jabhatta2
If now you are saying, the GMAT doesnt test this -- how do you eliminate the answer choices in this question ?
• "Not" can't idiomatically combine with "nor", so C is gone.
• If BOTH "X" and "Y" are ABSENT/FALSE, then you can write any of these:
neither X nor Y
not X and not Y
no X and no Y
no X or Y.
"No X
or no Y" is a totally different, and much weaker, statement—declaring only that we
don't have both of these things.
You shouldn't have to memorize any of these, by the way. These are perfectly literal use cases of Boolean-type logic; they work EXACTLY like their counterparts in the Quant section.
If you don't understand anything about the above statements, try making up Quant cases of them. E.g., you'll probably understand that these are the same...
The integer x is not prime and not even.
The integer x is not prime or even.
The integer x is neither prime nor even....and that
"The integer x is not prime OR not even" is quite different from all of these.
• B/C/D use "was not", which, as explained above, is a literal statement of "this is not a correct identification of xxxx person"—a nonsense meaning in this context.
NOTE: This kind of nuanced, heavily specialized distinction in idiomatic usage won't be tested on the current version of the GMAT either.
Most of the SC problems in the "advanced questions" book were written 20 or more years ago, when an overwhelming majority of GMAT test takers were still native English users from the United States. Among that pool, this type of thing can make valid distinctions at top levels of performance.
Such nuances VERY clearly bias the test against international test takers, however. Between 20 and 10 years ago, GMAT SC was overhauled in ways that ensured the statistically fair treatment of students from all major linguistic backgrounds. In other words, the test was revised so that it does NOT favor (or disfavor) ANY linguistic demographic,
including first-language users of English.
Among many many many other things, meeting this goal implies that SC problems must not depend on advanced/nuanced distinctions in memorized idiomatic usage, such as that between the metaphorical statement
She was no Jane Austen and the perfectly literal Boolean negation
She was not Jane Austen.