Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 17:49 It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 17:49
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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 
805+ (Hard)|   Modifiers|      
User avatar
gmatophobia
User avatar
Quant Chat Moderator
Joined: 22 Dec 2016
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 3,174
Own Kudos:
12,329
Given Kudos: 1,860
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Leadership
Posts: 3,174
Kudos: 12,329
Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it 08 Nov 2022, 23:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN

You asked for it, kntombat, so here you go. As you can see in the image below, I chose (E) in 1:21 as the least objectionable answer choice of the five presented. I will outline what guided my hand.

Attachment:
Screen Shot 2021-07-04 at 12.05.42.png
Choice (A) fails because of a basic modifier error. Whatever follows the first comma should answer the question of what was descending, and the placeholder it does not deliver to that end. I even gave the sentence the benefit of the doubt and read on, just in case, but the reference to time was a complete dealbreaker: time cannot have descended from a wildcat.

Choice (B) fails because and scarcely places the two-word combination in a tight spot. When we hit and without a comma, we expect to encounter a parallel entity. The first part of the relative clause, which is, does not carry over to the second as an understood element without a second is. Why? Because, to put it plainly, there are too many words between the first and second entities, and it is hard to remember to apply the same stem to the second part. To be clear, which is A and B can be fine, as long as "A" consists of a short description. For instance, which is exceedingly short and scarcely sufficient would work fine on its own. But when the sentence pumps in a bunch of extra words and information as part of "A," we tend to forget the stem and need a reminder before we introduce "B." So, sandwich is between the two words in question, and there would be no problem: and is scarcely. Alternatively, we could remove and to allow the scarcely phrase to comment on the previous clause: which is an exceedingly short time for..., scarcely sufficient for... Ultimately, we cannot negotiate what is on the screen, so even though (B) can be tempting, we cannot justify choosing it.

Choice (C) fails because the parallel marker and should continue a description of the aforementioned domestic cat: the domestic cat has had [something] and has been [something]. It would make no sense to say that the domestic cat has been scarcely sufficient in reference to time.

Choice (D) fails because the relative clause that has scarcely been sufficient seems to be modifying genetic evolution. How can evolution be just good enough to produce a transformation? Evolution, by definition, is change. It is neither a quantitative nor qualitative measure.

Choice (E) is the best answer of the five presented because even though and one which needs to be scrutinized, it is not incorrect. The restrictive which (instead of that) is a nonissue, since GMAC™ has written in the OG that this very split is not tested. The and should join two parallel entities, just as we considered in (B) earlier. So, what are those two entities? What, exactly, is one standing in for? It must refer to an exceedingly recent divergence, although perhaps in truncated form, as in a divergence. Check for clarity:

an exceedingly recent divergence with respect to genetic evolution and [a divergence that] scarcely seems sufficient...

That works. I might stylistically prefer to comment on the divergence by deleting and and replacing it with a comma. Compare:

an exceedingly recent divergence with respect to genetic evolution, one [that] scarcely seems sufficient...

However, once again, I am bound by what is on the screen. Like it or not, in the end, (E) wins out of this lot.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me about the question.

- Andrew
Show more

Thank you for your explanation !

Hello AndrewN KarishmaB

Wanted to check if the last part of option E is in the form of phrase and clause.

Quote:
an exceedingly recent divergence with respect to genetic evolution and one which scarcely seems sufficient to allow the marked physical changes in the animal.
Show more

I think the part of the sentence denoted by blue is a phrase and the part denoted by red is a clause. Is the understanding correct ?

If so, can a phrase be parallel to a clause ?

My understanding is that phrase and clause cannot be parallel to each other can you let me know if the understanding is flawed or if I am missing anything ?
User avatar
Rickooreo
User avatar
Joined: 24 Dec 2021
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 328
Own Kudos:
44
Given Kudos: 361
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: ISB '24 Moore '25
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.95
WE:Real Estate (Consulting)
Products:
Forum Quiz
Schools: ISB '24 Moore '25
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
Posts: 328
Kudos: 44
Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it 12 Nov 2022, 20:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB

In E – I eliminated because of two reasons:
1. "which" is either preceded by comma or preposition.
2. If we mention "and (one) which" construction, there should be a clause starting with which prior to it for the parallelism to be maintained.

To understand if I am missing anything.

Also, as gmatphobia rightly pointed out

In the last part of option E is in the form of phrase and clause. To understand if such construction can be considered parallel.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 16,645
Own Kudos:
81,204
 [1]
Given Kudos: 491
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,645
Kudos: 81,204
 [1]
Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it 13 Nov 2022, 09:06
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Rickooreo
KarishmaB

In E – I eliminated because of two reasons:
1. "which" is either preceded by comma or preposition.
2. If we mention "and (one) which" construction, there should be a clause starting with which prior to it for the parallelism to be maintained.

To understand if I am missing anything.

Also, as gmatphobia rightly pointed out

In the last part of option E is in the form of phrase and clause. To understand if such construction can be considered parallel.
Show more

Parallelism is not a problem because both parts are modifying 'divergence.'
Also, the use of 'which' is acceptable even if it is used in the restrictive sense. GMAT may 'prefer' that in restrictive sense but the use of 'which' cannot be called incorrect.
That said, I have issues with the meaning of the sentence (or perhaps there is some fault in my understanding).

In option (E), I am not sure what 'domestic cat descended from wild cat 4000 years ago' means. So we had the domestic cat the way it is today 4000 years ago or did the process of divergence start 4000 years ago?
'an exceedingly recent divergence' makes sense in either case but what is 'not sufficient to allow the marked physical changes' has to be the time period in which the changes took place. How can 'divergence' not be sufficient? Perhaps the genetic makeup changed 4000 years ago and physical changes have been taking place after that? And at this point, I was thoroughly confused and wished I understood genetics and evolution better.

In that sense, (B) worked better because both 'exceedingly short time ...' and 'scarcely sufficient for the marked changes ...' are talking about time periods (though the time period is not mentioned) One can only assume that the time period began 4000 years ago and led to today. This means that the process of descending started 4000 years ago and has continued till now. Does it make sense? I am again not sure.
User avatar
gmatophobia
User avatar
Quant Chat Moderator
Joined: 22 Dec 2016
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 3,174
Own Kudos:
12,329
Given Kudos: 1,860
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Leadership
Posts: 3,174
Kudos: 12,329
Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it 13 Nov 2022, 09:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB

Parallelism is not a problem because both parts are modifying 'divergence.'
Also, the use of 'which' is acceptable even if it is used in the restrictive sense. GMAT may 'prefer' that in restrictive sense but the use of 'which' cannot be called incorrect.
That said, I have issues with the meaning of the sentence (or perhaps there is some fault in my understanding).

In option (E), I am not sure what 'domestic cat descended from wild cat 4000 years ago' means. So we had the domestic cat the way it is today 4000 years ago or did the process of divergence start 4000 years ago?
'an exceedingly recent divergence' makes sense in either case but what is 'not sufficient to allow the marked physical changes' has to be the time period in which the changes took place. How can 'divergence' not be sufficient? Perhaps the genetic makeup changed 4000 years ago and physical changes have been taking place after that? And at this point, I was thoroughly confused and wished I understood genetics and evolution better.

In that sense, (B) worked better because both 'exceedingly short time ...' and 'scarcely sufficient for the marked changes ...' are talking about time periods (though the time period is not mentioned) One can only assume that the time period began 4000 years ago and led to today. This means that the process of descending started 4000 years ago and has continued till now. Does it make sense? I am again not sure.
Show more

Hi KarishmaB

Thank you for your insights. Can you please comment if a phrase can be parallel to a clause. I thought phrases and clauses cannot be parallel, please let me know if I mistaken in here.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 16,645
Own Kudos:
81,204
Given Kudos: 491
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,645
Kudos: 81,204
Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it 14 Nov 2022, 05:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmatophobia
KarishmaB

Parallelism is not a problem because both parts are modifying 'divergence.'
Also, the use of 'which' is acceptable even if it is used in the restrictive sense. GMAT may 'prefer' that in restrictive sense but the use of 'which' cannot be called incorrect.
That said, I have issues with the meaning of the sentence (or perhaps there is some fault in my understanding).

In option (E), I am not sure what 'domestic cat descended from wild cat 4000 years ago' means. So we had the domestic cat the way it is today 4000 years ago or did the process of divergence start 4000 years ago?
'an exceedingly recent divergence' makes sense in either case but what is 'not sufficient to allow the marked physical changes' has to be the time period in which the changes took place. How can 'divergence' not be sufficient? Perhaps the genetic makeup changed 4000 years ago and physical changes have been taking place after that? And at this point, I was thoroughly confused and wished I understood genetics and evolution better.

In that sense, (B) worked better because both 'exceedingly short time ...' and 'scarcely sufficient for the marked changes ...' are talking about time periods (though the time period is not mentioned) One can only assume that the time period began 4000 years ago and led to today. This means that the process of descending started 4000 years ago and has continued till now. Does it make sense? I am again not sure.

Hi KarishmaB

Thank you for your insights. Can you please comment if a phrase can be parallel to a clause. I thought phrases and clauses cannot be parallel, please let me know if I mistaken in here.
Show more

We cannot think in terms of 'whether A can be parallel to B.'
Parallelism is good to have, especially in formal, business writing since it makes the sentence easy to understand. We make do with as much parallelism as we can get from the options.

In this sentence, both structures are 'noun + modifier'.
Noun 'divergence' renames the previous clause and 'one' again stands for 'divergence.' The which clause modifies 'one.'
The kind of modifiers in the cases differs but it doesn't matter. We accept as much parallelism as we can find in the options and live with that.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 19,641
Own Kudos:
1,037
Posts: 19,641
Kudos: 1,037
Descending approximately 4,000 years ago from the African wildcat, it 01 Jan 2026, 11:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts