Atul Gawande the former surgeon general in his book The Checklist

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.

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

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?

(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.

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.

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

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.

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

When we say 'essential,' we mean something that removes ambiguity in the context. When we give the name of a person, it usually identifies the person uniquely so we need nothing else.
All modifiers add to the meaning of the sentence but that doesn't make them essential. 'Essential' is the one that removes ambiguity.

My brother is coming to visit me.
(Ambiguous if I have more than one brothers)

My brother Jack is coming to visit me.
Jack is an essential appositive. So no commas. Tells us which brother. Uniquely identifies the brother.

Jack is coming to visit me.
No ambiguity

Jack, my brother, is coming to visit me.
'my brother' is a non essential appositive. Adds to the sentence but is not essential.

My brother, Jack is coming to visit me.
Again, 'my brother' is the non essential appositive. Note that 'Jack' is not the appositive. There is a comma between 'my brother' and Jack but none between Jack and 'is.'

My only brother, Jack, is coming to visit me.
'Jack' is a non essential appositive now. It tells us what the name of the subject is as an aside. 'My only brother' is enough to uniquely identify him.

When we say 'Atul Gawande' in (B), ambiguity is over. If we rename him, it will be with a non essential appositive and will need commas.

Hi YoAt,

The phrase The Checklist Manifesto is just a modifier. The subject of the clause is former surgeon Atul Gawande, and that's what's important.

1. In his book, The Checklist Manifesto, former surgeon general Atul Gawande argues...

Also, keep in mind that the trigger here is a pronoun (his), and not, for example, an introductory participle phrase.

tarun001

The phrase "non-essential" can be misleading. We call something an "essential" modifier when it is needed to narrow down who/what we are talking about. For instance, we might say "the dog standing on the couch" or "the book that I told you about." These narrow down which dog or book we mean. So "the former surgeon general" would only be an essential modifier if we thought there were several people named Atul Gawande and we were trying to clarify which one we meant. Honestly, even then we wouldn't use such a construction. For instance, there are many people named Robert Smith, but if I want to refer to the singer of the band The Cure, it's clear enough to say "Robert Smith, the singer of the The Cure, . . ."

Two more things that might help here. 1) These modifiers are also called "restrictive" and "non-restrictive," and that might make their meaning clearer. 2) This concept isn't actually tested much on the GMAT.

NoraUnoSama


No, that's not how BOTH works. It joins two nouns, but those nouns don't have to be singular. I can say "Both my parents and my coworkers tell me that I should bathe more often."

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??

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