Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

It is currently 19 Jul 2019, 03:35

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

More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1361
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
CAT Tests
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2018, 03:28
2
abhik1502

Here are my two cents for your below query.

Quote:
But I do have a doubt out here. In almost all of wrong answer you suggested that term " 20 percent of the world's fresh water" has been compared with "Lake Baikal". And true its illogical to compare amount of water with name of Lake.

But how does option A do it correct.

More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

I can understand A compares "20 percent of the world's fresh water" with "all the North American Great Lakes combined". But again its American lakes combined has been compared with 20% of water.
Pls suggest !


I believe you got confused a bit between modifier and comparison.

Let me break the sentence in to its clauses for better understanding:

More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal,
which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water,
more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

As GMATNinja mentioned which is a noun modifier that refers back to Siberia's Lake Baikal,
and if you look closely in your query you attempted to compare 20 per cent of the world's fresh water with a noun
i.e. all the North American Great Lakes combined and this is incorrect.

The intended meaning of the sentence is that Siberia's Lake Baikal holds 20% of worlds' fresh water. More than 300
rivers drain water into this lake. The amount of water held in LB is greater than the amount of all North American Great Lakes combined hold together.

Does this help you :-) ?
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 09 Oct 2016
Posts: 68
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2018, 23:04
adkikani wrote:
abhik1502

Here are my two cents for your below query.

Quote:
But I do have a doubt out here. In almost all of wrong answer you suggested that term " 20 percent of the world's fresh water" has been compared with "Lake Baikal". And true its illogical to compare amount of water with name of Lake.

But how does option A do it correct.

More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

I can understand A compares "20 percent of the world's fresh water" with "all the North American Great Lakes combined". But again its American lakes combined has been compared with 20% of water.
Pls suggest !


I believe you got confused a bit between modifier and comparison.

Let me break the sentence in to its clauses for better understanding:

More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal,
which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water,
more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

As GMATNinja mentioned which is a noun modifier that refers back to Siberia's Lake Baikal,
and if you look closely in your query you attempted to compare 20 per cent of the world's fresh water with a noun
i.e. all the North American Great Lakes combined and this is incorrect.

The intended meaning of the sentence is that Siberia's Lake Baikal holds 20% of worlds' fresh water. More than 300
rivers drain water into this lake. The amount of water held in LB is greater than the amount of all North American Great Lakes combined hold together.

Does this help you :-) ?



Thanks adkikani !

I understood the modifier part and that clarifies my earlier doubt. But there are new ones where I would like you to help me out.

1. As its non-essential modifier so we can write sentence also as


More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

Now doesn't it conveys the meaning that more than 300 rivers draining into Lake Baikal and this number 300 is more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.
In case of non-essential modifier how does this connects with 20% water.
Still if it would have been essential modifier then also we are comparing "more than all the North American Great Lakes combined" with previous clause i.e. "More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal" . SO it compares the number 300.

Pls suggest where I am wrong in my above understanding.


2. If I need to rephrase this sentence so that "more than all the North American Great Lakes combined" should be compared with modifier "which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water" then how can we do it.
Pls suggest !
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2675
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2018, 21:05
1
abhik1502 wrote:

Thanks adkikani !

I understood the modifier part and that clarifies my earlier doubt. But there are new ones where I would like you to help me out.

1. As its non-essential modifier so we can write sentence also as


More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

Now doesn't it conveys the meaning that more than 300 rivers draining into Lake Baikal and this number 300 is more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.
In case of non-essential modifier how does this connects with 20% water.
Still if it would have been essential modifier then also we are comparing "more than all the North American Great Lakes combined" with previous clause i.e. "More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal" . SO it compares the number 300.

Pls suggest where I am wrong in my above understanding.

The problem with this approach is that you eliminated one non-essential modifier, but left something that describes an element of this modifier in place. We can't do that.

To see why this leads to all sorts of logical chaos, consider a silly example: "I live with my brother, a great guy who owns a great dog, a Great Dane named Ned." Here, "a great guy who owns a great dog" describes "my brother," and a "A Great Dane named Ned" describes the "dog." So far so good.

But watch what happens when I remove the middle, non-essential modifier. Then we have: "I live with my brother, a Great Dane named Ned." Suddenly my brother is a dog! (And what, by extension, does that make me? :oops:) Good rule of thumb: if an adjustment to a sentence can convert a person into a dog, you should not do it. The issue is that by removing one modifier, but leaving in place a second modifier that refers to the first, I've created nonsense.

The same idea applies to the Lake Baikal question. Initially, in (E) we have “More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.” “Which holds 20 percent of the world’s fresh water” refers to “Lake Baikal” and “more than all the North American Lakes combined” refers to “20 percent of the world’s fresh water.” If I remove the middle modifier containing “20 percent of the world’s fresh water,” I’ve eliminated the thing that “more than all the North American Great Lakes combined” actually modifies. That’s not cool.

The big takeaway: if you eliminate a non-essential modifier to simplify the sentence, and you fail to remove a piece that refers to that modifier, you will butcher the logic of that sentence.

I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 01 Nov 2017
Posts: 63
Location: India
Premium Member
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Feb 2019, 07:43
GMATNinja wrote:
For some reason, a large percentage of my students hate this question with the fury of a thousand suns. But you’ll love it… right?

Quote:
(A) More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

I don’t really see any problems with (A). The “which” jumps out at me, but that seems fine, since “which holds 20% of the world’s fresh water” logically modifies “Siberia’s Lake Baikal.” That last modifier seems fine, too: “more than all the North American Great Lakes combined” describes “20% of the world’s fresh water.”

So I guess we’ll keep (A), and hope that the other four answer choices have problems.

Quote:
(B) With 20 percent of the world's fresh water, that is more than all the North American Great Lakes combined, Siberia's Lake Baikal has more than 300 rivers that drain into it.

I’m not sure that anything is WRONG with (B), but there are three or four things that are spectacularly crappy about (B). (Craptacular? That’s not a word, but it should be.)

For starters, “with 20% of the world’s fresh water” is a lousy way to modify “Siberia’s Lake Baikal.” The preposition “with” generally suggests accompaniment of some sort (“I eat burritos with green chile” or “I went to the movies with my daughter”), and I can’t understand why we would use “with” in this context. Plus, it’s a long way from the thing it modifies. Again, I can’t prove that it’s WRONG, but it’s not great.

I also can’t make sense of the middle modifier, “that is more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.” For starters, I can’t figure out why we’re using a modifier beginning with “that” immediately after a comma. More importantly, the comparison doesn’t work: it’s basically saying that 20% of the world’s fresh water is more than the Great Lakes. You could say that the amount of water in Lake Baikal is greater than the amount of water in the Great Lakes, but it isn’t awesome to say that the amount of water is greater than the lakes themselves.

Finally, there’s no reason to write “…Lake Baikal has more than 300 rivers that drain into it” when we could use a more active construction (“more than 300 rivers drain into Lake Baikal”). The version in (B) isn’t WRONG, exactly, but it’s pretty craptacular compared to (A).

So we can ditch (B).

Quote:
(C) Siberia's Lake Baikal, with more than 300 rivers draining into it, it holds more of the world's fresh water than all that of the North American Great Lakes combined, 20 percent.

The most straightforward problem with (B) is that the subject is basically repeated twice: “Siberia’s Lake Baikal, (blah blah modifier), it holds…” That’s definitely not cool.

For bonus points, the modifier beginning with “with” still doesn’t seem quite right (see the explanation to (B) for more on that issue), and the comparison isn’t quite right, either: “Lake Baikal… holds more of the world’s fresh water than all that of the… Great Lakes…” “That” presumably refers to water, so that gives us “Lake Baikal… holds more of the world’s fresh water than [all the water of] the… Great Lakes.” And that’s wildly unnecessary: it’s better just to say that Lake Baikal holds more water than the Great Lakes.

But even if you ignore that last paragraph, the “Lake Baikal… it holds…” thing is a huge problem. So (C) is out.

Quote:
(D) While more than 300 rivers drain into it, Siberia's Lake Baikal holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, which is more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

The “which” jumps out at me first. The phrase “which is more than… the Great Lakes…” seems to modify “20% of the world’s fresh water”, and that doesn’t quite work: it’s illogical to say that a quantity of water is “more than… the Great Lakes.” It might be more than the water in the Great Lakes, but not “more than” the Great Lakes themselves.

Plus, “while” is essentially a synonym for “although” in this case, and that doesn’t make sense: “[Although] more than 300 rivers drain into it, Siberia’s Lake Baikal…[is large].” “Although” suggests some sort of contrast, and there’s definitely no contrast between those two phrases.

So (D) is out.

Quote:
(E) More than all the North American Great Lakes combined, Siberia's Lake Baikal, with more than 300 rivers draining into it, holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water.

That opening modifier, “more than all the… Great Lakes combined”, still isn’t great: it’s literally suggesting that Lake Baikal is “more than the Great Lakes”, and that doesn’t make sense. Maybe the amount of water in Lake Baikal is more than the amount in all of the Great Lakes, but Lake Baikal itself isn’t “more than” the Great Lakes.

I’m also not crazy about the use of “with” as a modifier in (E). For more on this issue, see the explanation for (B) above.

(E) isn’t a complete disaster, but (A) does a better job of conveying the meaning of the sentence, so (A) is our answer.


As you pointed out in option B "More importantly, the comparison doesn’t work: it’s basically saying that 20% of the world’s fresh water is more than the Great Lakes. "
the same should be true in option A; here also world''s fresh water is getting compared to lakes. I am not able to distinguish. Please help.
Director
Director
avatar
G
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 775
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Feb 2019, 08:07
look at choice E
"more than..." should logically modify the main clause, which is "holds 20 percent of water..." but "more than..." is placed too far from the verb "hold" . this is not good. grammatically, "more than..." still modify "hold..." but its placement is not as good as in choice A

placement of adverb is important. when adverd is one word, such as 'only" , we can easily see the important of adverb placement.

I see only 3 persons
I only see 3 persons.

in our problem, placement of "more than..." is still correct but is not as good as in the case of choice A. this wrong placement makes us think that "more than..." is purely adjective modifying subject of the main clause, "bankal"
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 17
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2019, 11:33
Aren’t the comparison entities incorrect in option A? 20% of freshwater has been compared with all the North American lakes. What am I missing?
CEO
CEO
User avatar
V
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 2861
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2019, 12:41
jyotsnamahajan wrote:
Aren’t the comparison entities incorrect in option A? 20% of freshwater has been compared with all the North American lakes. What am I missing?
In such cases, there are words that are not mentioned explicitly in the sentence. For example:

1. The exam was easier than I expected.
2. The exam was easier than I expected it to be.

(2) is a little longer than (1), but even it is "missing" one word.

3. The exam was easier than I expected it to be easy.

4. X earned ten billion dollars in 2018, more than anyone else on the list. ← This is different from "X earned ten billion dollars more than Y" which means that X = Y + 10.
5. X earned ten billion dollars in 2018, more than anyone else on the list earned. ← Here the earned is included in the sentence. The meaning is the same as in (4).

6. More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.
7. More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined hold.
_________________
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 34
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jun 2019, 20:38
Can somebody please explain how the comparison in A is correct?
To me it seems that the 20% of the fresh water is being compared to all the American Great lakes combined.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
V
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 2861
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jun 2019, 21:01
1
Priyanka1293 wrote:
Can somebody please explain how the comparison in A is correct?
To me it seems that the 20% of the fresh water is being compared to all the American Great lakes combined.
The word hold at the end is "understood".

More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined (hold).
_________________
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Apr 2019
Posts: 70
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jun 2019, 17:52
The meaning of the sentence is supposed to be that available has more fresh water than the Great Lakes, but A actually says it has more rivers draining into it than the Great Lakes.

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20   [#permalink] 28 Jun 2019, 17:52

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 50 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20

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





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