Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate

That part is fine. What's happening there is that you have a that that has been assumed away (this is very common).

Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled...
is the same as
Myriad Genetics feels that it is entitled...

Here we have a dependent clause introduced by that. This entire that clause tells us what MG feels. Another quick example:

I feel you are ready to take the exam.
is the same as
I feel that you are ready to take the exam.
_________________

"that" is not necessary for few verbs such as tell, feel etc. These types of verbs are very few.
e.g. He told me he will come back
e.g. I felt he will come back

It is necessary for most of other verbs such as advise, state etc.
e.g. she stated that she saw the accused at the spot

(A) Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound - correct

(B) Having had extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound - them is not parallel to "its patent" as one is singular other is plural

(C) Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate it as a research subject, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound - Two types of genes are extracted, hence it should be "isolate them and not it"

(D) Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patents on the new DNA compounds - Same as B

(E) Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels entitled to its patents on the new DNA compound - Same as B

I understand 'B' is wrong clearly because of the plural "subjects" and thus breaks the parallelism. But one of the reasons above also says that 'Having Had ' is incorrect. Can someone explain why it is wrong? and when to use 'Having Had' ?

MentorTutoring

Can you pls provide a better explanation for option A?
Though I selected E as the answer, I do agree that the use of plural patents is not correct.

In A in the non-underlined portion we are given "but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature."

"it" should logically refer to the patent for the compound and not the company, but in the underlined portion "it" and "its" is referring to the company

This made me doubt A as the answer choice as the same pronoun is referring to different antecedents

Thanks in advance!

Hello again, GDT, and thank you for tagging me. I narrowed the choices down to (A) or (E), and of the two, the former is harder to argue against, in terms of meaning. Compare the differences across the full sentence:



Split #1: A research subject versus research subjects
Analysis--Although I prefer the latter to agree with the plural genes, the nature of the research is not clear to me from the sentence. It could be that the research is centered exclusively on how the two genes interact in one series of experiments, thereby justifying a singular subject; it could also be true that each gene was isolated for independent study across different types of experiments, in which case I would argue for the plural subjects. Since research is an umbrella term, kind of like merchandise, which could refer to a good or multiple goods, I cannot make any headway here. This is a draw, in my book. Count: (A) = 0.5, (E) = 0.5.

Split #2: feels versus now feels
Analysis--Why do we need now? This seemed superfluous to me as soon as I read it. Does now indicate that Myriad Genetics did not feel entitled before? My vote is for (A). Count: (A) = 1.5, (E) = 0.5.

Split #3: it is entitled versus entitled
Analysis--I generally favor fewer words, since the GMAT™ prefers the same, when it comes to conveying the vital meaning of the sentence. Is it okay to say that Myriad Genetics feels entitled, as opposed to saying that Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled? Although four out of five answer choices opt for the extra words, I cannot convince myself that the more concise version is wrong. Both answer choices have a company feeling something. I prefer (E). Count: (A) = 1.5, (E) = 1.5.

Split #4: patent versus patents
Analysis--It all comes down to this one to break the deadlock. The fact of the matter is that we cannot negotiate with petitioners... are contesting it in the non-underlined part of the sentence. So to what does this it refer? I would expect the petitioners to dispute a decision. If you argue for patent, then you have to go with (A). But there is another interpretation. You could argue that petitioners were contesting the company instead, Myriad Genetics. The non-underlined portion could then be interpreted to read,

but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting Myriad Genetics on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.

Not to be overlooked here is a company. Sometimes a pronoun can occur in a sentence ahead of its own referent, although it is more typical to do so in an introductory phrase or clause. Furthermore, to contest a person or some other noun is fine, even if people do not exactly walk around saying, "Tyson Fury wants to contest Deontay Wilder in a third bout." Finally, how can we prove conclusively that Myriad Genetics took out either one patent or multiple patents, other than to point at this singular instance of it at the end of the sentence? If I wanted to play it safe, I would go with (A), but I cannot disprove the latter interpretation I have outlined above. Count: (A) = 2.0, (E) = 2.0.

There you have it. I think either (A) or (E) is justifiable on grammatical or semantic grounds. An extra now in (E) is not enough for me to see the answer choice off. When in doubt, I stress a cautious approach, so (A) is the better of the two answers in my view, the harder answer to argue against, but I am not going to tell anyone that (E) is wrong for the reason stated in the OE.

Just my two cents. I hope you find them worth the read.

- Andrew
_________________

Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound, but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.

Too many pronouns here, I am confused. What are "them","it", and "it" referring to? Let's rephrase the sentence to make it clear:

Having extracted the genes from human DNA to isolate "the genes" as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels "Myriad Genetics" is entitled to "Myriad Genetics' " patent on the new DNA compound, but petitioners in SC case are contesting "the patent" on the grounds that a company cannot copy right nature.

Other than the confusion, I don't know what is wrong with the sentence. So let's check the answer choice and figure out.



Keep A for now since I don't see the clear errors yet.



Hmmmmm. All pronouns are the same as A. What is going on here? "having had extracted" - Why do we use past perfect tense here? The whole sentence uses only present tense. This can't be right. B is out.



Yay, I found the error. "It" can't refer back to "the genes. C is out.



Yay another one, given "it" is referring back to "patents". D is out.



Same as D. E is out.

So only A is left. A must be the correct answer.
_________________

I am absolutely confused between E and A. I marked E because to me, BRCA1 and BRCA2 felt like 2 different research subjects. But the OE suggests that the difference between A and E is because of the usage of "its patents" which is plural vis-a-vis "its patent" which is singular.

But doesn't that make an assumption that only 1 patent has been filed in relation to the new compound? Surely MG could have filed multiple patents? How strong is that split for elimination?

If you pay attention to the non-underline portion, "petitioners are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.", you will ask yourself that what what the petitioners are contesting? Logically, They are contesting the patent. Since the author use "it", then patent must be singular.

Does that make sense to you?
_________________

What is the correct answer and explanation for this? Is this an OG question? Please advise.

Hello, Jitu20. The Official Explanation is given in this post, and the question comes from Veritas Prep, according to the tags above the timer. Although I do not work for Veritas Prep or own any material from the company to verify the source, I will say that the terse OE resembles other explanations I have seen from the company.

Finally, if you are curious, I weighed in on the question in my own way above, in this post.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________

I am actually mostly in agreement with the justifications here except I would actually argue that C is also incorrect because 'it' in the first clause should be 'them'. What was extracted are the genes and the sentence leads us to believe that a plural pronoun not singular pronoun should be used.

Thoughts?
_________________

Why can't the "it" in C refer to DNA? Seems to make sense as well given the fact the the patent is on the new DNA compound.
Maybe it's because it changes the meaning, but why exactly is C wrong?

Could you please explain why do you feel in option E the highlighted part is wring.

Thank You,
Shashank Singh

s1804singh because of the use of the plural "patents".

@VeritasPrepKarishma could you please explain?

VeritasKarishma

I think D and E are not necessarily wrong. Even E is more succinct than D. "it" in the non-underlined part can refer to Myriad Genetics as well. "Supreme Court case are contesting Myriad Genetics on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature." sounds fine from both grammatical perspective and meaning wise perspective

You can contest a claim, a will or a patent, not a person or a company. You can contest a claim I make. You cannot contest me.
Petitioners in the case are contesting the patent, not the company.

It is a great question with a very subtle, but non-debatable error. We normally ignore the non underlined part but that is what gives us the answer here.
We may get lost in all the singulars and plurals of subject(s), patent(s), compound(s) and both may seem to work. But the non underlined use of 'it' for patent is indisputable.


rvgmat12:

(A) Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound, but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.

Having extracted A and B from C to isolate them (plural is necessary since we are talking about two genes that are isolated. We are discussing the genes, not the DNA in the prepositional phrase 'from human DNA'). Why did we extract them? To isolate them as a research subject.
"A research subject" can be "Genes". It needn't be singular.

That is why (A) is correct but (C) is not.

Please tag me VeritasKarishma, not @VeritasPrepKarishma.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________