Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

A. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids have
B. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and then was subsequently butchered by hominids has
C. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago, which was subsequently butchered by hominids, has
D. having been beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and subsequently butchered by hominids, have
E. having beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and then subsequently were butchered by hominids have

CHOICE A: Correct. Notice that the VERB TENSES ARE PARALLEL here. Normally, you might assume that "fossils" is the subject, but clearly the meaning of the sentence doesn't support that conclusion (fossils can't be "butchered", only whales can).

CHOICE B: Incorrect. The "then was" is not a big deal; it's functionally equivalent to "was subsequently" in Choice A. However, "has" is incorrect, because at that point we have stopped modifying the object (whale) and have returned to modifying the subject (fossils). We can't say "fossils has" ("they has"), so we move on.

CHOICE C: When we write in English ".... _______, which was ..." , then the "was" is presumably modifying a subject before the comma. However, this doesn't work because it was the whale that was butchered, not years or an African shore.

CHOICE D: "Having" is not by itself an actual verb, and should never be used as the main verb of a sentence, only as a modifier.

CHOICE E: Same problem as E.

PERFECT VERSION: Fossils of a whale, one which beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids, have been recovered by paleontologists.

-Brian


_________________

Hi GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo,

As I was doing my analysis on this question, I noticed that the sentence didn't include "that" after the "and" (Fossils of a whale (that) beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and (that) was subsequently butchered by hominids....). I was wondering is there any specific reason to eliminate the second "that"? There are multiple OG questions that I have come across where the correct answer choice is usually along the lines of "XYZ that....and that...." because of the parallelism indicator "and". Would appreciate if you could please share your thoughts on this.
Thank you!

csaluja There's no strict rule about the repetition of structuring words such as "that." The basic idea is that if the meaning is clear, we don't need to repeat. If we want to emphasize a statement's place in the overall logical structure, repetition may be helpful. A few examples:

The committee found that the costs of the program would exceed any possible gains, even if substantial cost-cutting measures were taken, and that certain elements of the program would not be technically achievable for at least twenty years.

Here, it was helpful to repeat "that," since so much text (including a long dependent clause) had intervened. If we just said "and certain elements," it wouldn't be clear if this were the author's opinion or a second finding of the study.

She thinks that the economy will recover and job opportunities will increase.

These seem very related. In fact, it seems likely that she is saying that job opportunities will increase as a result of the economic recovery. In that case, there is no need for a second "that." This is all one clear sequence. Saying "and that" isn't wrong--it's just unneeded.

She thinks that the economy will recover and that disco was an annoying fad.

Huh? These seem like two unrelated opinions. Saying "and that" gives them some separation.

I want to sing and dance.

No need to add a second "to" here. The meaning is clear. However, if these were two separate goals that I did not want to pursue at the same time, a second "to" might help to clarify that. Either way, the "to" wouldn't be wrong. It would just seem very formal for our purpose here.

I want to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro and to attend business school.

The second "to" helps to make it clear that these are two separate goals. Without it, one might think I am going to go to school on the mountain top!
_________________

GMATGuruNY - how do you eliminate D ?

Is there a tense issue because "Having + been" is present perfect (some form of present perfect - i think present progressive perfect ?) i think

Given we are dealing with present perfect (or some form of present perfect tense) -- this tense implies beached and butchered) have some effect continuing as of today whereas the intended meaning does not mean beached and butchered have any effect as of today.

Hence i eliminated D for wrong tense

Fair ?

-- I think D DOES NOT have parallelism issues

-- From a passive voice standpoint, I don't see why Passive voice CAN'T be used. I thought "hominids" applied to both the X and Y elements in option D, so we know the actor in both cases
i. Having been beached by the hominids
ii. Having been subsequently butchered by the hominids

-- I don't thinking "Having been beached" and "Having been butchered" are present-perfect tenses.
Present perfect passive would be "Have been beached" and "Have been butchered"

I have some doubts about answer choice A. I understand that "fossils" is the subject of the sentence. I also understand that it is not possible for the "fossils" to be butchered. But structurally, how does the correct answer choice make sense? Answer choice A is literally saying that the fossils, not the whales (since "of the whales" is part of a prepositional phrase), are the ones being butchered. The SVA also does not make sense with the use of "was"..,just having a hard time convincing myself that this is truly the correct answer.

The other 4 answer choices aren't any better. But just can't convince myself that A is the right answer. Any thoughts?

GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep VeritasKarishma

We have the following in the (A) version:

"a whale that beached ... and was subsequently butchered by hominids"

That phrase makes complete sense, and it is the object of the preposition "of" in the following prepositional phrase:

"of a whale that beached ... and was subsequently butchered by hominids"

That prepostional phrase is well constructed.

Outside of that prepositional phrase in the (A) version is the following:

"Fossils ... have been recovered by paleontologists."

That also makes complete sense.

Putting them together we get the following:

Fossils of a whale that beached ... and was subsequently butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

Perfect.
_________________

soondoobu

Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

If you remove the modifying clause (that clause), this is what you get:

Fossils of a whale ... have been recovered by paleontologists.

that clause: that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids

Note that "butchered..." is also a part of the "that" clause.

that beached and was butchered... - the two verbs (beached and butchered) are in parallel and 'that' is common to both. Both are modifying the whale only.

a whale that beached ... and (that) was butchered ...
_________________

Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.

A. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids have
Have refers back to fossils . Right
B. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and then was subsequently butchered by hominids has
That refers back to whale , has - fossils - wrong . It should be ‘have’
C. that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago, which was subsequently butchered by hominids, has
Which refers back to million years ago- out
D. having been beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and subsequently butchered by hominids, have
Straight out
E. having beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and then subsequently were butchered by hominids have
Straight out

Posted from my mobile device

Paleontologists recover "fossils", which is the subject in this sentence. The matching verb should thus be "have", not "has. Choices #2 and 3 are out.

What was butchered is the "whale", not the "fossils". Choice #5 is wrong since it says "were", thus implying the fossils were butchered.

The meaning in #4 is wrong. "having been beached" seems to imply that someone or something beached this whale. Wrong.

#1 is the right answer.
_________________

AndrewN

In options D and E, the usage of having +verb-ed is correct right?
Having + past participle is perfect participle that is used to show an action completed before the main clause. So as per this definition, fossils initially beached on an African American shore and then were discovered by paleontologists. We eliminated options D and E because there is parallelism error. Participles cannot be parallel to verbs.

Is my understanding correct on this?

I have seen few questions on the usage of "having + past participle".

Please share your two cents.

Hello, krndatta. Answer choices (D) and (E) do have problems. How about we take a closer look?


It is the whale that beached, not the fossils of the whale. We know this because fossils cannot be butchered by hominids. Only meat of some kind may be butchered. (Even if someone cracks bones to extract marrow, we would not use the verb to butcher.) Look at basic versions of answer choices (D) and (E) for ease of access.

(D) Fossils of a whale having been beached and subsequently butchered

(E) Fossils of a whale having beached and then subsequently were butchered

The latter makes no sense and is probably easier to pick off. If a whale beached, then it was subsequently butchered, not were. Also, notice the redundancy in then subsequently. As for (D), I am having trouble justifying been. Either the sentence can be interpreted as saying that someone or something carried out the act of beaching the whale, or that the whale escaped after having been beached, something we know did not happen.

I do not go through SC questions with a grammatical checklist in mind. Rather, I ask myself which version of the sentence most clearly and concisely expresses what I think it is aiming to convey. If you have seen other questions with having + past participle in them, I would advise you to study and take what you can from them.

Thank you for thinking to ask for my help.

- Andrew
_________________

mikemcgarry CrackverbalGMAT egmat BKimball egmat GMATNinja

In option D - "having been beached" is passive voice so it means fossils of whale were beached by someone and fossils didn't beach itself.

Doesn't having been i.e usage of passive tense make sense?

Also, can you please shed some light on when can we take the usage of "having been" "having" and "being" correct? In almost every SC, I find that these usages are eliminated by saying wordy, awkward, etc.

In option D - "having been beached" is passive voice so it means fossils of whale were beached by someone and fossils didn't beach itself.

Doesn't having been i.e usage of passive tense make sense?

Also, can you please shed some light on when can we take the usage of "having been" "having" and "being" correct? In almost every SC, I find that these usages are eliminated by saying wordy, awkward, etc.

Hello Rickooreo,

Hope you are doing good. I will be glad to help you with this one.

Yes, you are correct in saying that "having been beached" presents this action in the passive voice. So, this choice says that the whale was beached by someone. But that is not the case. The whale itself beached on this African shore.

Let's take a few simple examples here to understand the difference between the active "having beached" and the passive "having been beached".

Ex 1: Having eaten his breakfast, Jack went out to play with his friends. --> Did Jack eat breakfast himself? Yes, he did. Thus, the use of the active "having eaten" is correct.

Ex 2: Having been fed his breakfast, Jack went out to play with his friends. --> Did Jack eat breakfast himself? No, someone else fed him. Thus, the use of the passive "having been fed" is correct.

Similarly, the whale beached itself on the African shore. No one beached the whale there. So, the use of the passive indicator "having been beached" is incorrect in Choice D.


Since you want to understand the correct use of the word "being", here is our detailed article on the same: https://gmatclub.com/forum/being-really-the-black-sheep-in-the-gmat-family-166106.html

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hello experts ReedArnoldMPREP

Can we say, in choice D, the structure is parallel?

wale having been beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and subsequently butchered by hominids

I don't think the sentence is parallel,
1. "having been beached" is verb?- some people are saying its not- why not ? it looks like a verb to me, its just that its passive voice.

2.butcherd by hominoids, I think this one is not a verb, "was butchered" can be a verb.
butchered is just a modifier to me.

Am I correct?

I rejected this because the sentence wasn't parallel to me. Am I correct on which one is verb and which one is not?

Yes.


No. Both are phrases and there is no verb here. First is a present participial phrase while second is past participial phrase.

An obvious issue with D is the usage of passive voice "having been beached...", compromising the meaning of the sentence.
_________________

Technically, 'having been beached' and 'butchered' are parallel. They are both what are called 'participles'--modifiers that come from verbs. --ing modifiers are called 'present participles' and ---ed modifiers are called past participles (...and I suspect that 'having [done]' modifiers are called 'present perfect participles,' but I don't actually know...). These look like verbs, and come from verbs, but don't function as verbs in the sentence (--ing words always need 'help' to be a verb. See this blog post: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/blog/verb-confusion-gmat/)

Your reasons for why 'butchered' is not a verb are similar to the reasons why 'having been beached' is not a verb. "Have been beached" is a verb. "Has been beached" is a verb. But "having been beached" is not. "The whale having been beached." is not a sentence.

The problem with D is that modifier 'having been beached' doesn't make sense for a few reasons. First and foremost, 'been peached' is a passive construction, and 'beached' doesn't make sense passively in this instance. A 'boat' can be beached, because I can 'beach' the boat--meaning I can drive the boat onto the sand and get it stuck. But nobody and no thing 'beached' the whale. The whale beached itself, meaning, it swam up onto the beached and could not swim back. "Having been kicked, the ball..." that works, because someone kicked the ball. "Having been beached" changes the story to something that doesn't work.

The other issue with D is that present-perfect 'having been.'

"Having pre-heated the stove, he began to cook dinner." That works. It tells me that the pre-heating took place before he cooked. This is an adverbial modifier--it describes the action. "Having" as a noun modifier doesn't work like that. It's hard for me to pinpoint exactly why... For one, let's take out the incorrect passive 'been beached' and consider:

"Fossils of a whale having beached... have been gathered."

The 'having beached' modifier should tell me that this thing happened before, but linked to, the action (as pre-heating a stove happens before but is linked to cooking dinner). But in this case, the WHALE is what beached, and the FOSSILS are what are dated. So the 'having beached' modifier doesn't link to the verb in the right way.

Further,

"Fossils of a whale having beached the shore and subsequently butchered by hominids have been gathered."

This is trying to make clear the 'beaching' took place shortly before the 'butchering,' which makes sense, but as you note 'butchered' isn't actually a verb, so the 'having beached' modifier doesn't link to that.

Much better: "Fossils of a whale that beached and subsequently was butchered have been gathered."

The 'subsequently' tells me the butchering happened shortly after the beaching.

Finally... I virtually never advise using commas to keep or eliminate answer choices, BUT... You will never separate a subject from its (first) verb with only one comma.

The structure of D is: "Fossils of a whale [long modifier], have been recovered."

This is wrong. I should do: "Fossils of a whale, [long modifier], have been recovered." or "Fossils of a whale [long modifier] have been recovered."
_________________

It's not a verb; it's an _ING modifier.

This modifier, though, is one of the very, very few about which I can generalize: You won't see NO COMMA + "having been __ED" in the correct answer to an official problem.

If you want, you can memorize this rule. If you're interested in the explanation, it's below.


———

Background: The difference between the modifiers no comma + "VERBing" and no comma + "that VERB" matters here.
In short—
• In no comma + "VERBing", the action of "VERBing" is temporary or relatively likely to change.
• In no comma + "that VERB", the verb should describe something inherent, permanent, long-term, or unlikely to change.

For instance, people working in retail are just working in the retail field for now—e.g., perhaps they have seasonal jobs over the holiday season, or they're just working retail jobs while they're in school for a later professional career.
People who work in retail, on the other hand, are making their career/livelihood in the retail industry.


Now consider what it means when we say someone HAS DONE something. This statement becomes true if that person has ever done that thing—meaning that the statement can never possibly become false again!
Therefore, no comma + "having been..." is basically self-contradictory, because the structure of the modifier implies short-term or subject to change (see above), but the condition described is permanent by definition (you can't undo experience).
_________________