OreoShake wrote:
im still unable to understand why A is incorrect. Firstly, isnt it unidiomatic to say 'named for him'? Secondly, DB deriving a formula to explain the generation of lift seems logical to me as a lay man without physics or history background. So the only reason to eliminate A according to me would be the concentrated adjectives in 'airplane's wing's generation of lift', which seems awkward.
Any correction or clarity on the above would be appreciated.
Dear
OreoShake,
I'm happy to respond.
Think about this structure
{person] did X to do Y That structure is the
infinitive of purpose. It implies intentionality. It implies that the person, in undertaking action X, had the explicit purpose of accomplishing Y.
Consider the sentences:
1)
Washington crossed the Delaware to stage a surprise attack on the Hessians.
This first is logical and historically accurate. That's precisely what Washington was trying to do that night.
2)
Washington crossed the Delaware to look heroic in a painting.
This one is patently absurd. Yes, one of the many consequences of Washington's action is that, much later, he cut a particularly heroic figure in a painting. Nevertheless, phrasing this with an infinitive of purpose is absurd, because the very last thing on Washington's mind on that stressful evening was how some artist would paint it more than half a century later.
Now, if you think that's absurd, consider (A) from this problem.
Daniel Bernoulli (1700 – 1782) derived the famous fluid equation named after him, to explain an airplane’s wing’s generation of lift, and made a discovery that led to an early method of measuring blood pressure.Yes, the structure "
an airplane’s wing’s generation of lift" is less than ideal and probably would not be part of a correct answer, although it's hard to say whether this alone would disqualify an answer choice. The BIG problem with (A) is the absurd implication of intentionality. You don't have to have advanced technical knowledge about the history of science, but you have to have the basic idea that in the eighteenth century, there were no airplanes. To say that
Bernoulli was trying to explain something about airplanes, that one of his explicit intentions in deriving the equation was to explain airplanes, is absurd, because the airplane didn't come into existence until more than a century after his death. There is no way he could have know anything about airplanes, so there is no way he could be trying to explain anything about them. That's the big problem with (A).
Remember, on the GMAT SC, an effective sentence is one in which grammar and logic and rhetoric all work together to produce meaning.
Does this make sense?
Mike