GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Nov 2019, 18:12

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

Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
CEO
CEO
User avatar
V
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3062
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2019, 06:49
2
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.
_________________
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Aug 2019
Posts: 44
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2019, 01:59
1
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!
CEO
CEO
User avatar
V
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3062
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2019, 10:55
1
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).
_________________
Director
Director
avatar
P
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 928
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2019, 21:38
"and" is difficult word on gmat. "and" show that two entities are parallel grammatically. but for the sentence to be correct, we have to prove that two ideas presented by the two entities are parallel logically. this job is not easy. we have to understand meaning to realize two ideas are parallel. this is focus of gmat test.

without "that " , "and its trunk involved" is parallel grammatically with "scientists have found evidence". but these two ideas can not be parallel logically. instead , "its truck involved" should be parallel with "elephant is decended".

for me, non native, remember the difference between 'be descended' and "descend' is impossible .
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Jul 2018
Posts: 4
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2019, 06:21
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
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5190
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 16 Sep 2019, 09:52
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.
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't pole-vault above 630, spare 30 hours and you can fly on top.
"Winners never quit and quitters never win". (+919884544509)

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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Jul 2018
Posts: 4
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2019, 08:50
Thank you so much for the clarification sir

Posted from my mobile device
VP
VP
User avatar
D
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1286
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2019, 21:10
Notwithstanding the verb tense issues
What helped me see the answer more clearly before I pulled the trigger is realising that the evidence led the scientists to discover two distinct things:
1. Elephant descended from WA
2. Trunk originally evolved as X
_________________
Goal: Q49, V41

+1 Kudos if I have helped you
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 315
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Oct 2019, 07:02
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?
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 09 Dec 2018
Posts: 24
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3
Reviews Badge
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2019, 20:01
I think the most important thing to remember here is parallelism. Evidence suggests 2 things and E clearly defines the 2 things by having that in parallel

Posted from my mobile device
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5190
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2019, 21:52
2
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)
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't pole-vault above 630, spare 30 hours and you can fly on top.
"Winners never quit and quitters never win". (+919884544509)
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2922
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Oct 2019, 06:00
1
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/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el   [#permalink] 29 Oct 2019, 06:00

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   [ 72 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





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