It is currently 11 Dec 2017, 14:11

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Posts: 102

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 10

GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Feb 2014, 10:46
KingsAgain wrote:
Easiest way to spot such a mistake is to realize A and B are run-on sentences.

Sentence 1: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives ...
Sentence 2: strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

I believe this is not correct. Sentence 2 is not a "sentence":).

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 10

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 899

Kudos [?]: 929 [0], given: 322

Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Premium Member
Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jun 2014, 13:19
As posted previously by folks, I have the same query.

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

The -ING modifier modifiers 'researchers'.

MR, strongly recommending blah blah blah, concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases.

And recommendation can likely be assumes as a result of the conclusion of researchers.

After concluding they recommended

Please confirm
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Kudos [?]: 929 [0], given: 322

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7788

Kudos [?]: 18098 [2], given: 236

Location: Pune, India
Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jun 2014, 06:32
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
TGC wrote:
As posted previously by folks, I have the same query.

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

The -ING modifier modifiers 'researchers'.

MR, strongly recommending blah blah blah, concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases.

And recommendation can likely be assumes as a result of the conclusion of researchers.

After concluding they recommended

Please confirm


Responding to a pm:

The verb recommend needs subjunctive. So "A recommends that B do C" is the proper format.

Also, when I read the sentence, there is a disconnect between researchers and recommending. I expect the VERB+ing modifier to modify the closest subject which is 'sedentary lifestyles'. But it actually modifies researchers and that doesn't work. We are looking for the subject researchers again which option (E) provides by using 'they'.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18098 [2], given: 236

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 722

Kudos [?]: 872 [0], given: 724

Location: India
GPA: 3.21
WE: Business Development (Other)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2014, 06:42
Correct, moreover you could have asked who is the subject of participle "recommending" .. Is it sedentary lifestyles, researchers. Basically the deal is that subject of the modifier should be unambiguous.


Don't you think that in this sentence structure of IC +DC, Verb-ing modifier is modifying the Big IC (IC+DC) here... I mean there is no ambiguity as such....
A is wrong because of reasons pointed out by pqhai...

Piyushk, Carcass....please chip in
_________________


“If you can't fly then run, if you can't run then walk, if you can't walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”

Kudos [?]: 872 [0], given: 724

2 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2013
Posts: 387

Kudos [?]: 354 [2], given: 139

Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 730 Q51 V38
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Dec 2014, 07:16
2
This post received
KUDOS
A:
If we use a comma and the present participle ‘recommending’ here, it will modify the ‘that clause’. So ‘recommending’ will be done by ‘sedentary life-styles’. Obviously, this is incorrect since the researchers are the ones who recommend exercise. So we cannot use the participle here. Hence we eliminate options (A) and (B).
B: Same

C & D:
Options (C) and (D) are unidiomatic in their usage of the verb recommend.
You recommend X for Y (say a person X for position Y)
or
You recommend that X do Y (say a person X do Y)

Option (E) uses recommend properly – ‘recommended that X do Y’. Also, ‘… researchers concluded that … and recommended that …’ have parallel structure.
_________________

Appreciate the efforts...KUDOS for all
Don't let an extra chromosome get you down..:P

Kudos [?]: 354 [2], given: 139

Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 599

Kudos [?]: 649 [0], given: 298

Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 2: 750 Q51 V41
GMAT 3: 790 Q51 V49
GPA: 3.3
In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concl [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2015, 08:28
In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

(A). strongly recommending middle-aged people to
(B). strongly recommending that middle-aged people should
(C). and strongly recommended for middle-aged people to
(D). and their strong recommendation was for middle-aged people to
(E). and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people

This is E sir -

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people

But what if we omit they from E in that case also would the sentence be correct?

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, and strongly recommended that middle-aged people

If we Omit they still I find that the parallelism is maintained -

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that [.............], and
strongly recommended that [................................]

Medical researchers did two things concluded and recommended (Subjunctive) and both are in parallel.

I need your Opinion sir. This question is from Gmat Prep Paper based Exams.
_________________

Like my post Send me a Kudos :) It is a Good manner.
My Debrief: http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-score-750-and-750-i-moved-from-710-to-189016.html

Kudos [?]: 649 [0], given: 298

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 341

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 403

GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Reviews Badge
In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concl [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2015, 12:34
honchos wrote:
In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

(A). strongly recommending middle-aged people to
(B). strongly recommending that middle-aged people should
(C). and strongly recommended for middle-aged people to
(D). and their strong recommendation was for middle-aged people to
(E). and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people

This is E sir -

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people

But what if we omit they from E in that case also would the sentence be correct?

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, and strongly recommended that middle-aged people

If we Omit they still I find that the parallelism is maintained -

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that [.............], and
strongly recommended that [................................]

Medical researchers did two things concluded and recommended (Subjunctive) and both are in parallel.

I need your Opinion sir. This question is from Gmat Prep Paper based Exams.




I think ( I am not absolutely sure) that if there is a comma before AND, then the following clause must contain its own subject and verb;

If there was no comma before AND then we are allowed to omit 'they'.

When we use comma + and then we need not be so concerned about parallelism but still it is better to have both the clauses on either side of AND parallel.

When we use and without comma then the questions needs to be parallel and we have to skip the subject in the clause after and.


I say so, because I have come across the OG question intar-the-oldest-hispanic-theater-company-in-new-york-has-44445.html.

When you read the sentence, you will find what I say.

Intar, the oldest Hispanic theater company in New York, has moved away from the Spanish classics and now it draws on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad and of those in the United States.
(A) now it draws on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad and of those
(B) now draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors, both those who live abroad and those who live
(C) it draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors now, both those living abroad and who live
(D) draws now on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors living abroad and who are
(E) draws on the works now of both contemporary Hispanic authors living abroad and those

The OE
Grammatical construction; Idiom; Parallelism
The pronoun it before the second verb results in an ungrammatical construction; removing the pronoun removes the error. The scope of those is unclear (authors, or contemporary Hispanic authors). The correct version of the sentence makes it clear that the company draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors who live in two different places. Those who live abroad is parallel to those who live in the United States

.A Because there is no comma after classics, the use of it creates an ungrammatical construction. The construction following both is unclear
.B Correct. In this sentence, Intar is the subject of draws on; parallel constructions follow both . . . and
.C It creates an ungrammatical construction; those living abroad is not parallel to who live
.D The construction following both is not parallel to the construction following and
.E Now modifies the verb and should precede it. The parallelism of the both . . . and construction is violated.

I hope you find the above discussion interesting and helpful.
I am no expert but would prefer some expert opinion.

I DONOT MIND KUDOS :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 403

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4545

Kudos [?]: 8936 [1], given: 111

Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concl [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2015, 10:15
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
honchos wrote:
In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

(A). strongly recommending middle-aged people to
(B). strongly recommending that middle-aged people should
(C). and strongly recommended for middle-aged people to
(D). and their strong recommendation was for middle-aged people to
(E). and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people

This is E sir -

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people

But what if we omit they from E in that case also would the sentence be correct?

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, and strongly recommended that middle-aged people

If we Omit they still I find that the parallelism is maintained -

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that [.............], and
strongly recommended that [................................]

Medical researchers did two things concluded and recommended (Subjunctive) and both are in parallel.

I need your Opinion sir. This question is from Gmat Prep Paper based Exams.

Dear honchos,
I'm happy to respond. :-) My friend, you are perfectly correct. Without the "they," we still would have the parallelism between the two verbs for the same subject. That would be essentially correct. The presence or absence of a comma before the word "and" is stylistic. With two separate clauses, as in the OA, we need the comma. With parallel verbs, we often wouldn't have the comma, but if the first verb phrase is long and complicated enough, we might include the clause for clarity. Here, the first verb phrase includes a "that" clause that contains a second "that" clause --- that is long and complicated enough that the comma would be justified.
Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8936 [1], given: 111

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4545

Kudos [?]: 8936 [0], given: 111

Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concl [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2015, 10:46
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
samichange wrote:
I think ( I am not absolutely sure) that if there is a comma before AND, then the following clause must contain its own subject and verb; If there was no comma before AND then we are allowed to omit 'they'.

When we use comma + and then we need not be so concerned about parallelism but still it is better to have both the clauses on either side of AND parallel.

When we use and without comma then the questions needs to be parallel and we have to skip the subject in the clause after and.


I say so, because I have come across the OG question intar-the-oldest-hispanic-theater-company-in-new-york-has-44445.html.

When you read the sentence, you will find what I say.

Intar, the oldest Hispanic theater company in New York, has moved away from the Spanish classics and now it draws on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad and of those in the United States.
(A) now it draws on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad and of those
(B) now draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors, both those who live abroad and those who live
(C) it draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors now, both those living abroad and who live
(D) draws now on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors living abroad and who are
(E) draws on the works now of both contemporary Hispanic authors living abroad and those

The OE
Grammatical construction; Idiom; Parallelism
The pronoun it before the second verb results in an ungrammatical construction; removing the pronoun removes the error. The scope of those is unclear (authors, or contemporary Hispanic authors). The correct version of the sentence makes it clear that the company draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors who live in two different places. Those who live abroad is parallel to those who live in the United States

.A Because there is no comma after classics, the use of it creates an ungrammatical construction. The construction following both is unclear
.B Correct. In this sentence, Intar is the subject of draws on; parallel constructions follow both . . . and
.C It creates an ungrammatical construction; those living abroad is not parallel to who live
.D The construction following both is not parallel to the construction following and
.E Now modifies the verb and should precede it. The parallelism of the both . . . and construction is violated.

I hope you find the above discussion interesting and helpful.
I am no expert but would prefer some expert opinion.

Dear samichange
I'm happy to respond. :-) My friend, I will ask, when you cite a question, please cite the source. This question is from the OG Verbal Review: in the 2016 edition, it is SC#100.

First of all, I will say: that comma rule is a strong stylistic preference, but it is NOT a mathematical black-and-white always-right vs. always-wrong kind of rule.

As I explained above to honchos, if we have two verbs in parallel, often we would not have a comma separating the halves of the sentence, but if the first verb phrase is long and involves modifying subordinate clauses, then we might use the comma break for overall clarity in the structure of the sentence.

By contrast, if we have two clauses, we would almost always have the comma, unless the clauses are particularly short. Again, this is not a black-and-white rule. Remember that the GMAT SC does NOT test punctuation, and absolutely no answer choice will be totally right or totally wrong purely on the basic of punctuation.

In this particular sentence, in (A), certainly the absence of the comma makes us suspicious. At best, a punctuation irregularity such as this is a kind of tip-off to look for other problems. Even with the comma, the version in (A) would be choppy and wordy
(modified A): Intar has moved away from the Spanish classics, and now it draws on the works . . .
(B) Intar has moved away from the Spanish classics and now draws on the works . . .
Compared to the structure in (B), the structure in (A), even with the comma, would a bit wordier, a bit more indirect, a bit less powerful, a bit less elegant. Choosing the first could be appropriate in a sentence in which the two halves were quite distinct, a sentence in which we wanted to make a strong logical distinction between the first action and the second action and show how unrelated there were. That's not the case here, because we want to juxtapose the actions to show their contrast. Still, this is subtle, not quite enough to say definitely that (A) is out and out wrong.

What really torpedoes (A) is the logical flaw at the end. Think of this parallelism:
... both
//of contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad
and
//of those in the United States

We know what the sentence is trying to put in parallel are
(a) contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad, and
(b) contemporary Hispanic authors in the United States

That's what the sentence is trying to say, but by putting such a strong separation between the two branches, each with its own prepositional phrase, the reference of the word "those" is unclear. Grammatically, it could be read as "those in the United States", i.e. every single person who happens to be in the US. Grammatically, the sentence would be putting into parallel the "contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad" with everyone who is in the US. That's 100% illogical, and not what the sentence is trying to say, but the poor grammatical construction leaves this possibility open. This is enough to say that (A) is irredeemably wrong. Notice, incidentally, how much more elegantly (B) handles the same parallelism, and with no ambiguity.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8936 [0], given: 111

Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 599

Kudos [?]: 649 [0], given: 298

Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 2: 750 Q51 V41
GMAT 3: 790 Q51 V49
GPA: 3.3
Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concl [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2015, 14:06
mikemcgarry wrote:
honchos wrote:
In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

(A). strongly recommending middle-aged people to
(B). strongly recommending that middle-aged people should
(C). and strongly recommended for middle-aged people to
(D). and their strong recommendation was for middle-aged people to
(E). and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people

This is E sir -

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people

But what if we omit they from E in that case also would the sentence be correct?

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, and strongly recommended that middle-aged people

If we Omit they still I find that the parallelism is maintained -

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that [.............], and
strongly recommended that [................................]

Medical researchers did two things concluded and recommended (Subjunctive) and both are in parallel.

I need your Opinion sir. This question is from Gmat Prep Paper based Exams.

Dear honchos,
I'm happy to respond. :-) My friend, you are perfectly correct. Without the "they," we still would have the parallelism between the two verbs for the same subject. That would be essentially correct. The presence or absence of a comma before the word "and" is stylistic. With two separate clauses, as in the OA, we need the comma. With parallel verbs, we often wouldn't have the comma, but if the first verb phrase is long and complicated enough, we might include the clause for clarity. Here, the first verb phrase includes a "that" clause that contains a second "that" clause --- that is long and complicated enough that the comma would be justified.
Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


Hats Of for the Perfect explanation. Thank you So Much. You are a Rock Star.
_________________

Like my post Send me a Kudos :) It is a Good manner.
My Debrief: http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-score-750-and-750-i-moved-from-710-to-189016.html

Kudos [?]: 649 [0], given: 298

Current Student
User avatar
S
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Posts: 919

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 79

Concentration: Strategy
Schools: Fisher '19 (M)
GPA: 3.71
Reviews Badge
Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concl [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Aug 2015, 00:40
mikemcgarry wrote:
samichange wrote:
I think ( I am not absolutely sure) that if there is a comma before AND, then the following clause must contain its own subject and verb; If there was no comma before AND then we are allowed to omit 'they'.

When we use comma + and then we need not be so concerned about parallelism but still it is better to have both the clauses on either side of AND parallel.

When we use and without comma then the questions needs to be parallel and we have to skip the subject in the clause after and.


I say so, because I have come across the OG question intar-the-oldest-hispanic-theater-company-in-new-york-has-44445.html.

When you read the sentence, you will find what I say.

Intar, the oldest Hispanic theater company in New York, has moved away from the Spanish classics and now it draws on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad and of those in the United States.
(A) now it draws on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad and of those
(B) now draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors, both those who live abroad and those who live
(C) it draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors now, both those living abroad and who live
(D) draws now on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors living abroad and who are
(E) draws on the works now of both contemporary Hispanic authors living abroad and those

The OE
Grammatical construction; Idiom; Parallelism
The pronoun it before the second verb results in an ungrammatical construction; removing the pronoun removes the error. The scope of those is unclear (authors, or contemporary Hispanic authors). The correct version of the sentence makes it clear that the company draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors who live in two different places. Those who live abroad is parallel to those who live in the United States

.A Because there is no comma after classics, the use of it creates an ungrammatical construction. The construction following both is unclear
.B Correct. In this sentence, Intar is the subject of draws on; parallel constructions follow both . . . and
.C It creates an ungrammatical construction; those living abroad is not parallel to who live
.D The construction following both is not parallel to the construction following and
.E Now modifies the verb and should precede it. The parallelism of the both . . . and construction is violated.

I hope you find the above discussion interesting and helpful.
I am no expert but would prefer some expert opinion.

Dear samichange
I'm happy to respond. :-) My friend, I will ask, when you cite a question, please cite the source. This question is from the OG Verbal Review: in the 2016 edition, it is SC#100.

First of all, I will say: that comma rule is a strong stylistic preference, but it is NOT a mathematical black-and-white always-right vs. always-wrong kind of rule.

As I explained above to honchos, if we have two verbs in parallel, often we would not have a comma separating the halves of the sentence, but if the first verb phrase is long and involves modifying subordinate clauses, then we might use the comma break for overall clarity in the structure of the sentence.

By contrast, if we have two clauses, we would almost always have the comma, unless the clauses are particularly short. Again, this is not a black-and-white rule. Remember that the GMAT SC does NOT test punctuation, and absolutely no answer choice will be totally right or totally wrong purely on the basic of punctuation.

In this particular sentence, in (A), certainly the absence of the comma makes us suspicious. At best, a punctuation irregularity such as this is a kind of tip-off to look for other problems. Even with the comma, the version in (A) would be choppy and wordy
(modified A): Intar has moved away from the Spanish classics, and now it draws on the works . . .
(B) Intar has moved away from the Spanish classics and now draws on the works . . .
Compared to the structure in (B), the structure in (A), even with the comma, would a bit wordier, a bit more indirect, a bit less powerful, a bit less elegant. Choosing the first could be appropriate in a sentence in which the two halves were quite distinct, a sentence in which we wanted to make a strong logical distinction between the first action and the second action and show how unrelated there were. That's not the case here, because we want to juxtapose the actions to show their contrast. Still, this is subtle, not quite enough to say definitely that (A) is out and out wrong.

What really torpedoes (A) is the logical flaw at the end. Think of this parallelism:
... both
//of contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad
and
//of those in the United States

We know what the sentence is trying to put in parallel are
(a) contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad, and
(b) contemporary Hispanic authors in the United States

That's what the sentence is trying to say, but by putting such a strong separation between the two branches, each with its own prepositional phrase, the reference of the word "those" is unclear. Grammatically, it could be read as "those in the United States", i.e. every single person who happens to be in the US. Grammatically, the sentence would be putting into parallel the "contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad" with everyone who is in the US. That's 100% illogical, and not what the sentence is trying to say, but the poor grammatical construction leaves this possibility open. This is enough to say that (A) is irredeemably wrong. Notice, incidentally, how much more elegantly (B) handles the same parallelism, and with no ambiguity.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


mikemcgarry

Your posts are just awesome. I visit GC just to hunt for your comments on Verbal Questions :))

Well, I am in a bit of confusion here because the Manhattan Staff thinks of the same situation differently. This is the comment that I have got for the same.

Whereas you can't join two independent clauses without a comma in front of the "and", if there IS a comma in front of the "and" without it being paired with another comma earlier in the sentence, you MUST create an independent clause by including a subject after the "and". As with the other post of course, if Ron points out an official GMAT problem that violates this near-universal English grammar rule, I'll withdraw my claim.

This is the link https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 81-15.html [Page 2 Last Post]

Please if you can clarify Sir.

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 79

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4545

Kudos [?]: 8936 [0], given: 111

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concl [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Aug 2015, 18:49
Steinbeck wrote:
mikemcgarry

Your posts are just awesome. I visit GC just to hunt for your comments on Verbal Questions :))

Well, I am in a bit of confusion here because the Manhattan Staff thinks of the same situation differently. This is the comment that I have got for the same.

Whereas you can't join two independent clauses without a comma in front of the "and", if there IS a comma in front of the "and" without it being paired with another comma earlier in the sentence, you MUST create an independent clause by including a subject after the "and". As with the other post of course, if Ron points out an official GMAT problem that violates this near-universal English grammar rule, I'll withdraw my claim.

This is the link https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 81-15.html [Page 2 Last Post]

Please if you can clarify Sir.

Dear Steinbeck,
I'm happy to respond. :-) There is always a temptation with grammatical rules to speak of them as if there were black & white always true, the way mathematical rules always are. A few grammar rules are totally black & white, but most aren't. I think the MGMAT person here got a little too dogmatic.

Certainly in an extremely short sentence, we could drop the comma between two independent clauses:
He slipped on the banana peel and I laugh.
A sentence this short would NEVER appear on the GMAT. For GMAT purposes, I will say that it is hard to imagine a sentence with two independent clauses that don't have this separating comma.

The converse though is tricky. Suppose there is a comma, not a comma paired with another setting off a smaller structure, but a legitimate separating comma before the "and." Can we say dogmatically that what comes after the comma must be a separate independent clause? Hmmm. Is this usually the case, true in the majority of circumstances? Yes, absolutely. Is it true 100% of the time with no exceptions? That seems to extreme to me. As a general rule, even in grammatical structure that don't ordinarily warrant commas, if the separate elements become long, with long modifying phrases & clauses, then sometimes commas are used just to separate elements and indicate the organization of the larger sentence.

Consider the use of commas in this monster-long sentence from the US Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Obvious, this is much more complicated than anything the GMAT SC will throw at you. Excerpt this mini sentence:
It is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
Of course, the antecedent of the "it" has been lost, but notice that we have a comma after an independent clause, and what follows is not another independent clause.

Now, that is 18th century English and involves much longer sentences, so it may or may not be applicable to the GMAT. I am not about to hunt through the entire OG looking for examples. I will just say that the 100% interpretation provided by the MGMAT folks seems to be a little extreme. It's good to know this as a generally true guideline, but it's good not to get too dogmatic about punctuation, which the GMAT does not test at all.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8936 [0], given: 111

Current Student
User avatar
S
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Posts: 919

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 79

Concentration: Strategy
Schools: Fisher '19 (M)
GPA: 3.71
Reviews Badge
Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concl [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2015, 01:17
mikemcgarry wrote:
Steinbeck wrote:
mikemcgarry

Your posts are just awesome. I visit GC just to hunt for your comments on Verbal Questions :))

Well, I am in a bit of confusion here because the Manhattan Staff thinks of the same situation differently. This is the comment that I have got for the same.

Whereas you can't join two independent clauses without a comma in front of the "and", if there IS a comma in front of the "and" without it being paired with another comma earlier in the sentence, you MUST create an independent clause by including a subject after the "and". As with the other post of course, if Ron points out an official GMAT problem that violates this near-universal English grammar rule, I'll withdraw my claim.

This is the link https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 81-15.html [Page 2 Last Post]

Please if you can clarify Sir.

Dear Steinbeck,
I'm happy to respond. :-) There is always a temptation with grammatical rules to speak of them as if there were black & white always true, the way mathematical rules always are. A few grammar rules are totally black & white, but most aren't. I think the MGMAT person here got a little too dogmatic.

Certainly in an extremely short sentence, we could drop the comma between two independent clauses:
He slipped on the banana peel and I laugh.
A sentence this short would NEVER appear on the GMAT. For GMAT purposes, I will say that it is hard to imagine a sentence with two independent clauses that don't have this separating comma.

The converse though is tricky. Suppose there is a comma, not a comma paired with another setting off a smaller structure, but a legitimate separating comma before the "and." Can we say dogmatically that what comes after the comma must be a separate independent clause? Hmmm. Is this usually the case, true in the majority of circumstances? Yes, absolutely. Is it true 100% of the time with no exceptions? That seems to extreme to me. As a general rule, even in grammatical structure that don't ordinarily warrant commas, if the separate elements become long, with long modifying phrases & clauses, then sometimes commas are used just to separate elements and indicate the organization of the larger sentence.

Consider the use of commas in this monster-long sentence from the US Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Obvious, this is much more complicated than anything the GMAT SC will throw at you. Excerpt this mini sentence:
It is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
Of course, the antecedent of the "it" has been lost, but notice that we have a comma after an independent clause, and what follows is not another independent clause.

Now, that is 18th century English and involves much longer sentences, so it may or may not be applicable to the GMAT. I am not about to hunt through the entire OG looking for examples. I will just say that the 100% interpretation provided by the MGMAT folks seems to be a little extreme. It's good to know this as a generally true guideline, but it's good not to get too dogmatic about punctuation, which the GMAT does not test at all.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


Thanks Mr. mikemcgarry

I have searched through OG and GMAT Prep questions and I could see that this rule is followed in all the questions. Could not locate even a single question where this is not followed. Having said that, I agree that such rules cannot be black and white totally. I'll stay on the hunt to locate an official question where this is not followed. I am putting some examples that I located for your perusal -

a) In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives , and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people undertake some form of regular exercise.
In the above example the comma before ' and ' is not linked to any other comma before in the sentence, so you need to repeat the subject after and.

b) Mountain yellow-legged frogs take three to four years to reach adulthood , and so they are restricted to deeper bodies of water that do not dry up in summer or freeze solid in winter​ [GMAT Prep Exam 2]​

c) In some species of cricket, the number of chirps per minute used by the male to attract females rises and falls in accordance with the surrounding temperature , and it can in fact serve as an approximate thermometer​ [GMAT Prep ]​

d) Josephine Baker made Paris her home , and she remained in France during the Second World War as a performer and an intelligence agent for the Resistance​ [Official Guide 13 Edition ]

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 79

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: A mind once opened never loses..!
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 259

Location: India
MISSION : 800
WE: Design (Manufacturing)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Dec 2015, 03:32
Overall "Recommend" requires a Subjunctive, so the "to" and "should". This rules out A, B, C and D.
Therefore "E" is the answer.
[color=#0000ff]

_________________

Thank you

+KUDOS

> I CAN, I WILL <

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 259

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Mar 2017
Posts: 161

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 1

Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2017, 02:25
In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

(A). strongly recommending middle-aged people to
(B). strongly recommending that middle-aged people should
(C). and strongly recommended for middle-aged people to
(D). and their strong recommendation was for middle-aged people to
(E). and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people
_________________

I hate long and complicated explanations!

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 1

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 14

CAT Tests
In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jul 2017, 21:12
In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

(A). strongly recommending middle-aged people to
(B). strongly recommending that middle-aged people should
(C). and strongly recommended for middle-aged people to
(D). and their strong recommendation was for middle-aged people to
(E). and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people


mikemcgarry : Thank you very much for your explanations, but I still have some questions, please your help:

I don't understand why they refers to the researches and it can't refer neither to sedentary life-styles nor to heart and lung diseases.

Regarding that question, I have another one, maybe a little weird: I know that heart and lung diseases is not a subject, but an object that is followed by an essential modifier, but I still consider it a contender for 'they', shouldn't I (after knowing it was not a subject)? If I shouldn't, why?.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 14

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Posts: 46

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 165

Concentration: Marketing, Real Estate
GMAT 1: 550 Q37 V28
GMAT 2: 610 Q43 V31
Reviews Badge
Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2017, 07:38
egmat wrote:
Hi Akhil,

The verb -ing modifier is incorrect in option A. Since it should refer to the previous clause, it is illogically referring to sedentary lifestyles. It is not the lifestyles that are recommending something, but the researchers.

I hope this helps to clarify your doubt!

Regards,
Meghna


Hello egmat,

Is there an article which you can share which explains the verb-ing modifier in detail? I always get confused when it comes to in which cases should I eliminate the verb-ing modifier and in which cases is it correct?
_________________

"The fool didn't know it was impossible, so he did it."

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 165

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
S
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2384

Kudos [?]: 9421 [1], given: 347

Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2017, 14:46
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
sam2016 wrote:

Hello egmat,

Is there an article which you can share which explains the verb-ing modifier in detail? I always get confused when it comes to in which cases should I eliminate the verb-ing modifier and in which cases is it correct?





Hello sam2016,


Thanks for the query. :-)


We sure have a very detailed article, actually two, on the correct usage of verb-ing modifiers. Following are the links to the same:


1. Usage of Verb-ing Modifiers - Part 1: https://gmatclub.com/forum/usage-of-verb-ing-modifiers-135220.html

2. VERB-ING MODIFIERS PART 2 : https://gmatclub.com/forum/verb-ing-modifiers-part-2-in-our-first-article-on-verb-ing-135567.html


In fact, the recently revamped concepts on Verb-ing Modifiers are part of a our Free Trial course. Just register at e-gmat.com for free and review the lessons.


Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________












| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Kudos [?]: 9421 [1], given: 347

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Posts: 46

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 165

Concentration: Marketing, Real Estate
GMAT 1: 550 Q37 V28
GMAT 2: 610 Q43 V31
Reviews Badge
In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2017, 04:36
egmat wrote:
sam2016 wrote:

Hello egmat,

Is there an article which you can share which explains the verb-ing modifier in detail? I always get confused when it comes to in which cases should I eliminate the verb-ing modifier and in which cases is it correct?





Hello sam2016,


Thanks for the query. :-)


We sure have a very detailed article, actually two, on the correct usage of verb-ing modifiers. Following are the links to the same:


1. Usage of Verb-ing Modifiers - Part 1: https://gmatclub.com/forum/usage-of-verb-ing-modifiers-135220.html

2. VERB-ING MODIFIERS PART 2 : https://gmatclub.com/forum/verb-ing-modifiers-part-2-in-our-first-article-on-verb-ing-135567.html


In fact, the recently revamped concepts on Verb-ing Modifiers are part of a our Free Trial course. Just register at e-gmat.com for free and review the lessons.


Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha


Thank you so much for sharing this :)
Just one query. I hope the content of the videos and the articles is the same. I ask this because I am more of a visual person and hence, I would prefer watching the videos instead of reading the articles provided both are identical.
_________________

"The fool didn't know it was impossible, so he did it."

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 165

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
S
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2384

Kudos [?]: 9421 [1], given: 347

Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2017, 12:04
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
sam2016 wrote:
Thank you so much for sharing this :)
Just one query. I hope the content of the videos and the articles is the same. I ask this because I am more of a visual person and hence, I would prefer watching the videos instead of reading the articles provided both are identical.




Hello sam2016,


Oh yes of course. The article and the video have the same teachings. Both platforms teach the same rule in the very same manner.


Thanks. :-)
Shraddha
_________________












| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Kudos [?]: 9421 [1], given: 347

Re: In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford   [#permalink] 12 Oct 2017, 12:04

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 43 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.