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.
Hi,
Can you please help me with those SCs, where some of the answers "change the intended logic", thus are immediately labeled as incorrect?
Example from the Manhattan book:
The humidity, air pollution, and noise have affected the children of Maria less drastically than those of her neighbor.
A) affected the children of Maria less drastically than those of
B) affected the children of Maria less drastically than
While there's nothing wrong with A, i was stunned by the official explanation of why the option B is wrong: "it changes the intended logic of comparing "children vs children" to "children vs neighbor".
I mean why the logic behind A >>> the logic behind B? Both seem fine to me: it is ok to compare the impact of the air pollution on children vs neighbor - why not?
Or there is some SC rule saying that "Logic in the option A is always the golden standard. Any other option that changes the logic, even if grammatically correct, is invalid"?
Thanks for the help.
Can you please help me with those SCs, where some of the answers "change the intended logic", thus are immediately labeled as incorrect?
Example from the Manhattan book:
The humidity, air pollution, and noise have affected the children of Maria less drastically than those of her neighbor.
A) affected the children of Maria less drastically than those of
B) affected the children of Maria less drastically than
While there's nothing wrong with A, i was stunned by the official explanation of why the option B is wrong: "it changes the intended logic of comparing "children vs children" to "children vs neighbor".
I mean why the logic behind A >>> the logic behind B? Both seem fine to me: it is ok to compare the impact of the air pollution on children vs neighbor - why not?
Or there is some SC rule saying that "Logic in the option A is always the golden standard. Any other option that changes the logic, even if grammatically correct, is invalid"?
Thanks for the help.
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!
05 Jan 2018, 07:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
And immediately the second example:
Content though she seems, the unhappiness of the housewife is evident to those who know her well.
D) Though the housewife seems content, her unhappiness
E) The unhappiness of the housewife who seems content
Again, i'm ok with D, but the official explanation to E is "The sentence should have a contrast within it. Even though the housewife seems
content, she is unhappy. E does not have this element of contrast".
Why the hell the sentence should have a contrast within it? Because this contrast exists in the option A (which is incorrect)? Can this be the reason for the invalid answer?
Content though she seems, the unhappiness of the housewife is evident to those who know her well.
D) Though the housewife seems content, her unhappiness
E) The unhappiness of the housewife who seems content
Again, i'm ok with D, but the official explanation to E is "The sentence should have a contrast within it. Even though the housewife seems
content, she is unhappy. E does not have this element of contrast".
Why the hell the sentence should have a contrast within it? Because this contrast exists in the option A (which is incorrect)? Can this be the reason for the invalid answer?
05 Jan 2018, 08:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Worship
Let me try please to explain the issues you have mentioned and then we can ask for expert guidance on this .
For the 1st question — this is an example of comparison. The sentence compares the effect of humidity , air pollution and noise on the children of Maria with the children of her neighbours.
But if we look a little closely and try to understand the meaning of the sentence given in option B , we
Will find that the comparison is not valid as there is no pronoun antecedent for children and thus it wrongly compares children with neighbours.
Whenever we try comparing two entities we should look always for the comparison of apples to apples i.e. we can check if there is any noun in the preceding clause and that it correctly compares with the noun in the succeeding clause .
For the 2nd example , according to Egmat approach , we should always go with the meaning of the original question sentence and then see if we have any errors grammatically and logically .
So If we take this example we see in option D there is a contrast but it option E the contrast is lost as no contrast word is present and this changes the intended meaning of the original sentence . So better to stick by the meaning given in the original sentence and then see the grammatical and logical correctness.
Hope this helps
Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum
Let me try please to explain the issues you have mentioned and then we can ask for expert guidance on this .
For the 1st question — this is an example of comparison. The sentence compares the effect of humidity , air pollution and noise on the children of Maria with the children of her neighbours.
But if we look a little closely and try to understand the meaning of the sentence given in option B , we
Will find that the comparison is not valid as there is no pronoun antecedent for children and thus it wrongly compares children with neighbours.
Whenever we try comparing two entities we should look always for the comparison of apples to apples i.e. we can check if there is any noun in the preceding clause and that it correctly compares with the noun in the succeeding clause .
For the 2nd example , according to Egmat approach , we should always go with the meaning of the original question sentence and then see if we have any errors grammatically and logically .
So If we take this example we see in option D there is a contrast but it option E the contrast is lost as no contrast word is present and this changes the intended meaning of the original sentence . So better to stick by the meaning given in the original sentence and then see the grammatical and logical correctness.
Hope this helps
Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum
