GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: It can be said that the undead are living the high

Greetings, everyone. I wrote just yesterday that I prefer longer underlined portions in SC questions, since they often provide more to consider. I am reminded of the famous opening scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, the first Indiana Jones film. After navigating various traps, Jones and his guide lay eyes on the prize, a golden statue sitting atop a platform in a large, open room. The guide says, "Let us hurry. There is nothing to fear here." He takes a step forward and Jones grabs him, shoves him against the wall, and says, "That's what scares me." (See the 6-minute mark in the link if you are curious, although I would recommend taking a break for ten minutes or so and watching the entire scene.)

You have to treat a short underline with respect, or the question may get the better of you.


The grammar can work here, although which clauses in general refer to a single noun, rather than to an entire clause—here, the undead are living the high life. In casual conversation, I would not think twice; on the GMAT™, I would be more conservative and mark this one as a doubt.


It is kind of strange to get this other way before we have been introduced to the first, but this answer choice is functional, safer than (A) at least.


The clause the undead are living the high life does not mean that zombies are a worldwide cultural phenomenon. No one would read the first part on its own and readily predict the latter. Again, (B) is the safer choice.


Namely concisely expresses that the second clause comments on or describes the embedded clause, the object, of the first. If you were hanging on to (B) up to this point, now would be the time to drop the earlier answer choice.


This is a tricky one. You have to ask yourself whether this single word can work in parallel with the first mention of the same word. I know that your knee-jerk reaction may be to dismiss a comma + that construct, but test to see if the two clauses provide a logical continuation of the original stem. If the answer is yes, then you have to accept the construct as valid. Test:

1) It can be said that the undead are living the high life—This obviously works as a standalone sentence. Keep moving.

2) It can be said that zombies are a worldwide cultural phenomenon—Again, we cannot write off this standalone continuation of the main clause (especially in light of the darlings appositive phrase at the end of the non-underlined portion).

Taken together, we are to understand that the sentence merely conveys, in two slightly different ways, what can be said. In short, that works on its own here, and we could not get any more concise. (E) is the pick of the lot.

A short note on this type of construct:

This sort of repetition, comma + [repeated element], is pretty common in professional writing. Take a look at the most recent New York Times (a common source that GMAC™ likes to plunder for SC questions), for instance, and I can virtually guarantee that you will spot something similar. Some examples of the types of repetition I am outlining:

1) Two prepositional phrases—In his home, in the one place he should have felt safe, the man was brutally attacked and beaten to within an inch of his life.

2) Two infinitives—The Buddha urged his followers to abandon worldly pursuits, to take a path of enlightenment instead.

3) Two clauses—What he did, what no one should even think to do, is beyond the reach of the law.

The big question is whether we would expect to see such a question on the GMAT™. I cannot say that at this time, I have seen this exact split tested in such a manner. But who knows what the future may bring? (Just about everyone agrees that the test is harder now than it was a few years ago. ESRs reveal as much. If too many people start to ace the Verbal section, GMAC™ will look to some other arcane niche of grammar to raise the bar to perfection.)

Happy studies, everyone.

- Andrew