Yup, questions with long underlined portions can be overwhelming, especially when the entire sentence is underlined!

But you shouldn't give these questions any special treatment -- you still want to follow the same general approach described in our beginner's guide to SC: look for definite errors and then compare the remaining options based on meaning.

Sure, you have more ground to cover when the underlined portion is long, but think of it as an opportunity: when the underlined portion is longer, there are more potential decision points, and in some cases, you'll actually have an easier time finding concrete reasons to eliminate answer choices. Also, keep in mind that questions with shorter sentences and shorter underlined portions can be really hard (like this one!), so try to remember that long underlined portions aren't necessarily harder.

When you see such a question, take a deep breath, and try to apply the same efficient approach that you should be using on all SC questions. And if it takes a bit longer than 90 seconds, that's not necessarily an issue (for more on that, check out our video on time management myths).

I hope that helps!
_________________

I don't think we are trying to compare two actions. Instead, we are trying to say that "Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza's crust resembles a pie crust more than [it resembles] a traditional pizza-style flatbread.

This comparison is much more clear in the OA (D): "Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza's crust is more like a pie crust than [it is] like a traditional pizza-style flatbread.

But keep in mind that this isn't an official question, so I wouldn't let it keep you up at night.
_________________

As explained here, there's a fine line between adding words for clarity/emphasis and repeating the same clarification/emphasis in multiple ways. You should definitely look for other decision points before relying on something this subtle to make eliminations. In this case, you could certainly argue that "previously" is added for clarity/emphasis and thus is not redundant.

I think the issue with (C) lies in the "however costly previously" part. But note that this isn't an official question, so I wouldn't stress over it too much!

If you have follow-up questions about this one, please post them on the thread for this specific problem.
_________________

Yeah, unfortunately most of the issues here are idiomatic. It's worth noting that if this is indeed an official question*, it's an old and long-retired one -- so I wouldn't worry about it too much. (*If anyone has actually seen this one in a paper test, please let us know and attach a screenshot!)

(D) and (E) are the most interesting (and share a similar issue), so let's start with those. Notice that the non-underlined portion talks about fanatics/fanaticism in general, not specific examples of fanatics/fanaticism. But then in (D) we have, "in spite of the ruthlessness of the countermeasures." This makes it sound like we are referring to some specific countermeasures that already exist, and that doesn't fit with the non-underlined part.

In (E), we have, "even though there are ruthless countermeasures" -- again, it sounds like we are talking about specific, existing countermeasures instead of just countermeasures in the general sense. That doesn't quite fit with the non-underlined portion.

The expression "however ruthless the countermeasures" fixes that issue in (A) -- now it sounds like we are talking about hypothetical countermeasures (no matter how ruthless you make your countermeasures, you probably won't be able to control whatever fanaticism you are dealing with). (A) suggests that we are talking about countermeasures in general (not specific, existing countermeasures), and that fits much better with the non-underlined portion.

(B) and (C) are just hot messes:

• "(C) no matter threat the countermeasures are ruthless" - "no matter threat" doesn't make any sense ("no matter THE threat..." would be better). Also, I don't see how "no matter threat" relates to "the countermeasures are ruthless" -- they just look like two separate and nonsensical phrases.
• "(B) whatever the ruthless there is in the countermeasures" - Again, this just doesn't make any sense... "whatever the ruthless there is"?? MAYBE it would be okay if it were, "whatever ruthlessness there is in the countermeasures," but "whatever the ruthless" doesn't work.

Again, even if this is an official question, it's pretty darned old. The GMAT has tried to move away from idioms as decision points, so don't waste too much time on this. And if you do have any other comments/questions about this one, please post them on the thread for this specific problem.
_________________

Tough question! The good news is that the GMAT doesn't seem to be testing this distinction, so I wouldn't worry to much about it (if you see it come up on an official question, let us know!).

The short answer is that either can work. We could interpret your first example as having a couple of implied verbs:

"She now had a number of friends [who are] much smarter than she [is]"

In this case the subject pronoun makes sense. Notice that "than" functions as a type of conjunction in this case, connecting the clause "she [is]" to the rest of the sentence.

But if we think of "than" as a preposition, then it makes sense to use an object pronoun after it:

"Her friends are smarter than her."

In this case, "her" is an object of the preposition ("than").

Rather than trying to come up with black and white rules governing this sort of thing, your best bet is to be conservative. If you have a subject pronoun with a stated or implied verb, it's probably okay. And if you have an object pronoun following a "than" without a verb, it's also probably okay.

As always, eliminate the choices with definite errors first, and then compare the remaining options based on meaning, instead of trying to invent and apply esoteric grammar rules for weird stuff like this.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Wow, sorry for the extremely delayed response! (We made a clerical error, and this one got lost in the shuffle.)

The short answer is that the GMAT is fairly lenient when it comes to comma usage, so you always want to look for other decision points. In this case, we are trying to cite two distinct things that art patrons are far less expert in:

1) distinguishing good paintings from poor ones
2) distinguishing authentic art from fakes

If we put an "and" before "authentic art" instead of the comma, we get,

"... distinguishing good paintings from poor ones and authentic art..."

At first glance, it seems like "authentic art" is being grouped with "poor ones" in a parallel list (distinguishing (1) good paintings from (2) poor [paintings] and authentic art). Once we keep reading we can figure out the intended meaning, but an "and" actually makes things more confusing. The comma usage, though nonstandard, makes the intended meaning more clear.

I hope that helps! (And feel free post any follow-up questions on the thread for this specific question.)
_________________

GMATNinja

I am hearing a lot of great things about your youtube videos. Just wondering, since you are using official questions, are those all just OG or Verbal Review? Or are there samples from GMATPrep? I have not yet taken any official practice test so I just wanted to make sure so I could do the videos after

There are a few GMATPrep questions sprinkled into some of the videos, particularly in the earlier ones. Generally speaking, we're clear about identifying those so that you can fast-forward past them if you still plan to retake those exams. Apologies if we didn't clearly identify a few of them, but I don't think that happened often, if at all.

The full collection of videos is available here. Enjoy!
_________________

Hi, I need some clarity on this OG question. I choose C but the official answer is C.


Analysts blamed May's sluggish retail sales on unexciting merchandise as well as the weather, colder and wetter than was usual in some regions, which slowed sales of barbecue grills and lawn furniture.


A. colder and wetter than was usual in some regions, which slowed
B. which was colder and wetter than usual in some regions, slowing
C. since it was colder and wetter than usually in some regions, which slowed
D. being colder and wetter than usually in some regions, slowing
E. having been colder and wetter than was usual in some regions and slowed

(Looks like there was a small typo -- the official answer is B, not C. ).

Let's look at some of the differences between (B) and (C).

First, we're trying to compare (1) the weather in May to (2) the usual weather (the weather in May was colder and wetter than the usual weather). In order to modify the implied noun ("weather"), we need the adjective form ("usual"), not the adverb form ("usually").

Also, what does the "which" modify in choice (C)? The regions? The weather? At best, the intended meaning is unclear. And if you think about what it is that actually "slows sales", it's not really the weather itself. Instead, it's the fact that it was colder and wetter than usual in some regions. So to reach the logical meaning, the "which" needs to modify a noun that doesn't really exist in the sentence ("the fact...").

(B) avoids all of those problems: the phrase beginning with "which" clearly modifies "weather", and the meaning is perfectly clear and logical.

Lastly, (C) has an extra pronoun ("it"). Does the "it" refer to the weather? Or is it a non-referential pronoun? Neither interpretation is WRONG, exactly, but the fact that we have a somewhat unclear pronoun gives us one last tiny vote against (C).

So (B) is the better choice.

If you have any follow-up questions, feel free to post them on the thread for that specific question.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi GMATNinja
The sentences which use , + ing modifiers, the modifier should agree with the verb of the preceding clause and not the subject of the preceding clause. Is my understanding correct?

Ref: Why option B is incorrect in this Q

The Olympic Games helped to keep peace among the pugnacious states of the Greek world in that a sacred truce was proclaimed during the festival’s month.

Take another look at (B):


While you're right that an -ing modifier describes the action of the previous clause, in this case, "proclaiming" requires an active doer. Someone or something had to do the proclaiming. Because "The Olympic Games" is the subject of "helped" it certainly sounds as though the games are the entity that's proclaiming, doesn't it? Clearly, that makes no sense.

Contrast the above with another version, where an -ing modifier might make work with the same subject: "The Olympic Games helped to keep the peace, leading to a sacred truce..." The difference here is that "leading" doesn't require an active doer, it can be a passive consequence of the previous action. So I don't have to wonder about who or what is leading to a sacred truce, the truce is the passive result of an action. This one is fine.

Very subtle distinction here: in one case the -ing requires a doer; in the other it doesn't. The takeaway: though an -ing modifier doesn't technically modify the subject of the previous clause, sometimes, because of the active nature of that modifier, it sounds as though the previous subject is doing something illogical. When that's the case, the -ing modifier is a problem.

This is what makes SC so hard. There's no real rule here -- we just need to ask ourselves if a construction makes sense given the context. Your job is to make sure you don't develop grammar-based tunnel vision. Grammar is useful, but context and meaning matter much more on the GMAT.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi GMATNinja, can u help with the rules about Not one & None. Is Object of the preposition rule applicable for SANAM pronouns?
Pls refer this question,
https://gmatclub.com/forum/not-one-of-t ... 13288.html
If the sentence were "None of the potential investors", will the correct verb be "are" ?

Thanks!!

Check out this post, if you haven't already.

We can't think of an OA where "none" gets a plural verb. But more importantly, we can't think of an official question where you have to decide whether "none" gets a singular or plural verb.

(It's funny: years ago, a large test-prep company featured the word "none" as the most prominent piece of content in a heavily promoted GMAT book. And as far as we could tell, it had exactly zero relevance to any actual, official GMAT questions.)

The takeaway? You're very unlikely to encounter this issue on a real question, but if you do: be conservative, and look for other decision points if you're not sure about the verb form that accompanies "none". As always, you'll want to rely on context and meaning, not a list of rules that you can memorize and apply without thinking.

I hope that helps a bit!
_________________

Hi GMATNinja can you help me with the usage of like ? do you have a post or anything on the subject ? thanks

We have a few videos on comparisons and a handful of forum explanations that might help. Scroll down to "Part 2: GMAT SC Resources by Question Type" on this page, and then find 8. Comparisons + Like vs. Such As. That'll have everything you need, hopefully.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi,

As I read through the posts. We agree that -ing verbals must have an active doer.

My doubt is regarding a passive construction, say:

''The car was sent to garbage plant, following court orders''.

Now the car can not follow court orders. Neither this is a cause-effect/result relation.

So, will the usage of -ing verbal be in-correct here?

Yes, that would not be correct for the reason you are saying. The car is not following court hours.

"I took my car to the garbage plant, following court orders."

That works, because I can be following court orders by taking my car to the plant.
_________________

Hi,

In the question "The much debated position on the relationship between the GDP and the industrial revolution claims that the acceleration of the GDP that begun 300 years ago with the advent of the industrial revolution, and continued since then." suppose one encounters two option as below

A.that began 300 years ago with the advent of the industrial revolution and has

B. began 300 years ago with the advent of the industrial revolution and has

Which one of the two will be correct?

As per some explanation "The acceleration of GDP" will not be having any verb if "that" is present in the sentence as "That" will take both verbs "began" and "has continued". Option B is correct.

Now since "that" is referring to noun phrase "acceleration of GDP " then why Option A, as given above may not be correct?

In many cases of Relative Pronoun modifier clauses "that" becomes the subject referring to the preceding noun entity and fulfils the SV Pair condition ,then why in those questions the "noun entity" and "that" is not viewed separately as seen in the above question?

Example: Retailers do not approve of the apps that allow shoppers to perform immediate price-comparison by scanning a product on the shelf.

In this sentence ???that??? refers to the preceding noun ??? apps - and the entire underlined clause modifies this noun ??? apps.
As you can see, ???that??? is the subject of the purple clause. Its verb is ???allow???.

Then why the below statement cannot be correct?

The much debated position on the relationship between the GDP and the industrial revolution claims that the acceleration of the GDP that began 300 years ago with the advent of the industrial revolution and has continued since then

Please explain the above query?


Regards