GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 13 Oct 2019, 22:51

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

New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2861
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2016, 09:24
vaidhaichaturvedi wrote:
Hello,

Could you please tell me
it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish[/u] big fires.

what is subject of That clause here as I think every clause has its own subject and verb pair.

Thank you



"That" itself is the subject and "would be spent" is the verb (passive voice). For any relative clause, the relative pronoun itself that starts the clause ("which", "who", "that" etc.) is the subject.
VP
VP
User avatar
P
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1467
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Sep 2016, 10:05
1
vaidhaichaturvedi wrote:
Could you please tell me
it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish[/u] big fires.

what is subject of That clause here as I think every clause has its own subject and verb pair.

Hi vaidhai, perhaps what's confusing you is the role that that is playing in this sentence. For example:

Jack said that he would work hard.

Here, Jack and he serve as subjects for their respective clauses, with that being a conjunction.

However, in the sentence under consideration, that is not used as a conjunction, but as a relative pronoun. An example:

Peter bought a car that is very expensive.

Here that is used as a relative pronoun, and in this case, is the subject for the verb is.

By the way, apart from the above two usages, that can also be used as a demonstrative pronoun. A good understanding of the various usages of that is important for SC.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses the various 'avatars' of 'that' , its application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
_________________
Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 923
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.5
GMAT ToolKit User
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2017, 15:52
daagh wrote:
Let’s decode the structural jumble of the sentence by patiently parsing it.

New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.

New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show ---- This is the main clause

That –the subordinate conjunction introducing the 1st sub-ordinate clause.

for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel; this in fact
is the subject of sub- clause with its essential modifiers starting with the past participle -----spent ---

‘It’ saves seven dollars; saves is in fact the verb of the subordinate clause. But even before this verb can take its right royal role, there is an intervening pronoun ‘it’, which is redundant and corrupts the structure of the entire sentence.

that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires. This is another sub- clause modifying the object ' the seven dollars'. In fact, the object ‘seven dollars’ turns as the subject of this modifying clause.

(A) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish ------- We can simply reject A on grounds of the intruding and redundant pronoun ‘it’. Meaning of the modifier clause is not clear as to how one can save something that he might have be spending at all. .

(B) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing --- This choice is fitting into the grove smugly. The subject matches its verb in the subordinate clause with perfect //ism and the meaning of the modifying clause is simple and straight. The best choice

(C) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish – that for every dollar saves seven dollars does not make much meaning. ---- For every dollar spent --- should be followed by a passive voice structure such as ---seven dollars are saved. ---

(D) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that it saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish --- a reported fact such as in this case, should be necessarily introduced by a connector such as ‘that’ ; secondly it is weird to think that you save something you would be spending.

(E) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent on extinguishing – same problems as in D



Hello daagh - Please pardon my lack of understanding here, I am unable to understand the explanation you gave for option D and E. Specifically for the usage of "that".

I even tried to read the official explanation, which says - "That introduces a subordinate rather than main clause, making a sentence fragment; it has no referent; not having to extinguish is wordy and awkward." For D & "Introductory that makes a sentence fragment; that would not have been spent on extinguishing is awkward and illogical." For E, but I am not clear with this explanation as well.

Appreciate if you can throw some light on this.

GMATNinja - Could you please help in clarifying why D and E are not the correct answer choices? I am specifically not clear on the usage of the word "that" which is highlighted by other experts as the reason of these options being incorrect.
_________________
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

Best AWA Template: https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html#p470475
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 923
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.5
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2017, 02:56
Hello - Please pardon my lack of understanding here, I am unable to understand the explanation Dagh gave for option D and E. Specifically for the usage of "that".

I even tried to read the official explanation, which says - "That introduces a subordinate rather than main clause, making a sentence fragment; it has no referent; not having to extinguish is wordy and awkward." For D & "Introductory that makes a sentence fragment; that would not have been spent on extinguishing is awkward and illogical." For E, but I am not clear with this explanation as well.

Appreciate if you can throw some light on this.
_________________
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

Best AWA Template: https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html#p470475
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2856
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2017, 09:12
ydmuley wrote:
Hello - Please pardon my lack of understanding here, I am unable to understand the explanation Dagh gave for option D and E. Specifically for the usage of "that".

I even tried to read the official explanation, which says - "That introduces a subordinate rather than main clause, making a sentence fragment; it has no referent; not having to extinguish is wordy and awkward." For D & "Introductory that makes a sentence fragment; that would not have been spent on extinguishing is awkward and illogical." For E, but I am not clear with this explanation as well.

Appreciate if you can throw some light on this.


Yeah... I'm not sure that I have any idea what, exactly, they're trying to say on those official explanations. They aren't exactly the greatest. :?

There's a good reason why (D) and (E) are wrong, but it's not particularly mechanical, and it's definitely not easy to explain. I'll give it a shot, though.

Consider these two sentences:

    1) For every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.
    2) For every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, that he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.

There's absolutely no good reason to include the word "that" in the second sentence, right? It just creates a mess. Maybe we could come up with some jargon-filled explanation for why #2 is wrong, but I can't really understand what "that" is trying to do in #2. (If you're not clear about the potential uses of "that" on the GMAT, you might consider taking a look at this article.)

We could make the sentence a little bit more complicated, but it wouldn't change anything we just said about the use of "that" in sentence #2:

    3) New data shows that for every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.
    4) New data shows that for every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, that he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.

We might be tempted to hallucinate some parallelism in #4, but there's no real justification for it, since there's no parallelism trigger ("and" or "or" would be the most obvious examples). The first "that" just subordinates a clause, and tells us what the data shows. And the data is telling us that entire phrase: "for every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala." Why would we try to chop up that phrase with a 2nd "that", as in sentence #4?

That's the heart of the problem with (D) and (E) in the Forest Service question. The original question is just wordier than my little example. :)

Does that help at all?
_________________
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 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
B
Joined: 23 Jun 2016
Posts: 91
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2017, 09:28
1
blueseas wrote:
wininblue wrote:
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.

(A) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish
(B) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing
(C) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(D) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that it saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(E) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management
personnel, that seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent on extinguishing

Official Guide 12 Question

GMAT Official Guide 12

Question: 36
Page: 40
Difficulty: 600

Find All Official Guide Questions

Video Explanations:


==
Hi ,
i have a doubt regarding the sub-verb agreement in the non underlined portion.
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show
as per my thinking SUBJECT :NEW DATA(SINGULAR)..............VERB: SHOW(PLURAL)===>How is this working a plural verb with a singular subject?
please correct where i am wrong?

thanks

In case it helps someone.
Data is plural.
Datum is singular.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 17
Schools: Boston U '20
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2017, 09:35
I Think B is correct :arrow:

In B, extinguishing" is modifying " seven dollars".

The relative clause is providing additional information about that money.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 923
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.5
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2017, 10:00
1
GMATNinja wrote:
ydmuley wrote:
Hello - Please pardon my lack of understanding here, I am unable to understand the explanation Dagh gave for option D and E. Specifically for the usage of "that".

I even tried to read the official explanation, which says - "That introduces a subordinate rather than main clause, making a sentence fragment; it has no referent; not having to extinguish is wordy and awkward." For D & "Introductory that makes a sentence fragment; that would not have been spent on extinguishing is awkward and illogical." For E, but I am not clear with this explanation as well.

Appreciate if you can throw some light on this.


Yeah... I'm not sure that I have any idea what, exactly, they're trying to say on those official explanations. They aren't exactly the greatest. :?

There's a good reason why (D) and (E) are wrong, but it's not particularly mechanical, and it's definitely not easy to explain. I'll give it a shot, though.

Consider these two sentences:

    1) For every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.
    2) For every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, that he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.

There's absolutely no good reason to include the word "that" in the second sentence, right? It just creates a mess. Maybe we could come up with some jargon-filled explanation for why #2 is wrong, but I can't really understand what "that" is trying to do in #2. (If you're not clear about the potential uses of "that" on the GMAT, you might consider taking a look at this article.)

We could make the sentence a little bit more complicated, but it wouldn't change anything we just said about the use of "that" in sentence #2:

    3) New data shows that for every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.
    4) New data shows that for every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, that he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.

We might be tempted to hallucinate some parallelism in #4, but there's no real justification for it, since there's no parallelism trigger ("and" or "or" would be the most obvious examples). The first "that" just subordinates a clause, and tells us what the data shows. And the data is telling us that entire phrase: "for every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala." Why would we try to chop up that phrase with a 2nd "that", as in sentence #4?

That's the heart of the problem with (D) and (E) in the Forest Service question. The original question is just wordier than my little example. :)

Does that help at all?


Thanks, GMATNinja for your prompt response. I kind of get it now, "that" is redundant in both of these sentences and B provides a better answer choice when compared with both of them. I think GMAC loves to play around with this word "that". Your supplimentary article was also great!
_________________
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

Best AWA Template: https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html#p470475
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 923
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.5
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2017, 11:14
sevenplusplus wrote:
blueseas wrote:
wininblue wrote:
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.

(A) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish
(B) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing
(C) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(D) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that it saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(E) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management
personnel, that seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent on extinguishing

Official Guide 12 Question

GMAT Official Guide 12

Question: 36
Page: 40
Difficulty: 600

Find All Official Guide Questions

Video Explanations:


==
Hi ,
i have a doubt regarding the sub-verb agreement in the non underlined portion.
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show
as per my thinking SUBJECT :NEW DATA(SINGULAR)..............VERB: SHOW(PLURAL)===>How is this working a plural verb with a singular subject?
please correct where i am wrong?

thanks

In case it helps someone.
Data is plural.
Datum is singular.


sevenplusplus appreciate the point that you highlighted, though the verb "show" was not underlined here, it is natural for someone who is not aware that data is "plural" and "datum" is singular.... Great Job
_________________
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

Best AWA Template: https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html#p470475
Mannheim Thread Master
User avatar
S
Status: It's now or never
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 178
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q40 V39
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2017, 10:38
B is Correct - The sentence properly uses seven dollars as the subject of the clause to balance every dollar in the introductory phrase.
_________________
2017-2018 MBA Deadlines

Threadmaster for B-school Discussions
Class of 2019: Mannheim Business School
Class 0f 2020: HHL Leipzig
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Sep 2017
Posts: 1
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2018, 19:54
Hi.

I don't know if anyone is still on this post but if you are, can you explain to me the parallelism in the question. It says, "controlled small -scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel." "the training of fire-management personnel," seems incorrect to me because it is the only part of the list that begins with "the."

Is the sentence still parallel adding words to it at the beginning or does it only matter that all these words have a verb with "-ing." In other sentences, I have the feeling that most words are parallel from the beginning.

Advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2856
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2018, 20:14
WorthPursuit wrote:
Hi.

I don't know if anyone is still on this post but if you are, can you explain to me the parallelism in the question. It says, "controlled small -scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel." "the training of fire-management personnel," seems incorrect to me because it is the only part of the list that begins with "the."

Is the sentence still parallel adding words to it at the beginning or does it only matter that all these words have a verb with "-ing." In other sentences, I have the feeling that most words are parallel from the beginning.

Advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Don't worry: GMAT Club posts live forever. :)

Your question about parallelism is a darned good one, and the answer is actually a little bit complicated. I think there are two things that are key here: first, parallelism isn't a purely rigid, mechanical thing. You need sentences to be parallel ENOUGH to convey the intended meaning accurately, but there's more wiggle-room than we like to think sometimes.

And the second thing is that the same structure appears in all five answer choices, so the GMAT is openly begging you not to worry about it in this particular case. :-)

But back to the first thing. Consider these two sentences:

  • I ate eggs and ham last week. -- This is the most boring parallelism I could think of: "I ate (noun) and (noun)..." Fine, right?
  • I ate eggs and green ham last week. -- If you're too mechanical with the parallelism, you might think that this is wrong: "I ate (noun) and (adjective noun)..." But the essence is still fine: I ate two foods. Those foods are parallel. So it's not a problem.

The same general concept applies to the OG question above. In the phrase "controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel", we still have three gerunds (nouns ending in "-ing") as the heart of the parallel list. Personally, I agree with you: this would probably be nicer if it said "training fire-management personnel", but I don't think it's a horrible thing to stick the article in there in this case. The essence of the list is still intact -- and we don't have any other options, anyway.

But you're smart to notice this sort of thing: sometimes, the GMAT does seem to prefer lists that have articles attached to all three nouns if there's a compelling reason to include them. Here's an example that you might find interesting: https://gmatclub.com/forum/building-on- ... 30798.html.

I hope this helps, and welcome to GMAT Club!
_________________
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 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
User avatar
G
Status: wake up with a purpose
Joined: 24 Feb 2017
Posts: 118
Concentration: Accounting, Entrepreneurship
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Mar 2019, 12:27
1
Most of the sentence is underlined. Look for Big 4 issues: Structure, Meaning, Modifiers, or Parallelism.

Issues

(1) Idiom: for every X, Y
Pronoun: it
The original sentence introduces a two-part idiom: for every dollar spent on something, it saves seven dollars on other things.
As with any two-part idiom, the X and Y portions need to be parallel. Further, to which noun does it refer?

There is no referent for the pronoun it. Eliminate answers (A) and (D).

Next, every dollar and it are not parallel; the original sentence lacks parallelism in the X and Y portions of the idiom. Check
the remaining answers:

(A) for every dollar spent, it saves seven dollars
(B) for every dollar spent, seven dollars are saved
(C) for every dollar spent, saves seven dollars
(D) for every dollar spent, that it saves seven dollars
(E) for every dollar spent, that seven dollars are saved

Answer (B) offers a parallel structure: every dollar matches seven dollars and spent matches saved. Eliminate answers (A). (C), (D), and (E) for lack of parallelism.

(2) Verb / Meaning: would not


The original sentence says that the action saves seven dollars that would not be spent. This meaning is illogical; the money is
saved now, so it's already clear that it won't be spent either hypothetically or in the future.
The intended meaning is that the money saved would otherwise have been spent in the past. Eliminate answer (A) for bad verb
tense.
Answer (E) reverses the meaning: seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent. This is illogical because that
money actually would have been spent if it had not been saved. Eliminate answer (E) for illogical meaning.

(3) Structure

The first three answers begin with the word that; the other two move the word that to later in the sentence.

Answers (A) and (B) correctly use the complex sentence structure Subject–Verb-That-Subject–Verb. This structure needs to
contain a clause both before and after the word that:
She believed that despite his gruff demeanor, he was friendly.
Answer (C) omits a subject for the second clause: New data show that (for every dollar spent) saves seven dollars. Eliminate
answer (C).

Answers (D) and (E) move the word that: new data show (for every dollar spent), that. In the Subject–Verb-That-Subject–
Verb structure, it's strongly preferable to place the word that as close as possible to the first verb (ideally immediately after).
An alternate placement, particularly after a comma, introduces ambiguity: She believed despite his gruff demeanor, that he was
friendly. Is the word that part of the sentence core, or it is introducing a separate modifier? Eliminate answers (D) and (E).

The Correct Answer
Correct answer (B) removes the faulty pronoun it and uses the parallel structure for every dollar spent, seven dollars are
saved.

_________________
If people are NOT laughing at your GOALS, your goals are SMALL.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Jan 2018
Posts: 9
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2019, 22:30
Hi EGmat,
Could you please help me understand this question using the 3 step process.
I understand the meaning, but lacking in error analysis.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Apr 2018
Posts: 22
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Sep 2019, 02:13
Isn't simple gerund cannot be parallel with complex one? small-scale burning and forest thinning are simple gerund, the training of fire-management personnel is complex gerund, how come they can be parallel in this example?
Director
Director
avatar
P
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 929
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2019, 03:08
wininblue wrote:
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.

(A) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish
(B) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing
(C) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(D) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that it saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(E) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management
personnel, that seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent on extinguishing

Official Guide 12 Question

GMAT Official Guide 12

Question: 36
Page: 40
Difficulty: 600

Find All Official Guide Questions

Video Explanations:


look at choice A.
"it" refers to "every dollar". this is redundant. "for every dolloar spent..., every dollar saves...". this is redundant.
we can also think that "for every dollar... , seven dollar are saved" is idiom. once we use "for every dollar, we have to use "seven dollar"...." .
"on having to extinguish" is wordy compared with "on extinguishing " .
"that would not be spent" is a future in the past, which means "that would not be spent in the future ".
"that would have been spent on" is a past action, which means "that would not have been in the past".

it takes me a long time to decide future or past action is good.
consider

if one dollar WAS spent on..., 7 dollar would not be spent on...
if one dollar had been spent on, 7 dollar would not have been spent on...

the first is about unlikely action at present or future.
the second is about impossible action in the past. it can not be done any more because it is in the past

logically, we can not have first case. in the future, it is possible to spend 1 dollar on xyz....
the second case is possible. it is logical that the data show something in the past.

the data can not show the impossible action in the future. the data can show the impossible action in the past.
so, case 2 is logical.

this is terrible meaning analysis, which i can not do in the test room. I will find the the two errors to eliminate choice A.

I will request expert to comment on would not/ would have been.
Director
Director
avatar
P
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 929
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2019, 03:11
pls, comment on would not/would have been. which one is correct. thank you very much.
Target Test Prep Representative
User avatar
P
Status: Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 618
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2019, 08:26
thangvietnam wrote:
pls, comment on would not/would have been. which one is correct. thank you very much.

"Saves seven dollars that would have been spent" is the better version.

That version makes sense, because it conveys that the seven dollars saved are the seven dollar that would have been spent had the measures not been taken.

In contrast, "seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent," from (E), does not make sense. If the dollars would not have been spent, then how would they be saved? They are already saved.

"It saves seven dollars that would not be spent," in (A) is somewhat more logical than "seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent," because, OK, sure, the dollars having been saved, they would not be spent, but "saves seven dollars" and "dollars that would not be spent" are redunant. Obviously, if the dollars are saved, they "would not be spent."

Also, ANY dollars saved would not be spent on extinguishing fires. So, saying that "it saves seven dollars that would not be spent" on extinguishing fires actually provides no information regarding which dollars the sentence is about. Any dollar that anyone has in a savings account "would not be spent" on extiguishing fires. Are those the dollars the sentence is about? No. So which dollars are they? They are the "dollars ... that would have been spent" on extinguishing fires. So, "dollars ... that would have been spent" clearly indicates which dollars the sentence is about, while "dollars that would not be spent" could be almost any dollars in existence.
_________________

Marty Murray

Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Marty@targettestprep.com
TTP - Target Test Prep Logo
122 Reviews

5-star rated online GMAT quant
self study course

See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT quant course on GMAT Club. Read Our Reviews

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Kudos" button.

GMAT Club Bot
Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show   [#permalink] 18 Sep 2019, 08:26

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 38 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show

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





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