave-particle and quantum indeterminacy.
A. trying to obviate, or subverting, dualism of wave-particle
B. tries to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
C. attempts to try and obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
D. attempts to try to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
E. attempts to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
A. trying to obviate, or subverting, dualism of wave-particle
B. tries to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
C. attempts to try and obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
D. attempts to try to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
E. attempts to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
|
03 Nov 2022, 06:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
My answer is (E). It took me 59 seconds.
I guess that "poised theories" is meant to be "posited theories"?
A. "subverting" is not parallel with "to obviate". It might be parallel with "trying", but such parallelism is not sensible.
B. Let's just say that I have never ever seen such use of "in tries to".
CD. Redundancy between "attempts" and "to try".
I guess that "poised theories" is meant to be "posited theories"?
A. "subverting" is not parallel with "to obviate". It might be parallel with "trying", but such parallelism is not sensible.
B. Let's just say that I have never ever seen such use of "in tries to".
CD. Redundancy between "attempts" and "to try".
07 Nov 2022, 14:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
question is probably categorized under easy because the errors are fairly obvious. The stimulus is testing our understanding of parallel structures.
>A) trying to obviate, or subverting, dualism of wave-particle
There are two major parallel conjunctives that are inconsistent in the original text: "Obviate, or subverting", and "dualism of wave-particle and quantum indeterminacy". The or-parallel is obviously wrong because it used an infinitive and a gerund in the same parallel list. The and-parallel also creates ambiguity in whether the the author intended to convey "the dualism of wave-particle and dualism of quantum indeterminacy", or that "dualism of wave-particle" and "quantum indeterminacy" are two separate things.
>B) tries to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
"implications in tries to..." doesn't form a coherent clause. "Implications in" must be followed by a noun.
>C) attempts to try and obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
"try and obviate" introduces a new and unnecessary parallel since "attempts" already encompasses the meaning "to try". "to try and" is idiomatically incorrect; the correct idiom is "to try to".
>D) attempts to try to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
this version fixed the "to try and" idiom but "attempts to try" redundancy is still there.
>E) attempts to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
correctly formulates 2 nested lists: "obviate, or subvert", "wave-particle dualism and quantum indeterminacy". Avoids the "attempt to try" redundancy and the "of" preposition ambiguity.
>A) trying to obviate, or subverting, dualism of wave-particle
There are two major parallel conjunctives that are inconsistent in the original text: "Obviate, or subverting", and "dualism of wave-particle and quantum indeterminacy". The or-parallel is obviously wrong because it used an infinitive and a gerund in the same parallel list. The and-parallel also creates ambiguity in whether the the author intended to convey "the dualism of wave-particle and dualism of quantum indeterminacy", or that "dualism of wave-particle" and "quantum indeterminacy" are two separate things.
>B) tries to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
"implications in tries to..." doesn't form a coherent clause. "Implications in" must be followed by a noun.
>C) attempts to try and obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
"try and obviate" introduces a new and unnecessary parallel since "attempts" already encompasses the meaning "to try". "to try and" is idiomatically incorrect; the correct idiom is "to try to".
>D) attempts to try to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
this version fixed the "to try and" idiom but "attempts to try" redundancy is still there.
>E) attempts to obviate, or subvert, wave-particle dualism
correctly formulates 2 nested lists: "obviate, or subvert", "wave-particle dualism and quantum indeterminacy". Avoids the "attempt to try" redundancy and the "of" preposition ambiguity.
