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 ...
_________________