Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes and so

Hello experts, would I be wrong if I said sentence A is incorrect because its comparing a singular vocal tract (of the neanderthal) to multiple Vocal Tracts (Those of the apes).

Also answered on our Ask Me Anything About SC thread, but reposting here in case it helps somebody:


I think I see the confusion. The key here is that "-ing" words such as "resembling" are usually not verbs at all. (They can be verbs, of course, but that's not the case here.) In this context, "resembling" is an adjective, just modifying "a vocal tract." And adjectives NEVER have a tense, so you really don't have to worry about the timeline at all. It's fine to say "a vocal tract resembling an ape's" -- and it would also be fine to say "a vocal tract that resembled an ape's."

This article on the various uses of "-ing" words might help with this issue. And here's another example of the word "resembling" in a really tough GMATPrep question.

I hope this helps!

Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes and so were probably without language, a shortcoming that may explain why they were supplanted by our own species.


(A) Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes

(B) Neanderthals had a vocal tract resembling an ape’s

(C) The vocal tracts of Neanderthals resembled an ape’s

(D) The Neanderthal’s vocal tracts resembled the apes’

(E) The vocal tracts of the Neanderthals resembled those of the apes

GMATNinja
Thanks for the explanation.
Are you suggesting to use past tense in the highlighted part? What if we use present tense ("a vocal tract that resembles an ape's.")

One more thing:
Sometimes, the use of HAD (past tense) in choice B confused me! The definition of past tense is --there was something in the past but not in the present. If this is the case, how an 'disappeared' thing (vocal tract) resembled 'other things'?

PS-'Neanderthals had a vocal tract' means that 'once upon a time Neanderthals had a vocal tract , but there is no 'vocal tract' of Neanderthals right now, or it could be 'there is no existence of Neanderthals itself'

Answer = B

Two Independent clauses connected by co-ordinating conjunction ('AND' in this case) should have a parallel structure.

Clause 1 :- Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of apes ------> Subject - InTransitive Verb - Predicate
Clause 2 :- so were probably without language --------> Subject - InTransitive Verb - Predicate

The logical antecedent of 'So', which is the Subject of second clause, is 'Neanderthals'. Hence 'Neanderthals' should be a subject of the First clause.

Only Choice A and B have their subject as 'The Neanderthal'. So C, D, E are out.

In Choice A has the Pronoun Agreement Error. 'Those of Apes'(plural) can not refer to the 'Vocal Tract of Neanderthals'(Singular)

Choice B Wins.

Pronoun as a subject in second clause requires its antecedent as the subject of the First Clause!! Is it true all the time?

Hi tndvekas760, you might be applying a different rule here.

In C, D, and E, the second clause ("were probably without language") does not have any subject (neither any noun or pronoun) explicitly mentioned. So, the implied subject of this second clause is the same as the subject of the first clause - vocal tracts.

Hence, C, D, and E are erroneously suggesting that vocal tracts were without language. The intent of the original sentence however, is to depict that Neanderthals were without language.

It's as simple as this:

Teacher arrived and taught.

Again, since there is no subject explicitly mentioned for the second verb (taught), the implied subject of this second verb is the same as the subject of the first clause - Teacher.

Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes and so were probably without language, a shortcoming that may explain why they were supplanted by our own species. (700)

(A) Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes

Illogical, the sentence conveys the idea that a single vocal tract belonged to the apes

(B) Neanderthals had a vocal tract resembling an ape’s Correct

(C) The vocal tracts of Neanderthals resembled an ape’s

(D) The Neanderthal’s vocal tracts resembled the apes’

(E) The vocal tracts of the Neanderthals resembled those of the apes

This is a great meaning based question. Choices C through E all make the mistake of suggesting that the vocal tract of Neanderthals were probably without language. That makes no sense. It's the Neanderthals that were probably without language.

I do have reservations about the past perfect tense though. Why suggest that Neanderthals at one point had in their possession, but no longer have, a vocal tract resembling an ape's. Isn't this a characteristic of Neanderthals?

GMATNinja?

I have one more doubt. Is not there a chance that 'so' in the second clause can refer back to the apes in the first clause, in choice E? Is is not possible because the meaning issue or what?

Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes and so were probably without language, a shortcoming that may explain why they were supplanted by our own species.


(A) Neanderthals had a vocal tract that resembled those of the apes

(B) Neanderthals had a vocal tract resembling an ape’s

(C) The vocal tracts of Neanderthals resembled an ape’s

(D) The Neanderthal’s vocal tracts resembled the apes’

(E) The vocal tracts of the Neanderthals resembled those of the apes

First, check out the parallelism: "Neanderthals (1) had a vocal tract {...} and (so) (2) were probably without language..." - we have a parallel list of verbs, and both verbs make sense with the subject "Neanderthals". No issue there.

But notice that the comparison is between ONE vocal tract (“a vocal tract”) and MULTIPLE ape vocal tracts (“those of the apes”). Comparing a singular vocal tract to plural vocal tracts isn't ideal here.

In addition, the use of “the” in front of "apes" makes it seem like the vocal tracts of the Neanderthals are like those of SPECIFIC apes, not apes in general. Is that grammatically wrong? Probably not... but it doesn't fit with the context, which suggests that the author wants to compare the vocal tracts of Neanderthals to those of apes in general. The use of "the" leaves the reader wondering, "WHICH specific apes are we talking about?".

Admittedly, these aren't particularly solid reasons to eliminate (A), so let's hang on to it for now and check out the other options.


Again, the parallelism checks out: "Neanderthals (1) had a vocal tract {...} and (so) (2) were probably without language..." - We have two parallel verbs, and both work with the subject "Neanderthals".

In (B), we are comparing a SINGULAR body part (the vocal tract of Neanderthals) to another SINGULAR body part (the vocal tract of an ape), so the comparison works a little better than the one in (A).

Also, (B) compares the vocal tract of a general ape (AN ape) to the Neanderthals’ tract. If that's not clear, consider of these two examples:

1) "The ape has five fingers on each hand." - The article "the" suggests that we are talking about ONE specific ape.
2) "An ape has five fingers on each hand." - The article "an" suggests that we are talking about a non-specific ape--pick an ape, any ape, and that ape ought to have five fingers.

That's probably enough to go with (B) over (A), so let's keep this one.


There are two main problems here.

First, the comparison isn’t great... the issue is similar to what we saw in (A), only now we have MANY Neanderthal vocal tracts compared to only ONE ape vocal tract.

More importantly, there's a meaning issue with the parallelism: “The vocal tracts of Neanderthals (1) resembled an ape’s and (so) (2) were probably without language...”.

• We have a parallel list of verbs, but notice that both verbs can be tied back to the subject "vocal tracts"--that gives us, "The vocal tracts … were probably without language.”
• That doesn't make much sense. As explained in this post, "vocal tracts" can produce sound, but they can't have a language of their own--parts of the body usually can’t speak on their own (unless we're talking about Osmosis Jones--then maybe!).

We can get rid of (C).


Here the sentence is comparing ONE Neanderthal’s vocal tracts to MULTIPLE apes’ vocal tracts. My knowledge of biology isn’t great, but I’m pretty sure Neanderthals (and humans) only have ONE vocal tract, so this doesn’t make much sense.

Also, as we saw above, it’s a bit weird to compare the tract(s) of SPECIFIC (“the”) Neanderthal’s to the tract(s) of SPECIFIC ("the") apes.

More importantly, we have the same meaning issue that we saw in (C): “the Neanderthal’s vocal tracts … were probably without language.” It’s the Neanderthals who were probably without language, not their vocal tracts.

We can say goodbye to (D).


The comparison is okay here, but, again, the articles aren't ideal: we have "the" (specific) Neanderthals and "the" (specific) apes.

But we have the same glaring meaning issue that we saw in (C) and (D), so (E) is out.

(B) is the best one!

Disclaimer: If you aren't convinced that (B) is better than (A), don't stress over it too much. Most of these are pretty subtle arguments, and that might be why this question was retired from the official guides before 2009.

HI GMATNinja

I got the explanation. I just have a further doubt. Can you please explain??

In option D it says The Neanderthal’s vocal tracts resembled the apes’
So it should be The Neanderthal’s vocal tracts resembled the apes’ vocal tracts right?? i mean vocal tracts should be plural here right ?
How these apostrophe somewhere is opening in singular but somewhere in singular
can you please explain this...its troubling me a lot

thanks in advance!

I got the explanation. I just have a further doubt. Can you please explain??

In option D it says The Neanderthal’s vocal tracts resembled the apes’
So it should be The Neanderthal’s vocal tracts resembled the apes’ vocal tracts right?? i mean vocal tracts should be plural here right ?
How these apostrophe somewhere is opening in singular but somewhere in singular
can you please explain this...its troubling me a lot

thanks in advance!