|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
03 Jul 2020, 00:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (01:37) correct
55%
(01:35)
wrong
based on 842
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
No known language lacks an organized system of sounds, selected from the vast array human beings can make, that does not have rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words.
A) that does not have
B) that do not have
C) and has no
D) or having no
E) or
03 Jul 2020, 00:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
THE PROMPT
First, especially because the underlined portion is short, scan the answers and look for a pattern.
Second, strip the sentence and distill it.
Third, avoid getting bogged down. Do not try to understand this sentence by re-reading the prompt 10 times.
→ Some of you are taught not to proceed until you understand what the sentence means.
→ In my experience, when the prompt does not give us a clear view of meaning, the options will help us understand.
In other words, find elusive meaning by using the answer choices.
Scan the answers.
Four are similar and contain more negating words.
The last option is or—a conjunction. Conjunctions join two or more things.
At this point you might have an epiphany: this sentence is trying to describe two characteristics of language.
→ in that case, check each answer carefully to ascertain whether your impression of the 4-1 pattern is correct
→ if the epiphany does not strike, eliminate whichever answers you can.
Strip and distill the sentence.
→ Remove the nonessential modifiers known and selected from the vast array human beings can make.
→ paraphrase.
We end up with this sentence:
No language lacks a system of sounds . . . that does not have [rules for sounds].
→ That sentence, if not a double negative, is a dense mess at best.
Placement of the that-clause is problematic.
→ the that-clause seems logically to modify language
→ but if I grant that fact, the sentence contains dizzying levels of negation.
→ That-clauses are usually attached to their noun. As long as logic is clear, on rare occasions, that-clauses can be far away from their noun.
See, for example, this official question, here, in which that and its noun are separated but the logic is easy to follow.
→ In this case, logic is not clear, and if the that-clause is supposed to modify language, the clause should be closer to language
THE OPTIONS
→ I sense a double negative.
Let's try tyildirim92 's approach.
Rewrite the negative language but keep the noun singular:
No language lacks = Every language possesses
→ Every language possesses a system of sounds . . . that does not have rules for the sounds.
That sentence is babble. It is a logical and stylistic disaster.
ELIMINATE A
→ No language lacks a system of sounds . . . that do not have rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words..
→ . . . sounds . . . that do not have rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words.
Well, the system might contain rules for combining sounds, but the sounds themselves do not contain such rules.
• When we view the whole sentence, the logic does not improve:
No language lacks a system of sounds . . . that do not have rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words.
→ again we contend with double negation and muddy logic
• this option, too, is awkward.
ELIMINATE B
• So far, the answers add more negation to a sentence that already contains negation (no language and lacks)
• The sentence: No language lacks a system of sounds . . . and has no rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words.
→ the combination of no language lacks and has no rules creates negation and logic problems similar to those in options A and B
→ Meaning in this option is silly.
A language possesses a system of sounds but possesses no rules for combining the sounds? Wrong.
Sounds are nice. Ultimately, though, we need to combine sounds and make words.
This option is illogical.
ELIMINATE C
→ [or] having no rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words is not an independent clause.
-- ICs contain a subject and a working verb (not a "verbal" such as having) and can stand alone as a sentence
• grammar aside, like the preceding options, having no creates double negation problems when combined with No language lacks
ELIMINATE D
→ No language lacks a system of sounds . . . or [lacks] rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words.
→ No language lacks ABC or XYZ
• this answer is not perfect but it is grammatical and logical
Just for the record, this sentence would be rewritten, this way:
All known languages possess a system of sounds and rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words.
THE BEST ANSWER IS E.
NOTES
This sentence is a good example of an instance in which you must try to get a big picture or satellite view.
Do not get so focused on the trees that you fail to see the forest.
SC questions contain patterns; in this question the pattern is four similarly wrong answers and one unique answer that avoids more negation and fixes a hot mess.
tyildirim92 , your translation from negative to affirmative is a great move. Nice work.
(Everyone: you can use your "negate the assumption" skills to do such translation, but keep the subject number the same, i.e., singular if the subject is originally singular.)
COMMENTS
KhulanE , welcome to SC Butler.
These answers range from good to excellent.
More importantly, these answers demonstrate that their authors have courage.
This question is hard. Explaining its errors is hard.
As long as you explained and your reasoning was sensible (not perfect -- sensible), you get kudos. (Assertion without explanation gets a smiley face.)
It's okay to make a wrong turn now and then. (But do so here. Not on the test.)
To a couple of you: very nicely done.
Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC1)
THE PROMPT
Quote:
When we deal with sentences whose logic is impenetrable, we should do at least two things and avoid one thing.
First, especially because the underlined portion is short, scan the answers and look for a pattern.
Second, strip the sentence and distill it.
Third, avoid getting bogged down. Do not try to understand this sentence by re-reading the prompt 10 times.
→ Some of you are taught not to proceed until you understand what the sentence means.
→ In my experience, when the prompt does not give us a clear view of meaning, the options will help us understand.
In other words, find elusive meaning by using the answer choices.
Scan the answers.
Four are similar and contain more negating words.
The last option is or—a conjunction. Conjunctions join two or more things.
At this point you might have an epiphany: this sentence is trying to describe two characteristics of language.
→ in that case, check each answer carefully to ascertain whether your impression of the 4-1 pattern is correct
→ if the epiphany does not strike, eliminate whichever answers you can.
Strip and distill the sentence.
→ Remove the nonessential modifiers known and selected from the vast array human beings can make.
→ paraphrase.
We end up with this sentence:
No language lacks a system of sounds . . . that does not have [rules for sounds].
→ That sentence, if not a double negative, is a dense mess at best.
Placement of the that-clause is problematic.
→ the that-clause seems logically to modify language
→ but if I grant that fact, the sentence contains dizzying levels of negation.
→ That-clauses are usually attached to their noun. As long as logic is clear, on rare occasions, that-clauses can be far away from their noun.
See, for example, this official question, here, in which that and its noun are separated but the logic is easy to follow.
→ In this case, logic is not clear, and if the that-clause is supposed to modify language, the clause should be closer to language
THE OPTIONS
Quote:
• From above, the stripped sentence: No language lacks a system of sounds . . . that does not have rules for the sounds.
→ I sense a double negative.
Let's try tyildirim92 's approach.
Rewrite the negative language but keep the noun singular:
No language lacks = Every language possesses
→ Every language possesses a system of sounds . . . that does not have rules for the sounds.
That sentence is babble. It is a logical and stylistic disaster.
ELIMINATE A
Quote:
• The verb do is plural, so the that-clause must be modifying sounds:
→ No language lacks a system of sounds . . . that do not have rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words..
→ . . . sounds . . . that do not have rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words.
Well, the system might contain rules for combining sounds, but the sounds themselves do not contain such rules.
• When we view the whole sentence, the logic does not improve:
No language lacks a system of sounds . . . that do not have rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words.
→ again we contend with double negation and muddy logic
• this option, too, is awkward.
ELIMINATE B
Quote:
• Do we see a theme? We should.
• So far, the answers add more negation to a sentence that already contains negation (no language and lacks)
• The sentence: No language lacks a system of sounds . . . and has no rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words.
→ the combination of no language lacks and has no rules creates negation and logic problems similar to those in options A and B
→ Meaning in this option is silly.
A language possesses a system of sounds but possesses no rules for combining the sounds? Wrong.
Sounds are nice. Ultimately, though, we need to combine sounds and make words.
This option is illogical.
ELIMINATE C
Quote:
• a COMMA + OR joins two independent clauses
→ [or] having no rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words is not an independent clause.
-- ICs contain a subject and a working verb (not a "verbal" such as having) and can stand alone as a sentence
• grammar aside, like the preceding options, having no creates double negation problems when combined with No language lacks
ELIMINATE D
Quote:
• if an epiphany did not strike earlier, it should do so now.
→ No language lacks a system of sounds . . . or [lacks] rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words.
→ No language lacks ABC or XYZ
• this answer is not perfect but it is grammatical and logical
Just for the record, this sentence would be rewritten, this way:
All known languages possess a system of sounds and rules for combining these sounds into meaningful words.
THE BEST ANSWER IS E.
NOTES
This sentence is a good example of an instance in which you must try to get a big picture or satellite view.
Do not get so focused on the trees that you fail to see the forest.
SC questions contain patterns; in this question the pattern is four similarly wrong answers and one unique answer that avoids more negation and fixes a hot mess.
tyildirim92 , your translation from negative to affirmative is a great move. Nice work.
(Everyone: you can use your "negate the assumption" skills to do such translation, but keep the subject number the same, i.e., singular if the subject is originally singular.)
COMMENTS
KhulanE , welcome to SC Butler.
These answers range from good to excellent.
More importantly, these answers demonstrate that their authors have courage.
This question is hard. Explaining its errors is hard.
As long as you explained and your reasoning was sensible (not perfect -- sensible), you get kudos. (Assertion without explanation gets a smiley face.)
It's okay to make a wrong turn now and then. (But do so here. Not on the test.)
To a couple of you: very nicely done.
General Discussion
03 Jul 2020, 01:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
generis
Hello guys!
IMO,
Eliminate Option A, here, 'does' seemed fine to me since it referred to the 'organized system' but it is quite common that we do not use a comma near that.
Eliminate Option B , for the use of 'do', which is plural; we need to refer to the system which is 'singular' and we usually use a comma near 'which' and not near that.
Eliminate Option D, the use of 'having' here doesn't sound accurate.
Eliminate Option E, it does not refer to any specific word and seems incomplete.
Option C was a better one!
IMO,
I'll go with Option C.
PS:- Do let me know if the explanation is not apt; I'm up for learning everyday!
Thank you!
Regards,
Raunak Damle
