Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 11:08 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 11:08

Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Difficulty: 655-705 Levelx   Meaning/Logical Predicationx   Modifiersx   Parallelismx   Verb Tense/Formx                                    
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Jun 2017
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 26 [1]
Given Kudos: 105
Send PM
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42104 [0]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Veritas Prep Representative
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 416
Own Kudos [?]: 2946 [7]
Given Kudos: 63
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
Hi my honorable experts MartyMurray, DmitryFarber, AjiteshArun, GMATNinja, ccooley.
This question makes me confused!
Quote:
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolving as a kind of snorkel.


(A) that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolving

(B) that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving

(C) suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally evolved

(D) to suggest that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved

(E) to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved



I'm just talking about E. Here, the correct sentence is:
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
This sentence works like------
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest
a) that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal (x)
and
b) that its trunk originally evolved (y)
So, the whole sentence looks like----
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest x and y. This sentence will also be fine if I say: Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest Mr. Robert and Mr. John.
This x and y should be equivalent to some activities (like tense or clause) to make the original sentence legitimate. We can't say that ''I have found evidence to suggest pen (x) and paper (y)''. We should write the activities of 'pen and paper'. So, the complete sentence will be something like below.
I have found evidence to suggest pen is used to write something on the answer script and paper is used for making answer script.
In the above sentence, there should have a conjunction like THAT to animate the part ''I have found evidence to suggest''. So, the correct sentence will be:
I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script and paper is used for making answer script.
In the above sentence, I suggested two things simultaneously. So, if I break down the whole sentence into several parts, then the sentence will be like following.
I have found evidence to suggest THAT
1) pen is used to write something on the answer script
and
2) paper is used for making answer script.
So, if I write the above sentence into separate parts, then it'll work perfectly. Here are the separate parts of the above sentence:
1/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script.
2/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT paper is used for making answer script.

Now, if I write the sentence like below, then it'll be...
I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script and THAT paper is used for making answer script.
If I breakdown this sentence, then it'll be...
I have found evidence to suggest THAT
a) pen is used to write something on the answer script
and
b) THAT paper is used for making answer script.
So, if I write the above sentence into separate parts, then it'll NOT work perfectly. Here are the separate parts of the above sentence:
1/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script.
--->OK
2/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT THAT paper is used for making answer script.
---->NOT OK
SAME thing is happened in the original sentence of Official Guide!
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
Now, if I break down this sentence into several parts it'll be....
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that
a) the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal
and
b) that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel

So, if I write the above sentence into separate parts, then it'll NOT work perfectly. Here are the separate parts of the above sentence:
1/ Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal.
----->OK
2/ Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
-----> NOT OK (doesn't make sense to me!)

Again,
if we break down the original sentence into several parts like below, then it'll be....
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest
a) that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal (X)
b) that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel (Y)
The whole sentence is something like below....
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest X and Y.
So, the above sentence is ''SENTENCE FRAGMENT''

Correct me if my understanding is wrong, please!

Originally posted by TheUltimateWinner on 20 Jan 2019, 17:55.
Last edited by TheUltimateWinner on 26 Jan 2019, 19:00, edited 1 time in total.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5183
Own Kudos [?]: 4654 [1]
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
Expert Reply
AsadAbu wrote:
Now, if I break down this sentence into several parts it'll be....
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that
a) the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal
and
b) that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel

So, if I write the above sentence into separate parts, then it'll NOT work perfectly. Here are the separate parts of the above sentence:
1/ Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal.
----->OK
2/ Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
-----> NOT OK (doesn't make sense to me!)
Don't take the first that out of the list.

Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest (a) that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and (b) that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Apr 2016
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 17
Location: Japan
Schools: Darden '21
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
E is the best choice.

(E) to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved
But doesn't "evidence to suggest" change the meaning of the original sentence.

The intended meaning was- scientist found evidence that suggested something.
Now as per E- It means that scientist wanted to suggest something for that they found evidence..

I am sure I am missing a lot here. Please help me understand.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5183
Own Kudos [?]: 4654 [2]
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Akash777 wrote:
But doesn't "evidence to suggest" change the meaning of the original sentence.

The intended meaning was- scientist found evidence that suggested something.
Now as per E- It means that scientist wanted to suggest something for that they found evidence..

I am sure I am missing a lot here. Please help me understand.
1. You must not depend on option A for the intended meaning. That said, I think both evidence to suggest and evidence that suggests are fine, although the second that after evidence (evidence that suggests that) is awkward.

2. We should not see that portion as introducing the intention of the embryologists.

The police found no evidence to suggest that he was guilty.

does not mean

To suggest that he was guilty, the police found no evidence.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Jan 2019
Posts: 24
Own Kudos [?]: 39 [0]
Given Kudos: 53
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Human Resources
GMAT 1: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 2: 610 Q43 V31
GPA: 3.78
WE:Research (Advertising and PR)
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
Easy question but I still went wrong with the suggesting word in C and to suggest in E

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5183
Own Kudos [?]: 4654 [0]
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Sristishaw wrote:
Easy question but I still went wrong with the suggesting word in C and to suggest in E
Both suggesting and to suggest are possible here. The had descended and the with its trunk originally evolved definitely go against option C though.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 42 [0]
Given Kudos: 78
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
HI EGMAT

I just have one confusion about option E, can you please help me with it:

E. to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved

Here "is descended" is a verb while "Evolved" is a modifier, I asked myself is the trunk did the evolving, I could find myself saying NO, therefore I thought it is a past participle modifier and thus not parallel to the first statement.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5183
Own Kudos [?]: 4654 [0]
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
Expert Reply
rraman wrote:
HI EGMAT

I just have one confusion about option E, can you please help me with it:

E. to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved

Here "is descended" is a verb while "Evolved" is a modifier, I asked myself is the trunk did the evolving, I could find myself saying NO, therefore I thought it is a past participle modifier and thus not parallel to the first statement.
Evolved is a verb in this case:

... and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

Take a look at the definition of evolve here (1.1).
Manager
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2019
Posts: 69
Own Kudos [?]: 23 [0]
Given Kudos: 112
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
AjiteshArun wrote:
rraman wrote:
HI EGMAT

I just have one confusion about option E, can you please help me with it:

E. to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved

Here "is descended" is a verb while "Evolved" is a modifier, I asked myself is the trunk did the evolving, I could find myself saying NO, therefore I thought it is a past participle modifier and thus not parallel to the first statement.
Evolved is a verb in this case:

... and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

Take a look at the definition of evolve here (1.1).


Dear AjiteshArun,

I have problem with "evolved". I was wondering how "descended" and "evolved" could be parallel. One is "to be descended from" (present tense) and the other is "evolved" (past tense) - how can they be parallel?

Moreover, I don't understand the idiom "to evolve as", especially "to originally evolve as." Doesn't it mean "evolve from" a kind of snorkel? So the snorkel is its state BEFORE or AFTER the act of evolving? I also have a problem with the addition of the word "originally." Doesn't "originally" mean "from the very beginning", which implies that later on it "evolved as (?)" something else (that's not a snorkel)?

I'm very confused about this question. Please help explain. Thanks!
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5183
Own Kudos [?]: 4654 [2]
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
shabuzen102 wrote:
Dear AjiteshArun,

I have problem with "evolved". I was wondering how "descended" and "evolved" could be parallel. One is "to be descended from" (present tense) and the other is "evolved" (past tense) - how can they be parallel?

Moreover, I don't understand the idiom "to evolve as", especially "to originally evolve as." Doesn't it mean "evolve from" a kind of snorkel? So the snorkel is its state BEFORE or AFTER the act of evolving? I also have a problem with the addition of the word "originally." Doesn't "originally" mean "from the very beginning", which implies that later on it "evolved as (?)" something else (that's not a snorkel)?

I'm very confused about this question. Please help explain. Thanks!
Hi shabuzen102,

There are two elements connected by an and here, but we cannot insist that the verbs in those elements have the same tense.

that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal
and
that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

Whether we go for the past tense or the present tense is entirely a matter of meaning. For example, we cannot switch to evolves here, as that would imply that the trunk of the elephant regularly "evolves" as a kind of snorkel. Similarly, we cannot switch to was descended, as that part of the sentence introduces information about the elephant that is still true.

Evolved as a snorkel does not mean "from a snorkel". From a snorkel would mean that there was a snorkel there already and that snorkel "led to" the trunk. Evolved as a snorkel actually means the trunk (originally) evolved to fulfill the function of a snorkel. A somewhat similar example:

He originally worked as a translator. ← His first role. Note how this does not mean that he worked as a translator from the very first moment of his life.

The trunk originally evolved as a snorkel. ← The first function of the trunk was to help the animal breathe when it was under water.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2019
Posts: 69
Own Kudos [?]: 23 [1]
Given Kudos: 112
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
AjiteshArun wrote:
shabuzen102 wrote:
Dear AjiteshArun,

I have problem with "evolved". I was wondering how "descended" and "evolved" could be parallel. One is "to be descended from" (present tense) and the other is "evolved" (past tense) - how can they be parallel?

Moreover, I don't understand the idiom "to evolve as", especially "to originally evolve as." Doesn't it mean "evolve from" a kind of snorkel? So the snorkel is its state BEFORE or AFTER the act of evolving? I also have a problem with the addition of the word "originally." Doesn't "originally" mean "from the very beginning", which implies that later on it "evolved as (?)" something else (that's not a snorkel)?

I'm very confused about this question. Please help explain. Thanks!
Hi shabuzen102,

There are two elements connected by an and here, but we cannot insist that the verbs in those elements have the same tense.

that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal
and
that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

Whether we go for the past tense or the present tense is entirely a matter of meaning. For example, we cannot switch to evolves here, as that would imply that the trunk of the elephant regularly "evolves" as a kind of snorkel. Similarly, we cannot switch to was descended, as that part of the sentence introduces information about the elephant that is still true.

Evolved as a snorkel does not mean "from a snorkel". From a snorkel would mean that there was a snorkel there already and that snorkel "led to" the trunk. Evolved as a snorkel actually means the trunk (originally) evolved to fulfill the function of a snorkel. A somewhat similar example:

He originally worked as a translator. ← His first role. Note how this does not mean that he worked as a translator from the very first moment of his life.

The trunk originally evolved as a snorkel. ← The first function of the trunk was to help the animal breathe when it was under water.



Dear AjiteshArun,

Thank you for your response. If that's the case, then does that mean in general, it's ok to construct a parallel structure that has two clauses in two different tenses? Thanks!
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5183
Own Kudos [?]: 4654 [1]
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
shabuzen102 wrote:
Dear AjiteshArun,

Thank you for your response. If that's the case, then does that mean in general, it's ok to construct a parallel structure that has two clauses in two different tenses? Thanks!
Hi shabuzen102,

Yes, it is. :)

We should check how appropriate the tenses are (instead of making them the same no matter what else gets compromised in the process).
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Jul 2018
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 24
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
Hi,
I m confused over one thing now. When do we use ",and" structure. Because here after 'and' also we have sub & verb which makes it independent clause.

And according to me, to separate 2 ICs, we need comma before 'and'.

Please help

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42104 [0]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Top Contributor
snigdha wrote
Quote:
Hi,
I m confused over one thing now. When do we use ",and" structure. Because here after 'and' also we have sub & verb which makes it independent clause.

And according to me, to separate 2 ICs, we need comma before 'and'.


First thing is that what you assume as ICs are not ICs indeed. You seem to have ignored the subordinate conjunction 'that in front of both the clauses. You know well that when you place a subordinate conjunction in front of an IC, it becomes a DC. In fact, what you have on either side of the parallel marker 'and' are only two DCs.
A comma before 'and' is not the prerogative of an IC. Even in a list that contains more than two items,one uses comma plus 'and' even though the items of the list may not be ICs. Eg -Tom, Dick, and Harry - here we have three nouns but a comma plus and.
Similarly when there are two short ICs joined by a conjunction, we may not use a comma before 'and'
I went to the US last Monday and Trump went to Iceland on the same day. In this case, even though what follows and is an IC, still we do not use the comma.

The structure of a sentence is a primary prerequisite and the foundation of SC.

Originally posted by daagh on 16 Sep 2019, 07:34.
Last edited by daagh on 16 Sep 2019, 09:52, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 294
Own Kudos [?]: 398 [1]
Given Kudos: 120
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
1
Kudos
GMATNinja daagh.

I have a very basic query here. My thought process went this way.

I found evidence to suggest that earth is big.
Meaning:- I already know that the earth is big and was looking for evidence to suggest the same.

I found evidence that suggested that earth is big,

Meaning :- Evidence did the act of suggesting and I may or may not have any opinion about the size of the earth.

Is "evidence to suggest" correct with this line of thinking?
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42104 [3]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Top Contributor
ArtVandaley

If I have understood your query in the right perspective, both 'evidence to suggest' and 'evidence that suggests' mean the same thing. In both cases 'evidence' is the agent that is the doer of the action that follows in the form of either an infinitive 'to suggest' or a relative clause 'that suggests/suggested'. In essence, the noun 'evidence' is the object of the verb 'found' and the rest is all a modifier phrase that modifies the noun 'evidence'.

We can see a large number of examples of these kinds of infinitive usage

Jill advised Jack not to dance on the mountain trail.

Kohli asked the fieldsmen to hit the stumps with every ball they stopped.

Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than be confined to a hotel (official example)
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63672 [1]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
ArtVandaley wrote:
GMATNinja daagh.

I have a very basic query here. My thought process went this way.

I found evidence to suggest that earth is big.
Meaning:- I already know that the earth is big and was looking for evidence to suggest the same.

I found evidence that suggested that earth is big,

Meaning :- Evidence did the act of suggesting and I may or may not have any opinion about the size of the earth.

Is "evidence to suggest" correct with this line of thinking?

100% agreement with the incomparable daagh here. Neither construction ("to suggest" or "that suggests") gives us a clear indication of what the person/people who found the evidence knew or believed prior to finding the evidence, so I wouldn't use that as a decision point at all (for more on that point, check out this post).

Choice (A) has a parallelism issue, so we can rule it out without worrying about "to suggest" vs "that suggests." And that's pretty typical of the GMAT: you might see a choice between two different constructions, but that's doesn't mean that one is right and the other is wrong. Sometimes, both are acceptable, and you'll want to look for other things.

I hope this helps!
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el [#permalink]
   1   2   3   4   5   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne