|
|
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.
13 Jun 2018, 09:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
aanchalk
Whenever we are using a not only - but also clause, basically the ideas are same. In this sentence, encode and imply are not two different things. So, saying that "encode not only the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge", will be more precise.
A) not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, which may be direct observation, hearsay, or intuition, resulting in speakers of those languages who cannot state facts without an attribution to some source
--> Eliminate due to not only, but also preciseness stated above. Also, the meaning is illogical. It says, the verbs are resulting in speakers :p
B)not only encode the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; therefore, speakers of those languages cannot state a fact without some source of attribution
--> Eliminate due to not only, but also preciseness stated above. some source of attribution is wrong
C)encode not only the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; as a result, speakers of those languages cannot state facts without attributing them to a source
-- Correct. both parts of sentence convey correct meaning
D)do not encode the timeframe of an event; they also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge -- whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition -- resulting in the inability of those languages' speakers to state facts and not attributions to some source
--> completely wrong, wordy
E)not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; speakers of those languages, therefore, do not state facts without attributing them to sources
--> Eliminate due to not only, but also preciseness stated above. Them in 2nd part is ambigious.
+++++++++++++++++Please hit +1 Kudos if that helped +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
13 Jun 2018, 10:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
In some African languages, verbs not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, which may be direct observation, hearsay, or intuition, resulting in speakers of those languages who cannot state facts without an attribution to some source.
A) not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, which may be direct observation, hearsay, or intuition, resulting in speakers of those languages who cannot state facts without an attribution to some source --- It is weird to think that encoding and implying would result in speakers who cannot state facts.
B)not only encode the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; therefore, speakers of those languages cannot state a fact without some source of attribution--- not only encode but also the origin is un//.
C) Encode not only the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; as a result, speakers of those languages cannot state facts without attributing them to a source --- correct choice.
D)do not encode the timeframe of an event; they also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge -- whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition -- resulting in the inability of those languages' speakers to state facts and not attributions to some source-- do not encode the time frame is diametrically opposite to the original intent.
E)not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; speakers of those languages, state and do not state facts without attributing them to sources--- do not state and cannot state are not the same.
A) not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, which may be direct observation, hearsay, or intuition, resulting in speakers of those languages who cannot state facts without an attribution to some source --- It is weird to think that encoding and implying would result in speakers who cannot state facts.
B)not only encode the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; therefore, speakers of those languages cannot state a fact without some source of attribution--- not only encode but also the origin is un//.
C) Encode not only the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; as a result, speakers of those languages cannot state facts without attributing them to a source --- correct choice.
D)do not encode the timeframe of an event; they also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge -- whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition -- resulting in the inability of those languages' speakers to state facts and not attributions to some source-- do not encode the time frame is diametrically opposite to the original intent.
E)not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; speakers of those languages, state and do not state facts without attributing them to sources--- do not state and cannot state are not the same.
04 Feb 2019, 18:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
For answer choice C: I thought "whether" can only be used to differentiate between two choices. Is my reasoning wrong?
