Last visit was: 18 Jan 2025, 06:24 It is currently 18 Jan 2025, 06:24
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Reviews
Social
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   
555-605 Level|   Comparisons|   Grammatical/Rhetorical Construction|   Meaning/Logical Predication|   Modifiers|                                    
User avatar
CEdward
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,223
Own Kudos:
225
 [1]
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,223
Kudos: 225
 [1]
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 22 Feb 2021, 18:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.


(A) Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals CORRECT

(B) If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason that certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals X
-placement of 'one reason' is wrong...one reason is not used repeatedly in the same place...that doesn't make sense...

(C) If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes are found in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than those that are free of such chemicals X
-placement of 'one reason' is wrong...one reason is not used repeatedly in the same place...that doesn't make sense...

(D) The finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals is suggestive of one reason, if used repeatedly in the same place, certain pesticides can become ineffective X
-same issue as B) and C)

(E) The finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in those that are free of such chemicals suggests one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place X
-comparison is erroneous
avatar
Soham68
avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2018
Last visit: 29 Jun 2022
Posts: 16
Given Kudos: 123
Posts: 16
Kudos: 0
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 24 Apr 2021, 09:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of
pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use
than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

I went for comparison and found that pesticide-degrading microbes in soils vs in soils, and removed option A based on that.

Can some one explain this, why this comparison is Ok?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Jan 2025
Posts: 7,212
Own Kudos:
66,554
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,881
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,212
Kudos: 66,554
 [1]
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 28 Apr 2021, 15:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Soham68
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of
pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use
than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

I went for comparison and found that pesticide-degrading microbes in soils vs in soils, and removed option A based on that.

Can some one explain this, why this comparison is Ok?
Consider a simple example that uses a similar comparison:

    Tim believes there are more rats in his basement than in his underwear drawer.

While the word "rats" only shows up once in this sentence, it's clear from context that we're comparing the number of rats in Tim's basement to the number of rats in his underwear drawer. The prepositional phrases make this clear, as they're both telling us where the rats are located. So this sentence is fine. (Though Tim should probably think long and hard about moving. :) )

There's a similar comparison in (A). Take another look.

Quote:
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.
Here, we're comparing the population of microbes in one kind of soil to the population in another kind. We don't need to repeat the phrase "population of pesticide-degrading microbes" because, as in the previous example, the prepositional phrases are playing the same role, each giving us the location of a population. Put another way, context makes it clear that we're comparing populations, so this is perfectly logical.

I hope that helps!
avatar
louis3092
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2020
Last visit: 10 Jun 2021
Posts: 6
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 07 May 2021, 06:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja


And here's the big issue: "the finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes..." We're really not talking about the "finding of microbes" -- that would refer to the act of seeing the microbes themselves. The "reason" that we're interested in is the finding that there are larger populations of microbes in some soils than in others.

And I know: that's subtle as all hell, but it definitely makes the meaning in (E) a little bit illogical. So we're left with a steaming pile of poo, otherwise known as answer choice (A).

Hi Ninja,

I really don't understand your point about answer E. If there is a finding that "there are much larger populations etc..." then those populations must have been found somewhere, physically. So, the "finding OF much larger populations..." conveys the same meaning.
Where am I getting this wrong?
Also, I don't get the difference between the meaning of "finding of" and "finding that".
avatar
louis3092
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2020
Last visit: 10 Jun 2021
Posts: 6
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 07 May 2021, 06:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmatexam439
Answer: A

(E) The finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in those that are free of such chemicals suggests one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place. -"The finding of much" is awkward. It should be "The finding that".


Why is "The finding of" awkward? What is the difference between this and "The finding that"?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Jan 2025
Posts: 7,212
Own Kudos:
66,554
Given Kudos: 1,881
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,212
Kudos: 66,554
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa Updated on: 07 Jun 2023, 08:10
Originally posted by GMATNinja on 12 May 2021, 20:18.
Last edited by GMATNinjaTwo on 07 Jun 2023, 08:10, edited 1 time in total.
fixed typo
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
louis3092
GMATNinja


And here's the big issue: "the finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes..." We're really not talking about the "finding of microbes" -- that would refer to the act of seeing the microbes themselves. The "reason" that we're interested in is the finding that there are larger populations of microbes in some soils than in others.

And I know: that's subtle as all hell, but it definitely makes the meaning in (E) a little bit illogical. So we're left with a steaming pile of poo, otherwise known as answer choice (A).

Hi Ninja,

I really don't understand your point about answer E. If there is a finding that "there are much larger populations etc..." then those populations must have been found somewhere, physically. So, the "finding OF much larger populations..." conveys the same meaning.
Where am I getting this wrong?
Also, I don't get the difference between the meaning of "finding of" and "finding that".
Consider the difference between the following two sentences:

    (1) There is substantial evidence that Tim committed the crimes in question.

    (2) There is substantial evidence of Tim, who committed the crimes in question.

In the first example, we use "that" to introduce a full clause. In other words, we have evidence of an action, namely that Tim committed a crime. Makes sense.

In the second example, we use the preposition "of" to introduce a noun, "Tim." But the noun doesn't work here. There isn't evidence of Tim himself. Rather, there's evidence that he did something, expressed as a full clause.

So when you see the split between "finding of" and "finding that" we'd ask ourselves: was there a finding of the noun itself? Or a finding of a full clause?

Because (A) contains the phrase "finding that," the finding in question is the full ensuing clause. In this case, they found that "there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals." Makes sense. They found more pesticide-degrading microbes in one kind of soil than in another.

Because (E) contains the phrase "finding of," the finding in question is the following noun, "pesticide-degrading microbes."

So our question is: which is more logical? The point of the sentence isn't that they found some pesticide-degrading microbes, as (E) conveys. It's that they found different amounts of these microbes in different soils, as (A) suggests. Therefore, the logic in (A) is better.

I hope that clears things up a bit!
avatar
parth2424
avatar
Joined: 11 Oct 2020
Last visit: 17 Dec 2021
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 122
Posts: 35
Kudos: 9
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 04 Sep 2021, 02:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
the only reason I eliminated a is that I couldn't understand how the 2 clauses are independent? Can please someone help ?

-->> Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

Independent clauses need to stand without the help of any other info. so if we say that

one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

ONE REASON OF WHAT ? how is this independent ?

can someone help please ?
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 17 Jan 2025
Posts: 5,757
Own Kudos:
4,946
 [1]
Given Kudos: 715
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,757
Kudos: 4,946
 [1]
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 04 Sep 2021, 11:25
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
parth2424
ONE REASON OF WHAT ? how is this independent ?
Hi parth2424,

An independent clause (as a unit) is a combination of a subject and predicate (verb). Look at this as a structural call, not a logical call. For example, in "Ashu took the exam and he got a good score", he got a good score is an independent clause even though he refers to a noun in the first independent clause.
avatar
AwesomeYao
avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2021
Last visit: 24 May 2022
Posts: 20
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 302
Posts: 20
Kudos: 1
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 04 Sep 2021, 16:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

Test Point: Scentence Structure

(A) Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals

(B) If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason that certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals ("If used repeatedly...“ should modify pesticides, not reason)

(C) If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes are found in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than those that are free of such chemicals (Same mistake as B)

(D) The finding (that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals) is suggestive of one reason, if used repeatedly in the same place, certain pesticides can become ineffective (Not idiomatic. Also, there is no connection between two clauses)

(E) The finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in those that are free of such chemicals suggests one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place (The "finding" should be a fact, not the population)
User avatar
Crytiocanalyst
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Last visit: 27 May 2023
Posts: 963
Own Kudos:
196
Given Kudos: 309
Posts: 963
Kudos: 196
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 04 Sep 2021, 23:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
perfectstranger
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.


(A) Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals
Even though wordy and akward however the right meaning is conveyed therefore in

(B) If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason that certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals
This gives us the meaning as though one reason is repeatedly and that's making the pesticide useless therefore out

(C) If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes are found in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than those that are free of such chemicals
What those microbes , pesticide , chemicals out

(D) The finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals is suggestive of one reason, if used repeatedly in the same place, certain pesticides can become ineffective
if used repeatitively what is not answered therefore the meaning is distorted therefore out

(E) The finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in those that are free of such chemicals suggests one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place
Similar reasoning as C

Therefore IMO A
avatar
parth2424
avatar
Joined: 11 Oct 2020
Last visit: 17 Dec 2021
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 122
Posts: 35
Kudos: 9
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 06 Sep 2021, 00:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun
parth2424
ONE REASON OF WHAT ? how is this independent ?
Hi parth2424,

An independent clause (as a unit) is a combination of a subject and a predicate (verb). Look at this as a structural call, not a logical call. For example, in "Ashu took the exam and he got a good score", he got a good score is an independent clause even though he refers to a noun in the first independent clause.


Hi Ajitesh,
So basically an independent clause should just have its OWN subject & verb.
What makes a clause an independent clause is that it has its own Subject & Verb??
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 17 Jan 2025
Posts: 5,757
Own Kudos:
4,946
Given Kudos: 715
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,757
Kudos: 4,946
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 06 Sep 2021, 05:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
parth2424
Hi Ajitesh,
So basically an independent clause should just have its OWN subject & verb.
What makes a clause an independent clause is that it has its own Subject & Verb??
Hi parth2424,

That's correct. We normally need to use context to understand a block of text. That's the "logic" I was referring to in my earlier post. If we pack everything we're trying to say into one clause, we'll probably end up with very long clause.

1. Average temperatures are rising. One reason for this is deforestation.

The second sentence (which is just one independent clause) would make little sense on its own, but we can use it as a sentence (it has its own subject-verb pair). It doesn't sound (structurally) incomplete. Of course, instead of using a full stop in the middle, we could use a semicolon as well.

2. Average temperatures are rising; one reason for this is deforestation.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 10 Jan 2025
Posts: 3,758
Own Kudos:
3,555
Given Kudos: 157
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,758
Kudos: 3,555
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 06 Sep 2021, 09:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Parth, you can watch our video on Independent and Dependent Clauses.

Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Independent and Dependent Clauses, their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
User avatar
Mck2023
User avatar
Joined: 23 Feb 2020
Last visit: 09 Jun 2023
Posts: 133
Own Kudos:
88
Given Kudos: 297
Location: Nepal
GMAT 1: 650 Q44 V35
GMAT 1: 650 Q44 V35
Posts: 133
Kudos: 88
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 30 Sep 2021, 00:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Experts,
How should one deal with this kind of question (long fully underlined SC question) in the middle of the exam? I know I can solve during practice, but during exam I do not want to spend 2 and half or more mins to solve a SC question. It will be more horrible of I could not spot an decision point. Plus, this question is 600 level and I never want to miss or skip this level of question. Is there any strategy for such questions? Please guide. Thank you!!!
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 17 Jan 2025
Posts: 5,757
Own Kudos:
4,946
 [1]
Given Kudos: 715
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,757
Kudos: 4,946
 [1]
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 30 Sep 2021, 12:42
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mck2023
Hi Experts,
How should one deal with this kind of question (long fully underlined SC question) in the middle of the exam? I know I can solve during practice, but during exam I do not want to spend 2 and half or more mins to solve a SC question. It will be more horrible of I could not spot an decision point. Plus, this question is 600 level and I never want to miss or skip this level of question. Is there any strategy for such questions? Please guide. Thank you!!!
Hi Mck2023,

Fully underlined sentences can be painful, but there will always be (individual) questions that take more time. Try to practice with an average time in mind. I recommend 60-80 seconds for SC.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Jan 2025
Posts: 7,212
Own Kudos:
66,554
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1,881
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,212
Kudos: 66,554
 [2]
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 01 Oct 2021, 12:10
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mck2023
Hi Experts,
How should one deal with this kind of question (long fully underlined SC question) in the middle of the exam? I know I can solve during practice, but during exam I do not want to spend 2 and half or more mins to solve a SC question. It will be more horrible of I could not spot an decision point. Plus, this question is 600 level and I never want to miss or skip this level of question. Is there any strategy for such questions? Please guide. Thank you!!!
Unfortunately, there's absolutely no way of knowing the difficulty level of the question on the screen, so your best bet is to stick with a consistent strategy, regardless of what a question looks like. And sure, sometimes the entire sentence is underlined, and that can be overwhelming... but you still want to start by looking for definitive errors, as explained in our SC guide for beginners and in this video.

And sometimes you don't find definitive errors in ANY of the five choices. That's a bummer, but it shouldn't change your process. Your next step is to compare the remaining choices based on meaning. Sure, that's going to be a bit harder; just do your best to find meaning-based reasons why one answer choice is better than another.

And remember: even if an option isn't technically wrong, it's always fair game to eliminate it if it isn't as logical or clear as an alternative. In other words: don't get tunnel vision when evaluating one answer choice. See how it compares to your other options.

And if after doing all of that you are STILL stuck between 2-3 choices, well, make your best guess and move on. And remember, as explained in this video, you don't need to get every question right on the GMAT.

I hope that helps a bit!
avatar
jlo1234
avatar
Joined: 27 Aug 2021
Last visit: 18 Dec 2022
Posts: 16
Given Kudos: 7
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q48 V36
GMAT 3: 710 Q47 V41
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 3: 710 Q47 V41
Posts: 16
Kudos: 0
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 01 Dec 2021, 17:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
I totally hate this question, and generally start cursing uncontrollably when my students miss it. But I'm cursing at the question -- NOT my students -- because I think the question is ridiculous.

But as usual: the GMAT doesn't really care what any of us think. Let's solve this SOB.

Quote:
(A) Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.
"One reason is suggested by the finding..." Seriously, GMAT? Who the hell writes like that?!

But remember our two-step technique from the SC Guide for Beginners: eliminate DEFINITE errors first, then look for meaning issues. I don't think that this muddy mess is DEFINITELY wrong. The semicolon correctly separates two independent clauses, and the comparison seems OK.

"One reason is suggested by the finding" is awkward and wordy, in my opinion. But that's just my opinion, and my opinion doesn't matter -- and no matter how awesome you are, neither does yours.

Keep (A), perhaps while holding your nose.

Quote:
(B) If used repeatedly in the same place，one reason that certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.
I'm comfortable getting rid of this one right away, because of that very first phrase: "if used repeatedly in one place" would need to be followed by "pesticides," not "one reason." (B) is out.

Quote:
(C) If used repeatedly in the same place，one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes are found in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than those that are free of such chemicals.
(C) has the same issue as (B), plus that comparison seems a little bit off: "much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes are found in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than those that are free of such chemicals." "Than those" would be better if it said "than in those." (C) is out.

Quote:
(D) The finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals is suggestive of one reason, if used repeatedly in the same place, certain pesticides can become ineffective.
This isn't horrible, to be honest. Well... actually, yeah it is, but so is (A). I don't think there's a DEFINITE error in (D), but the placement of "if used repeatedly in one place" is definitely suspect: it sounds like "one reason" is the thing that is used repeatedly in the same place. You basically have to re-read the whole thing to figure out that it's the pesticides that are used in one place.

More generally, I think you could make a (not super-convincing) argument that the sentence is so horrendously wordy that you lose track of the subject. "The finding (blah blah blah....) is suggestive of one reason...." In general, please be really careful with this sort of thing. Frankly, (A) is pretty wordy, too; (D) is arguably wordy enough that the meaning become unclear. That's a judgment call, and that's really not the way you want to think about SC, but it maybe adds a little bit of support to the idea that (A) is better than (D).

If you wanted to be conservative, you could keep (D), but I think that the modifier placement issue definitely tilts us toward (A). So (D) is out.

Quote:
(E) The finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in those that are free of such chemicals suggests one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place.
I actually really like the placement of "if used repeatedly in the same place" here. And I think we can make a similar (weak!) case about "wordiness" as in (D): there's a whole lot of stuff between the subject and the verb, and that makes things muddy. But again: you shouldn't be terribly convinced by arguments about "wordiness", and we should try to find something that's more solid, relating to either grammar or meaning.

And here's the big issue: "the finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes..." We're really not talking about the "finding of microbes" -- that would refer to the act of seeing the microbes themselves. The "reason" that we're interested in is the finding that there are larger populations of microbes in some soils than in others.

And I know: that's subtle as all hell, but it definitely makes the meaning in (E) a little bit illogical. So we're left with a steaming pile of poo, otherwise known as answer choice (A).

GMATNinja

In regards to choice E, isn't the meaning still logical for this choice? "Because much larger populations of microbes have been found in X than in Y, one reason is suggested as to why certain pesticides can become ineffective if used in the same place."

I think the meaning in choice E is changed slightly but isn't this changed meaning still logical? In addition, isn't the change in meaning super subtle and therefore doesn't really count as a complete change in meaning? In A it's saying that the finding is that there are more microbes in soil X than soil Y, while in E it's saying that more microbes have been found in soil X than Y. Aren't these two meaning virtually the same? In this case, why would option E be wrong when compared to A?

In addition, I've seen some discussion in the forum regarding the use of "finding" vs "finding that", however I don't think this is a definite error right? There've been plenty of cases on GMAT questions where "that" is correctly implied/omitted. Is my understanding of this "that" concept wrong?

Any expert help would be appreciated!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Jan 2025
Posts: 7,212
Own Kudos:
66,554
Given Kudos: 1,881
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,212
Kudos: 66,554
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 03 Dec 2021, 19:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jlo1234
GMATNinja

In regards to choice E, isn't the meaning still logical for this choice? "Because much larger populations of microbes have been found in X than in Y, one reason is suggested as to why certain pesticides can become ineffective if used in the same place."

I think the meaning in choice E is changed slightly but isn't this changed meaning still logical? In this case, why would option E be wrong when compared to A?
We attempted to elaborate on (A) vs (E) in this post. Check it out if you haven't already, and let us know if you still have questions?
User avatar
KittyDoodles
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2020
Last visit: 17 Jan 2025
Posts: 102
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 347
Schools: ISB '27 (A)
Schools: ISB '27 (A)
Posts: 102
Kudos: 5
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 27 Feb 2022, 13:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi AjiteshArun ,GMATNinja, KarishmaB,AndrewN, GMATGuruNY,

In Option E, doesn't the clause "certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place" modify "one reason"? Wont it be wrong meaning wise for the clause to modify one reason.

Thanks
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 14 Jan 2025
Posts: 3,503
Own Kudos:
7,135
Given Kudos: 500
Expert reply
Posts: 3,503
Kudos: 7,135
Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the sa 27 Feb 2022, 15:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Nonie94
Hi AjiteshArun ,GMATNinja, KarishmaB,AndrewN, GMATGuruNY,

In Option E, doesn't the clause "certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place" modify "one reason"? Wont it be wrong meaning wise for the clause to modify one reason.

Thanks
Good question, Nonie94. I think you might be more comfortable with the sentence if it included that:

Quote:
(E) The finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in those that are free of such chemicals suggests one reason that certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place
Now, you can see that the cluster certain pesticides can become ineffective adheres to the norms of any old embedded clause, and from if on, the sentence is simply tacking on more information in the form of a conditional. I would call the presence or absence of that more an issue of preference than one I would use to make a hard elimination. Many sentences use it, but other official questions, such as this one and those below, omit that where you might expect to see it:

1) LINK ("afford household appliances their grandparents would...")

2) LINK ("thought the insects were carrying...")

3) LINK ("it was said a squirrel could jump...")

4) LINK ("predicted the processes of modernization and rationalization would gradually undermine it...")

5) LINK ("suggesting they are too optimistic.")

6) LINK ("announced it was closing...")

My advice is to count something wrong only when you know it is wrong. It is okay to take note of doubts, but they are just that, doubts, and you should look to other points of consideration to pare down the options.

Thank you for thinking to ask. If you have further questions, by all means, please share. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7212 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts