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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
26 Dec 2012, 18:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
In relation to the meaning issue, if the meaning of the original sentence is clear and logical, we must choose the choice which is grammatically correct and that preserves the meaning of the original sentence, right?
According to the MGMAT guide 4th edition, that's the approach. However, the 4th edition was printed before the next generation of the GMAT. So, I don't know whether there have been changes in the approach we must follow. This is the method we should use, according to MGMAT 4th edition, PLEASE CONFIRM whether is correct for the next generation of the gmat:
"Sometimes the original sentence will have a clear, unambiguous meaning. In these cases, your goal is to preserve this original meaning as you correct other issues. Do not alter the author's intent when you make your choice!
At other times, the original sentence will be confusing [or ilogical], and you will need to discern the author's intent."
In other words, if the meaning in the original sentence is clear and logical, we should keep that meaning.
For example, let's assume that after eliminating some choices, which had grammatical errors, we have these two choices:
Q: The drop in interest rates will create better investment oportunities.
A. will
D. may
Both choices are grammatical correct. But the original sentence indicates that there WILL be better investment oportunities. So, we have to choose A., right? So, in these cases, in which both are grammatical correct and logically correct, we have to choose the choice that preserves the meaning of the original sentence.
In the case in which the original sentence is ilogical, here is an example:
Q: The court ruled that the plaintiff should pay full damages.
A. should
C. must
The correct answer is C because "should" means "moral obligation", something that a court cannot impose. So, in the cases in which the meaning of the original sentence is ilogical or not clear, we must choose the choice that is logically and grammatically correct.
Please confirm whether my reasoning and this approach is correct. Thanks!
According to the MGMAT guide 4th edition, that's the approach. However, the 4th edition was printed before the next generation of the GMAT. So, I don't know whether there have been changes in the approach we must follow. This is the method we should use, according to MGMAT 4th edition, PLEASE CONFIRM whether is correct for the next generation of the gmat:
"Sometimes the original sentence will have a clear, unambiguous meaning. In these cases, your goal is to preserve this original meaning as you correct other issues. Do not alter the author's intent when you make your choice!
At other times, the original sentence will be confusing [or ilogical], and you will need to discern the author's intent."
In other words, if the meaning in the original sentence is clear and logical, we should keep that meaning.
For example, let's assume that after eliminating some choices, which had grammatical errors, we have these two choices:
Q: The drop in interest rates will create better investment oportunities.
A. will
D. may
Both choices are grammatical correct. But the original sentence indicates that there WILL be better investment oportunities. So, we have to choose A., right? So, in these cases, in which both are grammatical correct and logically correct, we have to choose the choice that preserves the meaning of the original sentence.
In the case in which the original sentence is ilogical, here is an example:
Q: The court ruled that the plaintiff should pay full damages.
A. should
C. must
The correct answer is C because "should" means "moral obligation", something that a court cannot impose. So, in the cases in which the meaning of the original sentence is ilogical or not clear, we must choose the choice that is logically and grammatically correct.
Please confirm whether my reasoning and this approach is correct. Thanks!
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
26 Dec 2012, 18:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
danzig
Your approach is correct, nothing more.
Eventhough keeps in mind this:
GMAC now have a major stress on meaning but it was already present in OG 12th adition (to be honest, perhaps from ever the meaning preveals on grammar rules) solely all of us thought the contrary.
Moreover, what is important is to use all your arsenal of tools to crack Sc (and also the other parts of the test). At the same time work with: logic, grammar rules, tricks, commmon sense and so on...
be flexible.
The 5th edition was updated but is more or less the same of 4th. so, go ahead
26 Dec 2012, 21:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
I am responding to a pm from danzig
I like the gist of what carcass said, and I will just add --- I don't believe that there are any SC questions in the OG12 or OG13 that come down only to a split based on discerning the author's meaning. In the few questions in which only a couple words are underlined, it's usually something very clear about, say, verb tense or subject-verb agreement. In the many questions in which a substantial section is underlined, there are often several different splits dividing the answer choices in different ways. Yes, the rules you cite (follow unambiguous meanings, and discern the meaning of an ambiguous prompt) are valid, but usually the ambiguity or incorrectness arises from a much more subtle split --- for example, an adverb/adjective split. Consider this sentence .....
Prompt: Frank was a bigger man than Sam, and he drove a corresponding larger car.
This is one of the GMAT's favorites --- they love the adverb/adjective split, and they particularly love doing this split with a tricky word like "corresponding" ----- here, we have the adjective "corresponding", which modifies "car", so the car corresponds to what???? That makes no sense. We know what the author is saying, but technically, phrasing it this way is illogical. What the author wants to say is: Frank is bigger, so he has a bigger car. Instead of the adjective "corresponding", modifying the noun "car", we need the adverb "correspondingly", modifying the word "bigger" ----- the relation between the two men (one "bigger" than the other) corresponds to the relationship between the cars (one "bigger" than the other) --- that's why we need the adverb modifying "bigger."
They also love this illogical structure with comparisons:
Prompt: Unlike the symphonies of Mozart and Haydn, Beethoven used a larger orchestra for his symphonies, and even a chorus for his Ninth.
Again, in colloquial English, this would probably pass as correct. We know what the person is trying to say. But, technically, it is illogical, because we are comparing pieces of music ("symphonies") to a person ("Beethoven"). We would have to reword the sentence to compare music to music or people to people.
Often when the meaning is unclear in the prompt, it's not blatantly unclear or blatantly illogical, as in the example with the courts and "should" --- rather, it's often a grammatical mistake that would pass as acceptable in colloquial English -- everyone would know what the person is trying to say, but technically, saying it that way is illogical or ungrammatical, and the GMAT requires that we re-word for logical & grammatical precision. In other words, the logical exercises you were recommending (would a court impose moral obligations?) are never necessary. We don't have to do that kind of reasoning. For the most part, we will know exactly what the person is trying to say, and we just have to find the logical and grammatically correct way to say that.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
I like the gist of what carcass said, and I will just add --- I don't believe that there are any SC questions in the OG12 or OG13 that come down only to a split based on discerning the author's meaning. In the few questions in which only a couple words are underlined, it's usually something very clear about, say, verb tense or subject-verb agreement. In the many questions in which a substantial section is underlined, there are often several different splits dividing the answer choices in different ways. Yes, the rules you cite (follow unambiguous meanings, and discern the meaning of an ambiguous prompt) are valid, but usually the ambiguity or incorrectness arises from a much more subtle split --- for example, an adverb/adjective split. Consider this sentence .....
Prompt: Frank was a bigger man than Sam, and he drove a corresponding larger car.
This is one of the GMAT's favorites --- they love the adverb/adjective split, and they particularly love doing this split with a tricky word like "corresponding" ----- here, we have the adjective "corresponding", which modifies "car", so the car corresponds to what???? That makes no sense. We know what the author is saying, but technically, phrasing it this way is illogical. What the author wants to say is: Frank is bigger, so he has a bigger car. Instead of the adjective "corresponding", modifying the noun "car", we need the adverb "correspondingly", modifying the word "bigger" ----- the relation between the two men (one "bigger" than the other) corresponds to the relationship between the cars (one "bigger" than the other) --- that's why we need the adverb modifying "bigger."
They also love this illogical structure with comparisons:
Prompt: Unlike the symphonies of Mozart and Haydn, Beethoven used a larger orchestra for his symphonies, and even a chorus for his Ninth.
Again, in colloquial English, this would probably pass as correct. We know what the person is trying to say. But, technically, it is illogical, because we are comparing pieces of music ("symphonies") to a person ("Beethoven"). We would have to reword the sentence to compare music to music or people to people.
Often when the meaning is unclear in the prompt, it's not blatantly unclear or blatantly illogical, as in the example with the courts and "should" --- rather, it's often a grammatical mistake that would pass as acceptable in colloquial English -- everyone would know what the person is trying to say, but technically, saying it that way is illogical or ungrammatical, and the GMAT requires that we re-word for logical & grammatical precision. In other words, the logical exercises you were recommending (would a court impose moral obligations?) are never necessary. We don't have to do that kind of reasoning. For the most part, we will know exactly what the person is trying to say, and we just have to find the logical and grammatically correct way to say that.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
