himanshujovi
Pretty strong words to negate E,Mike. Could you share on what exactly is wrong in E and what minimal changes would have fixed it?
Dear
himanshujovi,
I'm happy to respond.

Yes, strong words. I feel I should add the caveat -- I am actually deeply committed to non-violence, and would not recommend taking any living person out back to shoot them! Nevertheless, I am very strong in my metaphors because I think it is helpful for student to develop a keen sense of what kinds of SC answer choices are just over-the-top wrong. The official questions often contain one or two answer choices that are egregiously wrong, and spotting these instantly is enormously helpful in negotiating the SC questions. For example, in this question, any student who spent time pondering over Choice
(E) would be wasting precious time & energy.
Think about this sentence ....
Last year, land values in most parts of the pinelands rose almost as fast as, and in some parts even faster than, .... Now, think about the possible endings for that sentence:
1) ....
those outside the pinelands = elegant & precise; the OA. This sets the gold standard for directness & concision.
2) ...
those rose outside the pineland. = acceptable, not ideal; we have just repeated the verb; if
(D) were absent, this could be an OA on an official question, because sometimes an OA is acceptable, basically correct, but not ideal.
3) ...
what those did outside the pineland. = yuck! Now, we have taken an action, a verb, and congealed it into a noun phrase, "
what those did." First of all, changing a verb to an individual noun makes a sentence more wordy and less direct; see:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/active-verbs-on-the-gmat/Changing a verb to a noun phrase is even worse ---- even wordier, and even more indirect. Furthermore, we are now violating parallelism in the comparison --- we are no longer comparing verb-action to verb-action; we are now comparing verb-action to a noun-phrase about an action. This is double-whammy bad. You would think that we couldn't possibly make an answer worse than this, but .....
4) ...
what they did outside the pineland. = this has
everything that was wrong with #3, but as a topper, it also has the subtle pronoun mistake I discussed in the previous post, personal pronoun rather than demonstrative pronoun --- that's a like an extra "garnish" mistake, on top of all the other mistakes. This is
(E), which is really a virtuoso display of how bad an answer can be and still appear plausible to some test takers. The folks at GMAC pride themselves on making these incorrect answer choices that are as flawed as possible, and yet still believable enough that some people select them.
So
(E), in its current form, is a unholy disaster, a spectacularly flawed answer choice. You asked: "
what minimal changes would have fixed it?" That's like asking what three easy steps would make diphtheria a pleasant experience!!! It's a completely absurd question!! More to the point, it is the
absolute wrong question for you to ask. You need to ask yourself: what steps do you need to take, in your own studies, so that when an SC answer choice is as flamboyantly incorrect as
(E) is here, you recognize it instantly and without hesitation? What step do you need to take so that you can advance toward SC mastery, so that obviously flawed answer such as this pose absolutely no obstacle for you? That's where your focus need to be, not on jiggering hopeless answers in an attempt to improve them.
Does all this make sense?
Mike