|
|
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.
31 Jul 2021, 20:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (01:54) correct
55%
(01:49)
wrong
based on 282
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
During the last month, researchers had narrowed down to two the possible origins that are being discussed in classrooms across the nation to explain the emergence of a new species of caterpillar.
A) had narrowed down to two the possible origins that are being discussed in classrooms across the nation to explain the emergence of a new species of caterpillar
B) had narrowed down to two the possible origins to explain the emergence of a new species of caterpillar that are being discussed in classrooms across the nation
C) have narrowed down to two the possible origins that classrooms across the nation are discussing the emergence of a new species of caterpillar
D) have narrowed down to two the possible origins to explain the emergence of a new species of caterpillar, origins that are being discussed in classrooms across the nation
E) have narrowed it down to two possible origins to explain the emergence of a new species of caterpillar, origins that are being discussed in classrooms across the nation
31 Jul 2021, 20:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
• Core meaning?
A new species of caterpillar has emerged.
During the last month, researchers have narrowed the possible origins of this emergence down to two possibilities, both of which are being discussed in classrooms across the country.
• Tip off?
→ During the last month.
That phrase signals that whatever happened is still going on or finished very recently.
We need to "bridge the past and the present."
→ To do so we use present perfect.
HAS/HAVE + PAST PARTICIPLE (verbED)
Present perfect should be used to describe events that started in the past and that continue into the present but can be used for other situations not related to this kind of context.
→ had narrowed is past perfect, the "past of the past," the tense we use to describe the earlier of two past events.
Past perfect had narrowed signals that the action or event is finished, but that meaning does not match "During the last month."
We need have narrowed.
→ Among other things, present perfect is used to describe actions performed during a time period that is not yet over.
Present perfect: In the last week, the CEO changed his mind five times. [Time period is still going.]
Past perfect: Last week the CEO made a final decision, and none too soon at that—he had changed his mind five times in as many days. [Both events occurred in the past. Time period is finished.]
• confusing modifier placement
→ the origins both (1) are being discussed and (2) explain the emergence of the new species
→ the placement of "to explain" is too far from "origins" and too close to "nation."
Noun modifiers should be as close as possible to the nouns that they modify.
This sentence is poorly constructed.
ELIMINATE A
→ same problem as that in option A. Had narrowed is the wrong verb tense to bridge the past and the present.
• confusing modifier placement
→ the origins are still doing two things. They explain the emergence of the new species and are discussed in classrooms.
The phrases at issue are both noun modifiers:
(1) to explain the emergence of a new species and (2) that are being discussed in classrooms.
Option B switches the order of the phrases that we see in option A.
In a strict sense, the phrasing is grammatical.
A very long string of prepositional phrases follows the noun origins. That string is then followed by the that-clause.
Although it is not common for a that-clause to be far from its noun, such a placement is not forbidden.
The subtle but glaring problem? These two stacked modifiers just do not sit well together.
The verb error is fatal; at the same time, the sentence is muddled.
ELIMINATE B
During the last month, researchers have narrowed down to two the possible origins [full clause]
. .THAT [relative pronoun that should modify "origins" and should be followed by its OWN verb, not by the noun "classrooms"]
. . . classrooms across the nation are discussing the emergence of a new species of caterpillar. [full clause]
→ IC + THAT [missing its clause] + IC ???
No. We can connect two independent clauses with a conjunction (a FANBOY), but we cannot use that to do so, and if that is a relative pronoun, it must be followed by its own clause, including its own verb. That is already a subject—a pronoun in need of a verb.
ELIMINATE C
Sophisticated inversion exists in this sentence; you will find "narrowed down to two" in high end prose.
We could rearrange the words, this way: Researchers have narrowed the possible origins to explain the emergence of a new species of caterpillar down to two.
• verb tense have narrowed fits with during the last month.
• noun modifier problem is resolved by repeating the word origins and using a special kind of appositive
→ the information after the comma correctly expands on origins: they are being discussed in classrooms across the nation.
→ this kind of modifier is an appositive, and a special kind of appositive at that
→ repeating a word or phrase as is done in this option is called a resumptive modifier.
(Think "resume." We "pick up" the noun again; we resume the sentence with the word we need.)
This short article, here, explains resumptive modifiers and gives many good examples. I would take a look at the site.
KEEP
If we look at meaning, this it does not succeed as an it that precedes a delayed antecedent.
In context, this it means "the field of explanations about origins that might explain the emergence of a new species."
If you want to eliminate option E, compare it to option D, and ask: which is worse?
No contest. Option D is not plagued with a buttinsky, no-clear-antecedent pronoun.
ELIMINATE E
The answer is D.
COMMENTS
Bhupendra9621 , welcome to SC Butler.
I am always glad to see new posters. (All aspirants are welcome. Standing invitation.)
I am also always glad to see my veterans.
This question is a bit tricky.
Kudos for bravery or a good explanation or both.
Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC2)
Quote:
During the last month, researchers had narrowed down to two the possible origins that are being discussed in classrooms across the nation to explain the emergence of a new species of caterpillar.
• Core meaning?
A new species of caterpillar has emerged.
During the last month, researchers have narrowed the possible origins of this emergence down to two possibilities, both of which are being discussed in classrooms across the country.
• Tip off?
→ During the last month.
That phrase signals that whatever happened is still going on or finished very recently.
We need to "bridge the past and the present."
→ To do so we use present perfect.
HAS/HAVE + PAST PARTICIPLE (verbED)
Present perfect should be used to describe events that started in the past and that continue into the present but can be used for other situations not related to this kind of context.
Quote:
• wrong verb tense
→ had narrowed is past perfect, the "past of the past," the tense we use to describe the earlier of two past events.
Past perfect had narrowed signals that the action or event is finished, but that meaning does not match "During the last month."
We need have narrowed.
→ Among other things, present perfect is used to describe actions performed during a time period that is not yet over.
Present perfect: In the last week, the CEO changed his mind five times. [Time period is still going.]
Past perfect: Last week the CEO made a final decision, and none too soon at that—he had changed his mind five times in as many days. [Both events occurred in the past. Time period is finished.]
• confusing modifier placement
→ the origins both (1) are being discussed and (2) explain the emergence of the new species
→ the placement of "to explain" is too far from "origins" and too close to "nation."
Noun modifiers should be as close as possible to the nouns that they modify.
This sentence is poorly constructed.
ELIMINATE A
Quote:
• wrong verb tense
→ same problem as that in option A. Had narrowed is the wrong verb tense to bridge the past and the present.
• confusing modifier placement
→ the origins are still doing two things. They explain the emergence of the new species and are discussed in classrooms.
The phrases at issue are both noun modifiers:
(1) to explain the emergence of a new species and (2) that are being discussed in classrooms.
Option B switches the order of the phrases that we see in option A.
In a strict sense, the phrasing is grammatical.
A very long string of prepositional phrases follows the noun origins. That string is then followed by the that-clause.
Although it is not common for a that-clause to be far from its noun, such a placement is not forbidden.
The subtle but glaring problem? These two stacked modifiers just do not sit well together.
The verb error is fatal; at the same time, the sentence is muddled.
ELIMINATE B
Quote:
• nonsensical - this sentence is full of babble. We have a mess when we try to break it down.
During the last month, researchers have narrowed down to two the possible origins [full clause]
. .THAT [relative pronoun that should modify "origins" and should be followed by its OWN verb, not by the noun "classrooms"]
. . . classrooms across the nation are discussing the emergence of a new species of caterpillar. [full clause]
→ IC + THAT [missing its clause] + IC ???
No. We can connect two independent clauses with a conjunction (a FANBOY), but we cannot use that to do so, and if that is a relative pronoun, it must be followed by its own clause, including its own verb. That is already a subject—a pronoun in need of a verb.
ELIMINATE C
Quote:
• correct
Sophisticated inversion exists in this sentence; you will find "narrowed down to two" in high end prose.
We could rearrange the words, this way: Researchers have narrowed the possible origins to explain the emergence of a new species of caterpillar down to two.
• verb tense have narrowed fits with during the last month.
• noun modifier problem is resolved by repeating the word origins and using a special kind of appositive
→ the information after the comma correctly expands on origins: they are being discussed in classrooms across the nation.
→ this kind of modifier is an appositive, and a special kind of appositive at that
→ repeating a word or phrase as is done in this option is called a resumptive modifier.
(Think "resume." We "pick up" the noun again; we resume the sentence with the word we need.)
This short article, here, explains resumptive modifiers and gives many good examples. I would take a look at the site.
KEEP
Quote:
• it has no antecedent. Fatal.
If we look at meaning, this it does not succeed as an it that precedes a delayed antecedent.
In context, this it means "the field of explanations about origins that might explain the emergence of a new species."
If you want to eliminate option E, compare it to option D, and ask: which is worse?
No contest. Option D is not plagued with a buttinsky, no-clear-antecedent pronoun.
ELIMINATE E
The answer is D.
COMMENTS
Bhupendra9621 , welcome to SC Butler.
I am always glad to see new posters. (All aspirants are welcome. Standing invitation.)
I am also always glad to see my veterans.
This question is a bit tricky.
Kudos for bravery or a good explanation or both.
31 Jul 2021, 21:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
E) have narrowed it down to two possible origins to explain the emergence of a new species of caterpillar, origins that are being discussed in classrooms across the nation
Explanation:
*have* instead of *had* to bring the sentence into present tense as being discussed is mentioned.
Narrowed it down to two possible origins makes more sense than the sentence used in the question which is not grammatically correct.
and then having 2 separate origins explained separately.
Thank you
Posted from my mobile device
Explanation:
*have* instead of *had* to bring the sentence into present tense as being discussed is mentioned.
Narrowed it down to two possible origins makes more sense than the sentence used in the question which is not grammatically correct.
and then having 2 separate origins explained separately.
Thank you
Posted from my mobile device
