Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
Updated on: 16 Oct 2018, 22:13
Originally posted by perfectstranger on 01 Aug 2008, 14:40.
Last edited by Bunuel on 16 Oct 2018, 22:13, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 16 Oct 2018, 22:13, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
72% (01:57) correct
28%
(02:15)
wrong
based on 10765
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here
(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
(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
(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
(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
Verbal Question of The Day: Day 57: Sentence Correction
Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here
Show Spoilernytimes article
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/14/science/science-watch-perishable-pesticides.html
Several years ago corn farmers in the Middle West complained to the United States Department of Agriculture that certain chemically related insecticides and herbicides had become ineffective. The chemicals included insecticides used to control corn rootworm and herbicides used against nut sedge and certain grasses.
Donald D. Kaufman, a microbiologist with the Federal agency's Agricultural Research Service, has examined hundreds of soil samples and various types of pesticides, and has found that populations of known pesticide-degrading microbes are much higher in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in chemical-free soils. And when he mixed chemically similar pesticides into soil samples, he found that they generally broke down faster in soils on which similar pesticides had been used in the past.
Several years ago corn farmers in the Middle West complained to the United States Department of Agriculture that certain chemically related insecticides and herbicides had become ineffective. The chemicals included insecticides used to control corn rootworm and herbicides used against nut sedge and certain grasses.
Donald D. Kaufman, a microbiologist with the Federal agency's Agricultural Research Service, has examined hundreds of soil samples and various types of pesticides, and has found that populations of known pesticide-degrading microbes are much higher in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in chemical-free soils. And when he mixed chemically similar pesticides into soil samples, he found that they generally broke down faster in soils on which similar pesticides had been used in the past.
18 Jul 2017, 21:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
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.
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).
But as usual: the GMAT doesn't really care what any of us think. Let's solve this SOB.
Quote:
"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:
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) 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:
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:
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).
(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. --- Can't lay hands on this choice. The topic is split with a semicolon, a sensible thing to do in such cases.
(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. -----The participial modifier - If used repeatedly- should modify pesticides and not one 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. -----------The participial modifier - If used repeatedly- should modify pesticides and not one reason
(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.----- The sentence is a run –on. The second part of the topic, going after - if used repeatedly – is dangling loosely without a connector such as that or a semicolon. Hence, wrong
(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---- As in D, a connector as –that- is essential between reason and certain.
(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. -----The participial modifier - If used repeatedly- should modify pesticides and not one 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. -----------The participial modifier - If used repeatedly- should modify pesticides and not one reason
(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.----- The sentence is a run –on. The second part of the topic, going after - if used repeatedly – is dangling loosely without a connector such as that or a semicolon. Hence, wrong
(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---- As in D, a connector as –that- is essential between reason and certain.
