GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 08 Jul 2020, 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: 1427
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, 02:28
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: 89
CAT Tests
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2018, 22:04
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
V
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3572
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2018, 20:05
1
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 tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

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

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

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

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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 01 Nov 2017
Posts: 64
Location: India
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Feb 2019, 06:43
2
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.
VP
VP
avatar
P
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 1050
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Feb 2019, 07:07
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: 15
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2019, 10:33
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: 3320
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 15 Apr 2019, 11:41
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.
_________________
Kellogg School Moderator
avatar
S
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 79
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
CAT Tests
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jun 2019, 19:38
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: 3320
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, 20:01
2
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: 84
GPA: 3.11
Reviews Badge
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jun 2019, 16:52
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
Manager
Manager
User avatar
P
Status: wake up with a purpose
Joined: 24 Feb 2017
Posts: 195
Concentration: Accounting, Entrepreneurship
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2019, 22:54
1
The first thing I noticed was that the entire sentence is underlined. That’s a really good clue that I might have one of these sentences where the “splits” (or differences in the answer choices) might be less obvious. It’s more likely that big chunks of the sentence will move around, and the forms of different pieces may change more substantially than usual. Basically, the longer the underline, the more likely it is that you will see these types of things in the answer choices.

More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia’s Lake Baikal*, WHICH ** holds an amount of water, MORE THAN*** <the water in another area>.

* The opening piece is our independent clause (main sentence): “More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia’s Lake Baikal.” (Note that “more than” here is not introducing a comparison. It is simply defining a number: more than 300.)

** The “which” introduces our first modifier. “Which” indicates a noun modifier, and a “comma which” structure should modify the closest preceding main noun. In this case, the closest preceding main noun is Lake Baikal.

*** The second instance of “more than” indicates a comparison. We need to make sure that the items being compared are both logically and structurally comparable. In this case, we’re comparing the amount of water contained in one lake to the amount of water contained in several other lakes combined. [Note: because “more than” appears after the comma, it is carrying the concept under comparison (a percentage of the world’s fresh water) to the second comparison item; that is, we are comparing the relevant “world’s fresh water percentage” figure for Lake Baikal and the Great Lakes.]

More simply, we’ve got:

Independent clause, modifier, comparison

In general on SC, if you spot something that you think is problematic when reading the initial sentence, then you address that issue first. If you don’t spot something, or you don’t see anything more in the original (but you still have more than one answer choice remaining), you need to do one of two things:

(1) start reading the remaining answers horizontally, or

(2) start comparing the remaining answers vertically.

As a general rule, it is preferable to compare answers vertically. Your goal is always to find the best answer of the five; finding the best of something is by definition a comparison.

On many SC problems, this vertical comparison is relatively straightforward: you notice that three answers have the verb “is” and two have the verb “are,” so now you know there is a subject-verb issue and you need to identify the subject in order to know whether “is” or “are” is the right verb. On some SC problems, however, the vertical comparisons are not that easy – but that doesn’t mean you can’t still use the technique!

So how do we still use this technique when the splits, or differences, aren’t as straightforward? We break the sentence into major parts – that’s why I simplified our original sentence, above, into “independent clause, modifier, comparison.”

Where are those parts in the various answer choices? Answer choice A is always the same as the original, of course. What about the others?

Answers B, C, D, and E all open with some kind of modifier, not an independent clause. So the independent clause moves, but we know the sentence still needs to contain an independent clause somewhere! So what are the structures of the five sentences? (The commas represent the actual commas found in the sentences.)

A: independent clause, modifier, comparison

B: modifier, comparison, independent clause

C: subject (beginning of independent clause), modifier, independent clause (containing comparison), modifier

D: comparison, independent clause, modifier (containing another comparison)

E: comparison, subject (beginning of independent clause), modifier, rest of independent clause

In practice, I would start just with the independent clause in each choice, ignoring the rest of the sentence. Is each independent clause okay?

So, let’s see. We do have independent clauses in each option, so we can’t eliminate for that reason (sometimes, an answer won’t contain an independent clause at all). There is something funny about the independent clause in C, though… what is it?

C: “Siberia’s Lake Baikal it holds more of the world’s fresh water than all that of the North American Great Lakes combined”

Ah. The independent clause has two subjects: “Lake Baikal” and the pronoun “it.” Sentences can have two subjects, but those two subjects need to have a connector word, such as “and” or “or,” in between. Choice C says “Lake Baikal it holds.” No good. Eliminate C.

What else? The independent clause is jumping around, and so are the modifiers that “hang” on the clause. Looks like we need to check whether the big pieces are placed correctly relative to the other big pieces!

Hmm. Noun modifiers are supposed to be placed as close as possible to the nouns they modify – in the vast majority of cases, right next to the nouns they modify. Let’s grab each modifier and check its placement (ignoring everything else in each sentence).

A: “Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world’s fresh water…” Does Lake Baikal hold that water? Yes. A is okay on this count.

B: “With 20 percent of the world’s fresh water, that is more than all the North American Great Lakes combined…” What is “with 20 percent” of the water? That? “North American Great Lakes? No. It’s supposed to be Lake Baikal, but that doesn’t even show up until after the comparison. No good. Eliminate B.

C: Already eliminated, but note that the “20 percent” is placed incorrectly. Does Lake Baikal contain 20 percent of the water, or does that 20 percent refer to the North American Great Lakes combined? I have no idea. This would be another reason to eliminate C.

D: “While more than 300 rivers drain into it, Siberia’s Lake Baikal…” Is the modifier info referring to Lake Baikal? Yes. That’s okay as far as that goes. But… there is a sticking point. What does the word “while” mean? It can actually mean two things:

while = at the same time as. I practice piano while twiddling my thumbs. (I’m very talented!) I practice piano at the same time as I twiddle my thumbs.
while = although, or some sort of contrast. While it’s true that I play piano and know how to twiddle my thumbs, I obviously can’t do both of those things at the same time. That would be impossible!
In this case, neither of those interpretations would make sense for this sentence. It doesn’t make sense to say that the 300 rivers drain into Lake Baikal “at the same time as” the lake holds 20 percent of the world’s fresh water. These aren’t two separate actions that happen to occur simultaneously.

Nor does it make sense to introduce a contrast: although the 300 rivers drain into Lake Baikal, the lake holds 20 percent of the world’s fresh water. Actually, the Lake holds that much fresh water because the 300 rivers drain into it, not despite this fact.

So, although the placement of the modifier in D is okay, the introduction of the word “while” to introduce the modifier is not. Eliminate D.

E: “Lake Baikal, with more than 300 rivers draining into it…” Is the modifier referring to the preceding noun, Lake Baikal? Yes. Some people may object that the modifier sounds awkward, in particular the pronoun “it.” I agree that it sounds awkward, but we’re going to stick to solid grammar rules here. The modifier refers to the correct noun.

We’ve eliminated B, C, and D; we still have A and E. What haven’t we tested yet? The placement of the comparison – let’s try that next.

A: “Lake Baikal, which holds 20% of the world’s fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.” The second half of the comparison is clear: “the North American Great Lakes combined.” The first half refers to the thing that “holds 20% of the world’s fresh water”: Lake Baikal. Lake Baikal holds 20% of the water and that figure is more than the equivalent figure for the collective Great Lakes.

E: “More than all the North American Great Lakes combined, Siberia’s Lake Baikal…” So Lake Baikal is more than the Great Lakes… more than what? What specific measurement are we discussing? General size or volume? The number of rivers draining into each? The percentage of the world’s fresh water that each holds? Ambiguity = bad. Eliminate E.

The correct answer is A.

Key Takeaways for Long Underlines + Jumbled Sentences on SC
(1) Long-underline sentences are more likely to be “jumbled” – that is, to move big chunks of the sentence around and even to change what information is located in the dependent vs. independent clauses. When you see this happening, you need to break the sentence down into those chunks (commas are often great natural separators) and figure out the role of each chunk.

(2) When you use the “chunk” strategy, you will often start in one of two places: either start with the first chunk of the original sentence and go find the location of that chunk in subsequent answer choices, or start with the independent clause in each answer choice, wherever that might be.

(3) These kinds of sentences also typically test the placement of the chunks – is the modifier or comparison in the right place relative to the other pieces of information? Is the parallelism constructed properly across the sentence?


Posted from my mobile device
_________________
If people are NOT laughing at your GOALS, your goals are SMALL.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jun 2019
Posts: 47
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Sep 2019, 23:34
Can someone please explain how it is okay to compare 20% of the world's fresh water to "NA Great lakes combined"

A: ... which holds 20% of the world's fresh water, more than all the NA Great lakes combined
I am reading this statement in simplest terms as
Lake Baikal holds 20% of the world's fresh water, more than NA Great lakes combined

To me this sounds like comparing the world's fresh water to lake instead of comparing with the water in the lake.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
D
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1918
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2019, 09:33
pzgupta wrote:
Can someone please explain how it is okay to compare 20% of the world's fresh water to "NA Great lakes combined"

A: ... which holds 20% of the world's fresh water, more than all the NA Great lakes combined
I am reading this statement in simplest terms as
Lake Baikal holds 20% of the world's fresh water, more than NA Great lakes combined

To me this sounds like comparing the world's fresh water to lake instead of comparing with the water in the lake.

The verb hold is implied in the latter part. So, we should read the sentence as:

Lake Baikal holds 20% of the world's fresh water, more than NA Great lakes combined (hold)

It's like this:

Peter has more money than Michael.

The above sentence is again correct and it is not comparing money with Michael; the above sentence should be read as:

Peter has more money than Michael (has).
_________________
Thanks,
Ashish
GMAT-99th Percentile, MBA - ISB Hyderabad
EducationAisle Online GMAT Classes

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Join us for a free GMAT Live Online Class from anywhere in the world
VP
VP
avatar
P
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 1050
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2019, 19:00
babyif19 wrote:
I was debating major time between A and E. However, E has the phrase with more than 300 rivers draining into it....GMAt does not prefer the structure in the form of " with ....+Verbing"

Also Lake B can not be more than all the North American Great lakes combined....It is the water in Lake B.


me too. it takes me a long time for choice A and E.
why choice E is wrong?
choice E is grammatical but inferior.
"more than ...combined" must work ad adverb modifying "B lake holds". the pattern in choice E is correct but "more than...combined" is too far from "b lake holds". this is inferior to choice A.

normally, adjectival/adjective should be close to the head noun, and adverb dose not need to be close to the verb modified. but in this problem, we need adverb to be close to the head verb.

the takeaway is that adverb is also need to be close to head verb.
VP
VP
avatar
P
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 1050
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Apr 2020, 02:50
thangvietname wrote:
jimmyjamesdonkey wrote:
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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

Please Pay attention to the following Posting Rules.
1) Always post the question in relevant forum. e.g. This question should be posted in SC sub-forum and should not be in General Verbal Forum.
2) Always underline the relevant part of SC question sentence.
3) Always post the question along with OA and if possible mark the appropriate tags.
Thank You.


i think in choice A, "more than all...." is adverbial modifying the whole preceding clause "bankak hold water...". it can not modify the "20% water".

in choice B, "with 20% water..." at the beginning is adverbial modify the main clause, so, it is wrong.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20   [#permalink] 29 Apr 2020, 02:50

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 55 posts ] 

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  





cron

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