In A and C, it looks as if the pilots are some kind of checklists. When we are comparing the doctor's action, isn't it required that we must equip the second arm also with a verb such as do? The standard answer for this question is that the verbal action for the second arm is elided. Still, it is not satisfactory.



Before going into more complicated things, can someone kindly tell me in B, D, and E, which pilot is using which checklists to greatly reduce medical errors?

It is difficult to reconcile either to the OA or to the OE.

_________________

Official Explanation

(A) This choice says that Gawande argues that doctors could use … checklists … and greatly reduce … errors, implying that the two actions are unrelated. In fact, using the checklists would lead to the reduction in errors; the sentence ought to say that doctors could use … checklists … to greatly reduce … errors. In addition, the placement of the modifier in his book is ambiguous. Logically, it ought to describe what Gawande argues throughout the book, but the placement seems to modify Gawande himself.

(B) CORRECT. By moving the verb argues closer to the subject (Atul Gawande), this sentence clarifies any ambiguity. The modifier in his book now properly describes the argument Gawande put forth in The Checklist Manifesto. Doctors could use … checklists … to greatly reduce medical errors correctly conveys that doctors’ use of checklists will lead to the reduction in medical errors.

(C) In this sentence, the modifiers greatly reducing the number of medical errors and saving both money and lives both modify doctors could use, and thus should be connected by and rather than with a comma.

(D) The parallel structure both X and Y requires the X and Y elements to be parallel. Saving money is not parallel to lives; saving should be before the word both (saving both money and lives) or it should be repeated after the word and (both saving money and saving lives).

(E) The same sort of checklists that pilots use to greatly reduce the number of medical errors sounds as though the pilots use their checklists to reduce medical errors.
_________________

Doesnot B sound like pilots use checklist to reducxe emergency errors ,where as it is the doctor who should use checklist?
What is wrong in A?

Atul Gawande, the former surgeon general, in his book, The Checklist Manifesto, argues that doctors could use the same sort of checklists as pilots and greatly reduce the number of medical errors, saving both money and lives.


A) Atul Gawande, the former surgeon general, in his book, The Checklist Manifesto, argues that doctors could use the same sort of checklists as pilots and greatly reduce the number of medical errors, saving both- usage of AND changes the meaning(use of checklists and reduce the number of medical errors are related actions)

B) Atul Gawande, the former surgeon general, argues in his book, The Checklist Manifesto, that doctors could use the same sort of checklists that pilots do to greatly reduce the number of medical errors, saving both

C) Former surgeon general Atul Gawande argues in his book, The Checklist Manifesto, that doctors could use the same sort of checklists as pilots, greatly reducing the number of medical errors, saving - Verb-ing modifiers reducing and savings are not connected properly using AND

D) Former surgeon general Atul Gawande argues in his book, The Checklist Manifesto, that doctors could use the same sort of checklists that pilots do to greatly reduce the number of medical errors, both saving - parallelism issue - both saving money and lives

E) In his book, The Checklist Manifesto, former surgeon general Atul Gawande argues that doctors could use the same sort of checklists that pilots use to greatly reduce the number of medical errors, saving


1. I narrowed to options B and E and ended up choosing E.

2. In option A and C, "that doctors could use the same sort of checklists as pilots" -- can we eliminate these options based incorrect usages of AS. (As followed by a noun is used for a role.)
Or is this ellipsis ? "that doctors could use the same sort of checklists as pilots (do)"

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , MagooshExpert , GMATGuruNY , VeritasPrepBrian , MartyMurray , DmitryFarber , daagh , ccooley , generis , other experts - please enlighten
_________________

I think B and E convey the same meaning.

Can someone please help explain what is the difference in meaning between B and E? Thanks.

Is E wrong because at last it says only saving and not saving both??

Super tricky one here.... I think this is an issue related to how helping verbs, such as DO, can sub in for lengthier verb phrases. In B, the use of DO repeats the entire verb phrase about the usage of some kind of checklist. The DO emphasises the concept of using a checklist but not the same copy of the checklist...."in the same way that pilots do (also use) [some sort of checklist]". In E, however, the lack of DO makes it sound like Gawande is arguing that doctors should "use checklists (in the same way) pilots use (checklists)" to reduce medical errors...which - echoing the OE - is illogical.
_________________

No, saving X and Y & saving both X and Y are correct. The first one is just an open marker (X and Y) and the second is closed (both X and Y). In my opinion, not a good reason for eliminating E.
_________________

There are two reasons why B is preferable to E, and they are both pretty small ones. First, in answer B the phrase 'saving both money and time' is used. This emphasizes the benefits of checklists in a way that answer E doesn't. A pretty small reason, I admit.

The second, bigger reason, is the one stated in the official explanation: "The same sort of checklists that pilots use to greatly reduce the number of medical errors sounds as though the pilots use their checklists to reduce medical errors."

Consider these examples:
(1) Vamsee wears the same trainers I do to run faster.
(2) Vamsee wears the same trainers I wear to run faster.

The first sentence shows that Vamsee is the one who wants to run faster. In the second sentence, it seems that I wear these trainers to run faster, not Vamsee. Actually, I'd say that the second example isn't great because the meaning is unclear. It's a pretty subtle difference in meaning, but it's the kind of thing to watch out for in high-level SC problems.

-- As per Sage Pearce-Higgins, ManhattanGMAT Staff

VeritasKarishma
Can you pls explain what's wrong with E

Irrespective others have pointed out. I would like to add one point regarding split infinitive 'to greatly reduce'.

Is it ok use it? daagh AjiteshArun Other experts

Hi avinashiitp,

I don't think that the GMAT will ever make a split infinitive the only reason to remove an option. I would definitely look for other errors first, and avoid removing an option only on the basis of a split infinitive. That is, I wouldn't start by removing an option that contains a split infinitive. I'd look for other, more reliable splits first.
_________________

(E) ... same sort of checklists that pilots use to greatly reduce the number of medical errors, ...

This implies that pilots use the checklists to reduce number of medical errors. This is incorrect.
We need to say that doctors can use the checklists to reduce number of medical errors.

In (B), the comparison ends at "... doctors could use the same sort of checklists that pilots do"
The rest "to greatly reduce ..." is for the doctors.
_________________

I eliminated B,D,E due to below line.
" pilots do to greatly reduce the number of medical errors"

How pilots use checklist to reduce number of medical errors. The modifier is wrongly placed here.
AjiteshArun, MentorTutoring VeritasKarishma Can you give some inputs here.

Hello, Harsh2111s. The verb do allows for a less restrictive—i.e. singular—interpretation in the above sentence, as I think is best illustrated above in the post by parekhmohil. It is not as though do automatically leads to the correct interpretation only, just that a comparison with two instances of use means that both pilots and doctors do indeed use checklists to reduce medical errors. Meaning should always be the primary consideration in SC questions. Most of the time, ambiguity is a big no-no; however, this is a case in which a lack of a dual interpretation can lead you to safely eliminate (E).

I hope that helps. This was a tough question, and the presentation is... debatable.

- Andrew
_________________

With all due respect , I still think the question is of poor quality since even B conveys as if pilots use to reduce medical errors.

VeritasKarishma

I eliminated B because I thought "Atul Gawande, a former surgeon general..." does a better job of introducing this Atul guy than "Atul Gawande, the former surgeon general..." does. Could anyone help explaining why it didn't work like that?

Yes, I understand and agree somewhat. It is a question of what is better of the given options.

After "pilots do to greatly reduce ..." I was expecting something about the pilots but upon reading "medical errors..." I understood that the comparison was over at "pilots do". We routinely use do/does in comparisons to replace previously written constructs.

But "pilots use to greatly reduce..." is a bit more unforgiving.
_________________

I rejected option B as 'the former surgeon general' seems to be important to understand the meaning of sentence and hence should not be placed between the commas (which signifies non-essential additional info). Please let me know if my understanding is correct KarishmaB AndrewN AjiteshArun