Horses are incapable of physically vomiting, suggesting that their evo

Also — Be careful!

Starving and poisoning are NOT properly parallel!

Yes, they both end with __ing — but that's just a superficial similarity.
• Starving would have the horses' ancestors as its SUBJECT / AGENT.
• Poisoning, on the other hand, would have the horses' ancestors as its OBJECT.
Two totally different functionalities.
Non-parallel.

__

If you wanted to make a parallel structure using starving, you'd have to use being poisoned.
Both of these would have the horses' ancestors as subject / agent. (The horses' ancestors may have starved. The horses' ancestors may have been poisoned.)

Poisoning is invariant here (it's not in the underline), so this isn't an option — but it's still worth considering, just to clarify your complete understanding of what parallelism actually is and isn't.
_________________

A. are incapable of physically vomiting, suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors were in greater danger of starving than of----"incapable of physically vomiting" seems to suggest something, which is illogical

B. physically lack the ability to vomit, thus suggesting that the horse’s evolutionary ancestors were more endangered by starving than ------no verb for the subject horses

C. cannot physically vomit, an observation suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors faced a threat of starving more than------Correct."cannot physically vomit" is a phenomena that is associated with horses. this observation will then lead to suggestion (by experts). "starving more than poisoning" is correct comparison

D. are physically incapable of vomiting, an observation that suggests their evolutionary ancestors were threatened more by starvation than by-----this is a passive construction which implies that "starvation and poisoning" threatened ancestors which is illogical.

E. are physically unable to vomit, a suggestion that the horse’s evolutionary ancestors faced more danger from starvation than from------"physically unable to vomit" cannot suggest. its a phenomena associated with horses.

C !! Though "incapable of physically vomiting" does not seem wrong to me, He was incapable of doing XYZ. This const is correct right ??

I knocked out A as C conveys the meaning better. An observation that suggests ......

Horses are incapable of physically vomiting, suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors were in greater danger of starving than of poisoning.

A. are incapable of physically vomiting, suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors were in greater danger of starving than of -"physically vomit" is illogical

B. physically lack the ability to vomit, thus suggesting that the horse’s evolutionary ancestors were more endangered by starving than - "endangered by starving than by.." is proper parallelism.

C. cannot physically vomit, an observation suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors faced a threat of starving more than -1."physically vomit" is illogical. 2."threat of starving more that of poisoning" is properly parallel

D. are physically incapable of vomiting, an observation that suggests their evolutionary ancestors were threatened more by starvation than by -suggest is a reporting verb and must be followed by "THAT"

E. are physically unable to vomit, a suggestion that the horse’s evolutionary ancestors faced more danger from starvation than from -Not perfect, but better than the other available choices.

mikemcgarry please review and let me know, if I've misinterpreted any option. :)

IMO: D

Incapability of vomiting is an observation, not a suggestion, hence, eliminate A, B, and E.

Between C and D, D sounds better to me although I can't pinpoint exactly where it went wrong with C.


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

I think it is D.

A. physically incapable of vomiting seems to be better usage. In greater danger of starving also seems odd.

B. endangered by: wrong idiomatic usage IMO.

C. Comparison error: compares threat of starving to poisoning.

D. Correct: are physically incapable of vomiting, an observation that suggests their evolutionary ancestors were threatened more by starvation than by

E. It is not a suggestion.

^^ Not true.

Consider:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/at-one-time- ... 52712.html

There's no perfectly consistent rule for when this instance of "that" can/should be omitted.

In general, though, it's worth noting that the SC writers — like other good writers! — make certain adjustments to avoid using the same 'little word' twice in close proximity.

• At the link above, for instance — If "it was said THAT..." were used, then you'd have this:
...was so prevalent THAT it was said THAT...
The omission of the second "that" avoids this weirdness.

Same thing in the problem currently at hand.

...and, again, same thing here:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/australian-e ... 68616.html
That problem ^^ uses the less common phrasing "evidence to suggest..." — rather than the more straightforward "evidence that suggests..." — because the latter would again create a sentence saying "evidence THAT suggests THAT bla bla bla".

__

The only thing you actually HAVE to know about this stuff, by the way, is that the use of THAT after what you're calling "reporting verbs" is OPTIONAL.
_________________

Horses are incapable of physically vomiting, suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors were in greater danger of starving than of poisoning.

A. are incapable of physically vomiting, suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors were in greater danger of starving than of-- Correct because of prepositional parallelism'of' .

B. physically lack the ability to vomit, thus suggesting that the horse’s evolutionary ancestors were more endangered by starving than --- 'by' is missing -unparallel
C. cannot physically vomit, an observation suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors faced a threat of starving more than ---- should have been ' more than of ' --unparallel

D. are physically incapable of vomiting, an observation that suggests their evolutionary ancestors were threatened more by starvation than by -- suggests that the ancestors were under a possible threat and not that they have already been threatened.

E. are physically unable to vomit, a suggestion that the horse’s evolutionary ancestors faced more danger from starvation than from -----' danger more from starvation than from' would be parallel.
_________________

Just to clarify my concepts, you see no other grammatical error other than the meaning conveyed by D? I will write both A and D together for clearer understanding.

A- Horses are incapable of physically vomiting, suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors were in greater danger of starving than of poisoning.

D- Horses are physically incapable of vomiting, an observation that suggests their evolutionary ancestors were threatened more by starvation than by poisoning.

- May I ask, what the word 'suggesting' modifies in A.

- Do you think the phrase incapable of physically vomiting is correct; I cannot assume there is any other way of vomiting which makes the word physically, redundant. Saying physically incapable of vomiting does give a more logical meaning that they cannot vomit.

- Lastly, I recently read you cannot always consider the meaning portrayed in the original sentence as the absolute value. If you find another option that is grammatically more correct, you can choose that one. It is high time to ask if this idea is wrong?

jedit
Is it that A's meaning is not appropriate and so we must go in for D? What is the meaning problem in A and how is the problem solved in D?
_________________

^^ This usage of "comma + __ing" is thoroughly nonsense, in fact.

Comma + __ing modifies the preceding action, AND ascribes primary responsibility/'ownership' of __ING to the preceding subject/agent.

e.g.,
Josiah was slapped across the face by a girl, infuriating his father. —> Dad is mad at Josiah for letting a girl slap him.
A girl slapped Josiah across the face, infuriating his father. —> Dad is mad at the girl who slapped his son.

Choice A thus ascribes the action of 'suggesting' to horses themselves. This is nonsense.

__



^^ Bravo!
FANTASTIC observation — and PERFECTLY correct.

Physically vomiting is indeed redundant.
In choice A, physically belongs in front of incapable, not in front of vomiting.
_________________

^^ This wording is a bit too convoluted for me, so, I can't just say 'yes' or 'no' here. But, the crux of the matter is this:

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 'SPECIAL' AT ALL about choice A!
Choice A is chosen COMPLETELY AT RANDOM.

The CORRECT meaning is determined by CONTEXT + COMMON SENSE.
There is no such thing as 'the original meaning'. Choices whose meaning DIFFERS from the intended meaning / common-sense interpretation are WRONG.

__

You might find it helpful to imagine that the original underline is simply BLANK, with 5 different choices underneath.

As for WHY this 'blank' is filled with a random choice — that's actually done to HELP YOU UNDERSTAND the INTENDED MEANING!

If this doesn't make sense, then try transcribing a few SC problems — and then erasing the underlined words (leaving a BLANK 'underline').
Most likely, you'll have extreme difficulty understanding what these partial sentences are actually SUPPOSED TO SAY!
By inserting an answer choice — even if that choice is WRONG, as in 80% of cases — GMAC is giving a BIG boost to your ability to interpret the words correctly and sensibly.
_________________

Horses are incapable of physically vomiting, suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors were in greater danger of starving than of poisoning.

Physically incapable of vomiting is better than incapable of physically vomiting. Plus, the verb-ing modifier here makes little sense. OUT!



Starving and Poising are not parallel. Plus for me, there is a similar issue as A with the Verb-ing modifier. OUT!



Starving and Poising are not parallel. OUT!



This seems like the best of the options. KEEP!



I find the meaning to be OFF here. 'Horses are physically unable to vomit' <- This is not a suggestion, in my opinion. It can be an observation, or a stated fact. OUT!


I'm going to stick my head out and say, D is the answer!
_________________

Hi..

what the Q is testing on..
1) Meaning - the meaning in ORIGINAL is not logical due to the usage of physically vomiting..
2) Modifier - could be a NOUN modifier " an observation" or "a suggestion" OR a participle too "suggesting"
3) Parallelism - more X than Y.. so it has to be more of .. than of... OR more by ... than by ..... BUT cannot be more by ... than ....

ONLY D follows the above rules
_________________

Hello RonPurewal, Can you tell that what are the chances of such a question appearing on the GMAT? Option A, B and C are obviously out, but both option D and E also aren't perfect.

Horses are incapable of physically vomiting, suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors were in greater danger of starving than of poisoning.

A. are incapable of physically vomiting, suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors were in greater danger of starving than of
It should be physically incapable of vomiting.

B. physically lack the ability to vomit, thus suggesting that the horse’s evolutionary ancestors were more endangered by starving than
Parallelism error

C. cannot physically vomit, an observation suggesting that their evolutionary ancestors faced a threat of starving more than
Parallelism error

D. are physically incapable of vomiting, an observation that suggests their evolutionary ancestors were threatened more by starvation than by
Correct. Though I would have prefered "that" after suggests.

E. are physically unable to vomit, a suggestion that the horse’s evolutionary ancestors faced more danger from starvation than from
We can't use to+verb here, since there is no "purpose" in the sentence. Plus the opening independent clause is not a suggestion, its an observation.

ISN'T "DANGER FROM" THE INCORRECT IDIOM USAGE?

Hi RonPurewal,
Even though I got the answer right, I still cannot figure out “Starving” acting as an object and “Poisoning” as a subject. Could you please explain?

Thanks.
_________________

chetan2u
Can't ellipsis come into play here?

Can't we take "of" common in C ?

I have a threat more of X than of Y...correct because "of" is following "more" and hence is inside the parallelism and is required to be repeated in Y

I'm facing a greater threat of X than (of) Y.

Please if you could elaborate and explain this to me in detail
daagh

Posted from my mobile device

Don't we compulsorily need a THAT after suggests in option D? VeritasKarishma GMATNinja please help.