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

 It is currently 11 Dec 2019, 19:39

### 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

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

# Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 05 Jun 2018
Posts: 31
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2019, 23:31
found evidence to suggest... Doesn't that means that evidence was found to suggest it. I think there is a meaning distortion here. Evidence was found and then it suggested something
Intern
Joined: 04 Aug 2018
Posts: 13
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2019, 23:38
hi,
why the use of paste perfect tense is incorrect in option D.
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2019
Posts: 59
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2019, 14:03
TommyWallach wrote:
Hey All,

I got asked to take this one on by private message, so here I am! The answer is certainly E.

Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

(A) that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved
PROBLEM: There's no reason to use a comma with a list of two things.

(B) that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving
PROBLEM: You have to say "that" after the verb "to suggest".

(C) suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally evolving
PROBLEM: The use of the past perfect tense here is incorrect, because the action isn't complete. I know it may seem like the descent has ended, but in the present, the elephant is STILL descended from an aquatic animal. That's an eternal truth. Also, using the prepositional phrase "with its trunk originally evolving" ends up modifying "an aquatic animal", when we really want to be referring to the elephant.

(D) to suggest that the elephant has descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved
PROBLEM: We don't want to change tense in parallel unless there's a significant reason ("yesterday I went to the store but today I will stay at home"). No good reason from present perfect "has descended" to past "evolved".

(E) to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved
ANSWER: "descended" and "evolved" are parallel, and everything else is clear.

Hope that helps!

-t

Dear Tommy,

I have problem with "evolved". You said in E, descended and evolved are parallel. However, 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 "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)?

Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2019
Posts: 59
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2019, 21:23
AjiteshArun wrote:
rraman wrote:
HI EGMAT

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)?

Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2019
Posts: 59
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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)?

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!
Director
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 927
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

### Show Tags

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'.

Posted from my mobile device
Retired Moderator
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5197
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

### Show Tags

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

Posted from my mobile device
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1322
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
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Senior Manager
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

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
Joined: 09 Dec 2018
Posts: 25
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2019
Posts: 1
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Nov 2019, 02:41
Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
A. that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved 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 evolving D. to suggest that the elephant has 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 please explain why "A" is wrong
Re: Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the el   [#permalink] 22 Nov 2019, 02:41

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   [ 73 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by