Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el

gupta,
I am afraid I couldn't get your point.
The part that follows the first 'that' is the subject of the relative clause. It is not a modifier contained within commas or dashes. There is no reason to remove it. If we remove the subject itself, then how will the pronoun have an antecedent?
_________________

Hey, taking a couple steps back there's a good deal to learn here. A couple points:

1) Remember that clarity of meaning is a big emphasis with the error types that the GMAT tests. And here that extra "that" is there to make the meaning crystal clear, that the "and" connects two things that the evidence suggests:

We've found evidence that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal *and* that (the elephant's) trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

Without that extra "that" it's easy for the reader to see two nouns separated by "and" and see them both as objects, both as things that the elephant descended from. For example, if I were to say "DNA tests suggests that I descended from Irish immigrants and my wife's family is from Sweden" - here you can read it as I descended from two family tree branches (Irish immigrants and my wife's family, which would be a little unnerving) or that two groups (me and my wife's family) have taken DNA tests. (Then the portion "is from Sweden" stands as a fragment, but it makes you go back and re-read to unpack which two things are connected by "and" and that slows the reader down and causes confusion). A "that" after "and" makes it clear that DNA tests suggest two things - one about me and one about my wife's family.

ALSO note that in the SC problem we're talking about there's an "its" right after "and" in some choices. This is another place where clarity can be very helpful. Does "its" mean "the elephant's" or "an aquatic animal's"? With the "that" in place in choice (E), it makes it parallel with "the elephant's":

Evidence suggests 1) that the elephant... and 2)that its

That parallelism signals that both portions of "the evidence suggests" are about the elephant, thereby removing potential confusion about what "its" refers to.

2) So keep in mind that parallel structures in these kinds of constructions exists to ensure clear meanings particularly when you have lots of nouns in a sentence and a tiny connector like "and" or "or" (and potentially some pronouns, too). Parallel structure isn't just a random piece of grammar that the GMAT arbitrarily decided to test - the GMAT tests it because it adds a "reading comprehension" logical component to SC. Which brings me to:

3) One place we love teaching students to look for decision points on SC is anywhere you see a coordinating conjunction (and, or, but, etc.) followed by a structural word like "that," "which," "to," etc. Those are great signals that you're likely dealing with a parallel structure issue, and help point you back to the other parallel structural word - if I see "and that" I'm immediately going back to find a previous "that" so that I can investigate for parallelism and clarity of meaning. If I see "or which" it's the same thing...where's that other "which" so that i can assess? Sometimes (like here) those construction show up in an answer choice, but other times they appear far from the underlined portion. And *that's* where they can be all the more crucial (I'm struggling to find a link to my favorite example of this but I'll grab it and drop it in here via edit function).
_________________

Hi my honorable experts MartyMurray, DmitryFarber, AjiteshArun, GMATNinja, ccooley.
This question makes me confused!



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!
_________________

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.
_________________

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.

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.
_________________

Easy question but I still went wrong with the suggesting word in C and to suggest in E

Posted from my mobile device

Both suggesting and to suggest are possible here. The had descended and the with its trunk originally evolved definitely go against option C though.
_________________

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!

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!

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).
_________________

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

snigdha wrote


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.
_________________

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?

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)
_________________

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!
_________________