Mkrn1475
Grasshoppers, despite their commonalities, and crickets actually constitute two distinct suborders, Caelifera and Ensifera.
A) Grasshoppers, despite their commonalities, and crickets actually constitute two distinct suborders, Caelifera and Ensifera.
B) Despite their commonalities, grasshoppers and crickets actually constitute Caelifera and Ensifera, being two distinct suborders.
C) Despite their commonalities, grasshoppers and crickets actually constitute two distinct suborders, Caelifera and Ensifera.
D) Grasshoppers and crickets actually despite their commonalities constitute two distinct suborders, Caelifera and Ensifera.
E) Despite their commonalities, Caelifera and Ensifera are actually two distinct suborders, which grasshoppers and crickets constitute.
The two suborders are naturally distinct aren't they? Ergo the different names, one would of course assume that suborders with different names will have some distinction. The only confusion would be with regards to the common characteristics of the various species that constitute the suborders. It would therefore stand to reason that the sentence aims to imply that despite their similarities, grasshoppers and crickets belong to different suborders, not that despite their similarities, Caelifera and Ensifera are distinct suborders.
I could be wrong, perhaps an expert can help. The answer in my opinion is C.
GMATNinja could you please help?