Chinese public buildings erected under a construction code of the Sung

Hi Naresh, the core of the sentence (simplifying a bit here) is:

Chinese public buildings have withstood earthquakes well because the white cedar has tensile strength of steel and the timber frame is flexible.

Simplifying further:

Chinese public buildings have withstood earthquakes well because X and Y.

So, there is only one Independent clause in the sentence: Chinese public buildings have withstood earthquakes well.

(A) used has four times the tensile strength of steel and the timber frame, incorporating

what is comma and participle modifier ", incorporating" referring to, as per rule it should represent the whole preceding clause but meaning vice ", incorporating" i think it is misplaced modifier

Hi Experts,

I have a doubt regarding the usage of does in choice E.
Quoting an example explaining the substitution :
I have more love for pies than do my brothers. OR I have more love for pies than my brothers do.
Here we used 'do' bcs 'have' is used as possession and not present perfect.
However, if 'have' is used as a perfect tense, then we must use 'has/have' in ellipses.
eg: I have been going to the gym more often than my brothers have. OR I have been going to the gym more often than have my brothers.

So, here in the choice E, what's the role of has ?
I inferred the role as a possession.

Kindly correct or validate my understanding regarding the above.

SukhdeepS
You're right about that. "Has" indicates possession, so it's perfectly fine to say "does" in E. However, that's not the only way to express the idea. Answer A does fine without a second verb.

The main problem with E is that it splices together two verb phrases with no conjunction: "the frame incorporates joints, is flexible."

Yes i read all the amazing posts regarding the errors and understood the issues. Just stuck with this point.
Thank you so much for your valuable reply. _/\_

Posted from my mobile device

Hi AndrewN

Might be a silly question , but can we connect 2 ICs by just using "and" and no comma ? While I agree that separating the 2 ICs in this case may place them in a different framework, but I just wasn't comfortable with option A connecting 2 ICs with just an "and".

Good question, Namangupta1997. Notice, first, that in the sentence at hand, those apparent independent clauses operate with a branching because (or subordinating) framework:


In other words, to keep things basic, Chinese public buildings have withstood earthquakes well because X and Y. The length of the two arms could just as easily have steered the sentence into another iteration with a comma between the two independent clauses. We would expect the word because to make an additional appearance for clarity:

Chinese public buildings... have withstood earthquakes well because the white cedar used... , and because the timber frame... is flexible.

Even without a second because, the comma could still be used to separate the two arms. This question goes to show that you cannot be too prescriptive with commas.

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

EMPOWERgmatVerbal can you please share your analysis on this question, finding it difficult to approach

Hello Rickooreo,

Although your question is not for me, please allow me to help you with this one. 😊

The best way to approach this question, actually, every single SC question, is to start by understanding the meaning conveyed by the sentence. So, let’s just do so.

• Chinese public buildings
o erected under a construction code of the Sung dynasty
• have withstood earthquakes well…

The sentence begins by saying that those public buildings in China that were built under the construction guidance of the Sung dynasty have very well tolerated earthquakes. Pretty simple meaning here.
• because
o the white cedar used has four times the tensile strength of steel and
o the timber frame, incorporating many joints and few nails, is flexible.

This part of the sentence presents two reasons for the fact stated in the first part of the sentence. Why have some Chinese public buildings withstood earthquakes well? TWO reasons:
1. They have been built with white cedar. The specialty of white cedar: It is four times stronger than steel.
2. They have been built with timber frame. The specialty of timber frame: The frame has many joints and few nails. So, it is pretty flexible.

So, the sentence contains all pieces of information we need to understand why some Chinese buildings have tolerated earthquakes well.

Now, that you understand the meaning of the sentence, it will be much easier for you to solve this question. I can certainly explain all the answer choices to you; however, I would love to solve this question by yourself and appreciate the excellence of this question. Moreover, the learning you will gain while solving this question will help you improve your SC ability. So, just go for it.

In case you need help with this one, view this e-GMAT video to understand which trap has been employed in this difficult question and how to avoid that trap: https://success.e-gmat.com/chinesebuildings

Additional resources: Liked out meaning-based approach to this question? Here is the link to our live session in which we teach how to apply this approach to difficult OG questions: https://www.loom.com/share/d33ea09150a64f7da65d3b419d3fb355

Try your hand on another question to cement this process. You will simply love solving this question with this approach: https://success.e-gmat.com/LeafySpurge


Hope this helps.
Please feel free to ask any follow-up questions you may have on anything SC.
Happy Learning!!
SHraddha

Hi SHraddha, egmat

Thankyou for the detailed solution. Appreciate your time and inputs.
I see that you have also shared links of video for improving accuracy in meaning based problems. I am particularly facing the issue in meaning based questions. My gmat is scheduled in 1st week of september. Can you please suggest how can I improve meaning based. I will be definitely be watching this video, anything more that I need to do according to you

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that the white cedar used in the buildings has four times the tensile strength of steel and the timber frame, and the timber frame is flexible because it incorporates many joints and few nails.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Grammatical Construction + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “incorporating” in this case) after a comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
• If a list has only two elements, they must be joined with a conjunction.

A: Correct.
1/ This answer choice uses the phrase "of steel", conveying the intended meaning - that the white cedar used in the buildings has four times the tensile strength of steel.
2/ Option A avoids the grammatical construction error and meaning errors seen in Option A, as it uses the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "incorporating" in this sentence)", conveying the intended meaning - that the timber frame is flexible because it incorporates many joints and few nails; remember, the introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “incorporating” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
3/ Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B:
1/ This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "of steel has"; the construction of this phrase produces an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the white cedar used in the buildings has four times the tensile strength of steel.
2/ Option B uses the needlessly wordy phrase "used in them", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: Trap.
1/ This answer choice uses the needlessly wordy phrase "that was used in them", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

D: Trap.
1/ This answer choice incorrectly uses a comma to join two elements in a list - "incorporates many joints and few nails" and "is flexible", producing an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the timber frame is flexible because it incorporates many joints and few nails; remember, if a list has only two elements, they must be joined with a conjunction.
2/ Option D uses the needlessly wordy phrase "that was used", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

E:
1/ This answer choice incorrectly uses a comma to join two elements in a list - "incorporates many joints and few nails" and "is flexible", producing an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the timber frame is flexible because it incorporates many joints and few nails; remember, if a list has only two elements, they must be joined with a conjunction.
2/ Option E uses the needlessly wordy phrase "that was used", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Comma Plus Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Hi experts,

I omitted the crucial comma in choice C. This reckless was due to
1. I believed I got the intended meaning after reading the orginal sentence and choice C, if read quickly, really expresses that meaning;
2. the awkward phrase 'has four times the tensile strength OF steel' in A => making C the only viable choice left. In my thinking process, the woods (white cedar) have 4 times strength ... compared to what??? Hence, to have a comparison, we need an object. For example, Woods have 4 strength (THAT) steal HAS; or Woods have 4 times strength AS steal HAS/DOES.

So my question is whether it is correct to say: "cedar has 4 times strength of steal" or we would need a comparison after. Thanks

Hey tinbq

Happy to help you with this.

Let's compare choices A and C:

A: the white cedar used has four times the tensile strength of steel
C: the white cedar that was used in them has four times the tensile strength steel has

Choice C is a classic example of how Verbosity and Redundancy are tested in GMAT SC. See if you can count the number of wordier phrases in choice C:

1. "used" vs "that was used" - Adjectives/modifiers describing "the white cedar" - Example of Verbosity
2. " _ " vs "in them" - Unnecessary repetition of the phrase "in them" after the passive verb "was used" - Example of Redundancy
3. "of steel" vs "(that) steel has" - Adjectives/modifiers describing "strength" - Example of Verbosity and unnecessary Complexity

I hope you see from the above how choice A is a more succinct version of choice C.


Coming to your question on "comparison":

It appears you're putting grammar before meaning. We need to stop over-emphasizing grammatical structures and start appreciating the meaning of various kinds of phrases in English. For instance:

• What is the meaning of "tensile strength of steel"? It simply means the "tensile strength that steel has or possesses".
• Now, say the "tensile strength of steel" = X units.
• The author wishes to say that white cedar has/possesses 4X.

That's it!

So, I hope you see that choice C doesn't have any technical grammatical error. It's merely an example of inefficient communication.

I hope this helps improve your understanding.


Happy Learning!

Abhishek

Hello tinbq,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, when making comparisons, repeated verbs can be omitted for the sake of conciseness.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Can we say that them in the option C can refer to both earthquakes or buildings? As per my understanding, 'them' logically refers to buildings only. GMATNinja please explain

The biggest problem with (C) is that the pronoun “them” is ambiguous -- it could refer to “earthquakes” or “buildings.” That’s not an absolute crime, but (A) avoids that issue entirely.

Yes, logically speaking, "them" should refer to "buildings". But "them" could technically refer to "earthquakes" too, and the intended referent isn't immediately clear and obvious -- the reader might initially process the sentence as, "[the buildings] have withstood [X] well because the white cedar that was used in [X] has..."

That reader would soon realize that this doesn't make any sense and could then figure out the logical, intended meaning -- and that's why we can't call this a definite error or a great reason to eliminate (C) right away. But why include a slightly confusing pronoun when you can convey the logical meaning more clearly and simply without the pronoun (as in choice A)?

Is the pronoun in (C) absolutely WRONG? No. Is it unnecessary and a little confusing? Yes. That gives us a vote in favor of (A) over (C).

I hope that helps!

EducationAisle but why does that wreck the emaning? It could very well be used to show 2 independent clauses linked with comma whats wrong