Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
11 Apr 2020, 22:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
68% (01:04) correct
32%
(01:04)
wrong
based on 324
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Hitachi’s first product was a 5-horsepower electric induction motor, which was initially developed for use in copper mining but soon had become the leading motor in Japan’s growing electric power industry infrastructure.
A) but soon had become
B) but soon becoming
C) but which soon became
D) but will soon become
E) but which had soon become
11 Apr 2020, 22:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
• Split #1 - past perfect (had become) is incorrect
This sentence describes two actions in the past:
(1) Hitachi’s 5-horsepower electric induction motor was developed for use in copper mining; and
(2) subsequently, this motor became the leading motor in Japan’s growing electric power industry infrastructure.
Options A and E are incorrect because both use the past perfect verb tense (had become) for the later-in-time event, a use that is exactly backwards.
That is, when a sentence describes two actions in the past, the past perfect (had become) should only be used to refer the action that came first – in these answers, it describes the action that came second.
Eliminate A and E
• Split #2: Wrong verb tenses
Option B) is incorrect because a conjugated verb rather than an –ING word is required after the conjunction but.
Option D) also has verb problems.
Option D is incorrect because it is normally incorrect to mix past and future in the same sentence.
-- that is, when the future is discussed from the perspective of the past, would + verb should be used instead (as is the case in option C)
Eliminate B and D.
The best answer is C.
In (C), the verb became correctly maintains the established simple past tense.
Note that this is the rare instance in which the pronoun which is correctly used without a comma before it.
→ The reason this construction is acceptable here is that the which in (C) is parallel to the which after [motor + comma] and serves the same grammatical function.
→ The comma before motor also “applies” to the later which, eliminating what would otherwise be a problematic construction because which cannot be used without a comma when it describes a noun.
• THE WORD "WHICH"
SivaVellala , you wrote:
First, as I noted above, the comma before the first which applies to the second which.
We simply have one noun described by two relative clauses. Both relative clauses start with "which."
Second, the logical antecedent of which, both times, is a 5-horsepower electric induction motor.
The motor was designed for one thing in one industry. The motor soon became an integral part of another industry.
Both which-clauses describe the motor.
I suspect that you believe that which equals "Hitachi's first product" because it is the subject of the sentence.
The word which does not have to refer to the subject of the preceding clause.
(I cannot figure out why this non-rule is still being taught and by whom.)
Correct: I bought a chocolate ice cream cone, which delighted me immediately and which made me wish that summer would arrive quickly.
In this example, chocolate ice cream cone is the object of the verb bought. That ice cream cone has two somewhat different effects, a fact that I am allowed to highlight by repeating the word which.
In general, which refers to the nearest logical preceding noun.
You also wrote:
Maybe you could explain what you mean by "redundancy error."
Do you mean that you think the second "which" is unnecessary?
The use of "which" is not redundant when we want to emphasize that we are talking about the same entity and that entity has changed characteristics.
Furthermore, possible redundancy does not even begin to compare to verb tense errors. Redundancy is a style error. Verb tense is a grammar error. Grammar wins.
Unless you see something hideous such as "close proximity," use redundancy only at the end of your analysis and only if two answers seem equally good.
I am not sure that I understand your question.
If I have neither understood nor answered your question, please rephrase and tag me.
I will be happy to try to help.
COMMENTS
warrior1991 , very good to see you!
RohiniK , Tapesh03 , Parikshit07 , neharaj0001 , and SivaVellala , welcome to SC Butler.
thenikhilseth , thank you for chiming in to help.
( +1 , because when someone takes the time to post—a question, an explanation, or a reply—we say thank you with kudos. THey cost nothing.)
As always, I am glad to see everyone.
Different approaches and different phrasing will help many who follow.
(And I'll nudge again: if you are a forum member and have been hesitant to post, I have a good idea: post anyway.)
These answers range from good to excellent. Nice work! Kudos to all.
Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC2)
Quote:
• Split #1 - past perfect (had become) is incorrect
This sentence describes two actions in the past:
(1) Hitachi’s 5-horsepower electric induction motor was developed for use in copper mining; and
(2) subsequently, this motor became the leading motor in Japan’s growing electric power industry infrastructure.
Options A and E are incorrect because both use the past perfect verb tense (had become) for the later-in-time event, a use that is exactly backwards.
That is, when a sentence describes two actions in the past, the past perfect (had become) should only be used to refer the action that came first – in these answers, it describes the action that came second.
Eliminate A and E
• Split #2: Wrong verb tenses
Option B) is incorrect because a conjugated verb rather than an –ING word is required after the conjunction but.
Option D) also has verb problems.
Option D is incorrect because it is normally incorrect to mix past and future in the same sentence.
-- that is, when the future is discussed from the perspective of the past, would + verb should be used instead (as is the case in option C)
Eliminate B and D.
The best answer is C.
In (C), the verb became correctly maintains the established simple past tense.
Note that this is the rare instance in which the pronoun which is correctly used without a comma before it.
→ The reason this construction is acceptable here is that the which in (C) is parallel to the which after [motor + comma] and serves the same grammatical function.
→ The comma before motor also “applies” to the later which, eliminating what would otherwise be a problematic construction because which cannot be used without a comma when it describes a noun.
• THE WORD "WHICH"
SivaVellala , you wrote:
Quote:
[i]Hitachi's first product is not the antecedent of which.
First, as I noted above, the comma before the first which applies to the second which.
We simply have one noun described by two relative clauses. Both relative clauses start with "which."
Second, the logical antecedent of which, both times, is a 5-horsepower electric induction motor.
The motor was designed for one thing in one industry. The motor soon became an integral part of another industry.
Both which-clauses describe the motor.
I suspect that you believe that which equals "Hitachi's first product" because it is the subject of the sentence.
The word which does not have to refer to the subject of the preceding clause.
(I cannot figure out why this non-rule is still being taught and by whom.)
Correct: I bought a chocolate ice cream cone, which delighted me immediately and which made me wish that summer would arrive quickly.
In this example, chocolate ice cream cone is the object of the verb bought. That ice cream cone has two somewhat different effects, a fact that I am allowed to highlight by repeating the word which.
In general, which refers to the nearest logical preceding noun.
You also wrote:
Quote:
Maybe you could explain what you mean by "redundancy error."
Do you mean that you think the second "which" is unnecessary?
The use of "which" is not redundant when we want to emphasize that we are talking about the same entity and that entity has changed characteristics.
Furthermore, possible redundancy does not even begin to compare to verb tense errors. Redundancy is a style error. Verb tense is a grammar error. Grammar wins.
Unless you see something hideous such as "close proximity," use redundancy only at the end of your analysis and only if two answers seem equally good.
I am not sure that I understand your question.
If I have neither understood nor answered your question, please rephrase and tag me.
I will be happy to try to help.
COMMENTS
warrior1991 , very good to see you!
RohiniK , Tapesh03 , Parikshit07 , neharaj0001 , and SivaVellala , welcome to SC Butler.
thenikhilseth , thank you for chiming in to help.
( +1 , because when someone takes the time to post—a question, an explanation, or a reply—we say thank you with kudos. THey cost nothing.)
As always, I am glad to see everyone.
Different approaches and different phrasing will help many who follow.
(And I'll nudge again: if you are a forum member and have been hesitant to post, I have a good idea: post anyway.)
These answers range from good to excellent. Nice work! Kudos to all.
11 Apr 2020, 23:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi generis
It's been a long time.
Well the answer to the question above IMO should be C.
B has the problem where the -ing (becoming) without comma should modify the preceding noun . In this case it is not.
It's been a long time.
Well the answer to the question above IMO should be C.
B has the problem where the -ing (becoming) without comma should modify the preceding noun . In this case it is not.
