himanshujovi wrote:
Got the right answer but confused by the usage of the word correspond. What does this sentence mean anyway Mike ?
Dear
himanshujovi,
I'm happy to help.
This is a sentence with hard vocabulary and a sophisticated meaning. It is a very hard sentence, but something like this could appear on the GMAT SC. Here's the OA, version (
D):
Five-star General John Pershing had so sweeping a command in World War I that no single WWII general corresponds to him. OK, what does this mean? First of all, "
sweeping" in this context means "
vast, unlimited." Having a "
sweeping command" means having virtually unlimited power, having tremendous authority. Pershing was the "top dog" in the US military in WWI. That's the first fact communicated in this sentence.
Now, you asked about the word "
correspond." A correspondence is a pattern of matching. X corresponds to Y if X & Y are each in their own pattern, and the two patterns match, X and Y are at matching points in the two patterns.
For example, in the US, the President, corresponds to the Prime Minister in many other countries. They have different titles but the same essential role.
The CEO of a corporation corresponds to the president or chancellor of a university.
One could say that the movements of a symphony correspond to the chapters of a book --- both play the same role of dividing the word into meaningful sections.
One could say that the Eiffel Tower, the iconic landmark of France, corresponds to the Taj Mahal, the iconic landmark of India. They both correspond to the Statue of Liberty in the USA or to the Great Wall of China. It's not clear which single German landmark or single Japanese landmark would most correspond with these.
Here, in this SC question, the pattern of matching concerns the first and the second World War.
If we ask: who was the #1 most important military leader in the US military in WWI? The answer is clearly and unambiguously John Pershing.
If we ask: who was the #1 most important military leader in the US military in WWII? Well, there's not really a clear answer. Many generals were important --- Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, MacArthur, as well as Admiral Nimitz, etc., but there was none who stood out as the supreme leader, the way Pershing did in WWI. In other words, no WWII leader corresponds to Pershing. Pershing had a specific role in WWI, and nobody had a matching role in WWII.
Does all this make sense?
Mike