jabhatta2 wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
The two elements "judged" and "disobeyed" should be parallel. Also, "judged..." should come before "disobeyed..." because he first judged and then disobeyed.
"disobeying orders" is not the natural effect of "judging the report to be incorrect". The two actions were performed by SP intentionally. Whatever may have been his judgement, he may still have obeyed orders.
Hence the use of comma + verb-ing is not correct as done in (C) and (D).
In (E), he disobeyed orders and judged reports to be false. The sequence is switched.
Hi
VeritasKarishma - Per the yellow highlight above, how are you so sure that SP first "judged the report to be incorrect" and THEN "disobeyed orders from his seniors
to retaliate" ?
I personally thought one cannot be sure regarding the sequence of events.
Maybe he first "disobeyed orders" and then subsequently "judged the report to be incorrect"
Is it because of the prepositional phrase "
TO RETALIATE" that you are making this assumption regarding the sequence of events.
If the prepositional phrase "
TO RETALIATE was removed, you would not make the assumption in yellow perhaps ?
Thank you
Hello
jabhatta2,
We hope this finds you well.
Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubts.
As
VeritasKarishma has written, this is a case wherein we must consider the logical sequence of events. Remember, on the GMAT, you must take care to understand the logical and likely meaning of the sentence; some answer choices may produce meanings that are not entirely incoherent but are still illogical, in that they suggest meanings that are impossible. Still, others may convey meanings that are not entirely illogical but are incorrect; in such cases, you must consider which interpretation is the most likely. For example, consider the sentence "John took the bus; his car had run out of gas."; here, if you are to determine whether the past perfect tense has been applied to the correct event, you must consider what the likely and logical sequence of events is. It is certainly
possible that John took the bus first and his car ran out of gas at a later point, but the more likely interpretation is that the ar running out of gas is the reason why he took the bus, meaning it must have happened first.
Similarly, in this case, it is technically possible that Petrov disobeyed the order for no given reason and only later judged the report to be false, but the more likely interpretation is that Petrov judging the report to be false is why he disobeyed the order.
We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team