Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
23 Aug 2015, 05:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
81% (01:21) correct
19%
(01:34)
wrong
based on 7232
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
From an experiment using special extrasensory perception cards, each bearing one of a set of symbols, parapsychologist Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand.
A. for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand
A. for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand
24 Aug 2015, 10:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand --- He didn’t claim proof for subjects
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference ---He didn’t claim proof for a card
C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand -- He didn’t claim proof of subjects
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference --- When a claim is reported a relative clause using' that' is required correct choice
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand—unconcise--- capable to use is unidiomatic. Could identify is more forthwith
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference ---He didn’t claim proof for a card
C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand -- He didn’t claim proof of subjects
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference --- When a claim is reported a relative clause using' that' is required correct choice
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand—unconcise--- capable to use is unidiomatic. Could identify is more forthwith
Updated on: 07 May 2019, 12:28
Originally posted by EMPOWERgmatVerbal on 06 Sep 2018, 11:18.
Last edited by EMPOWERgmatVerbal on 07 May 2019, 12:28, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by EMPOWERgmatVerbal on 07 May 2019, 12:28, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello Everyone!
Let's tackle this question, one problem at a time, to narrow it down to the correct answer quickly! First, let's take a quick look at the original question. We highlighted the major differences between each option in orange:
From an experiment using special extrasensory perception cards, each bearing one of a set of symbols, parapsychologist Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand.
A. for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand
After a quick glance over each option, there are a couple issues we can focus on to rule out incorrect answers quickly:
1. How they begin: for subjects / for a card / of subjects / that subjects
2. Placement of the phrase "a card in the dealer's hand" (possibly an issue with active/passive voice?)
Let's start with #1 on our list because it will likely rule out 2-3 answers quickly. When we talk about a person claiming statistical proof, each of these phrases mean something slightly different:
claiming statistical proof for subjects = Joshep Rhine is gathering proof that he plans to give to the subjects that they will then own
claiming statistical proof of subjects = Joshep Rhine is gathering proof that he can find subjects who can do this particular task
claiming statistical proof that subjects = Joshep Rhine is gathering proof that his subjects can do a particular task
It makes the clearest sense to say that Rhine is collecting proof that his subjects can use thought transference. He's not later giving that proof to his subjects, and there is no question that he already has subjects that can do this task, so the other two don't really make sense for this purpose. Therefore, we can rule out options A & C because they don't convey the most accurate meaning.
Now that we're left with only 3 options, let's tackle #2 on the list: where to put the phrase "a card in the dealer's hand." Whenever we see a phrase placed in so many different places, we are likely dealing with an issue of clarity or passive/active voice. Let's take a look at each answer to determine which option conveys the correct meaning as clearly as possible:
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
This option is INCORRECT because it's written using passive voice. Instead of making the subjects the focus of the phrase, it makes the cards in the dealer's hand the focus. This isn't the clearest way to say this. Rhine isn't providing proof that the cards are doing anything - he's proving the subjects can do things.
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
This option is CORRECT! It is clear that the subject is the focus of the phrase, it uses active voice, and the rest of the phrase is also clear and concise.
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand
This is INCORRECT because it uses confusing and overly worded construction to convey meaning. Instead of saying "are capable to use," this could simply say "can use" or "could use" to convey the same meaning more clearly. Also, the phrase "for identifying" isn't as clear as saying "to identify" in this case. It sounds a bit overdone and confusing to some readers.
There you go - option D is the correct choice! It conveys the correct meaning and uses concise and clear language to convey information to readers!
Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
Let's tackle this question, one problem at a time, to narrow it down to the correct answer quickly! First, let's take a quick look at the original question. We highlighted the major differences between each option in orange:
From an experiment using special extrasensory perception cards, each bearing one of a set of symbols, parapsychologist Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand.
A. for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand
After a quick glance over each option, there are a couple issues we can focus on to rule out incorrect answers quickly:
1. How they begin: for subjects / for a card / of subjects / that subjects
2. Placement of the phrase "a card in the dealer's hand" (possibly an issue with active/passive voice?)
Let's start with #1 on our list because it will likely rule out 2-3 answers quickly. When we talk about a person claiming statistical proof, each of these phrases mean something slightly different:
claiming statistical proof for subjects = Joshep Rhine is gathering proof that he plans to give to the subjects that they will then own
claiming statistical proof of subjects = Joshep Rhine is gathering proof that he can find subjects who can do this particular task
claiming statistical proof that subjects = Joshep Rhine is gathering proof that his subjects can do a particular task
It makes the clearest sense to say that Rhine is collecting proof that his subjects can use thought transference. He's not later giving that proof to his subjects, and there is no question that he already has subjects that can do this task, so the other two don't really make sense for this purpose. Therefore, we can rule out options A & C because they don't convey the most accurate meaning.
Now that we're left with only 3 options, let's tackle #2 on the list: where to put the phrase "a card in the dealer's hand." Whenever we see a phrase placed in so many different places, we are likely dealing with an issue of clarity or passive/active voice. Let's take a look at each answer to determine which option conveys the correct meaning as clearly as possible:
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
This option is INCORRECT because it's written using passive voice. Instead of making the subjects the focus of the phrase, it makes the cards in the dealer's hand the focus. This isn't the clearest way to say this. Rhine isn't providing proof that the cards are doing anything - he's proving the subjects can do things.
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
This option is CORRECT! It is clear that the subject is the focus of the phrase, it uses active voice, and the rest of the phrase is also clear and concise.
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand
This is INCORRECT because it uses confusing and overly worded construction to convey meaning. Instead of saying "are capable to use," this could simply say "can use" or "could use" to convey the same meaning more clearly. Also, the phrase "for identifying" isn't as clear as saying "to identify" in this case. It sounds a bit overdone and confusing to some readers.
There you go - option D is the correct choice! It conveys the correct meaning and uses concise and clear language to convey information to readers!
Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
