Digging in sediments in northern China, evidence has been gathered by

Dear divineacclivity,
I'm Chris' friend and colleague, and I am happy to respond.

The brilliant thing about this official question is that there are almost no grammatical mistakes. Choice (A) certainly questionable with the odd verb tense, but the other four answer choices are free of grammatical errors. Naive GMAT takers thing the GMAT SC is simply about grammar. It's not. Grammar is only one of many things tested on the GMAT SC. This particular question is testing one of the most tested areas, something called Rhetorical Construction. For a description of this, see:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/rhetorical ... orrection/
Logic and Rhetorical Construction are each as important as, if not more important than, grammar on the GMAT SC.

So, yes, choice (E) is 100% grammatically correct and rhetorically, it is an absolute trainwreck. It is far too wordy, and using "emergence" rather than the verb form, "emerge", makes it indirect and awkward.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi,

Can someone help me clarify why A/B are wrong b/c of the word "evidence" right after the comma and not "scientists"? Since Digging is a verb modifier, it doesn't need to touch anything it modifies, so theoretically, can't it modify "scientists" in A/B?

Dear russ9
I'm happy to help.

Here's the question again:
Digging in sediments in northern China, evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had previously thought.
(A) evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had
(B) evidence gathered by scientists suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than had been
(C) scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than
(D) scientists have gathered evidence that suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that which was
(E) scientists have gathered evidence which suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that

The participial phrase "digging in sediments in northern China" is, here, a noun modifier. It's true, participles and participial phrases can modifier either a noun, or a verb, or an entire clause. It's very subtle to interpret which a given participle modifies. Here, "digging" is a very concrete action. If the participle denotes a concrete action, and the action is clearly attributable to a particular noun in the sentence, then the participle is a noun modifier. Here, the "digging" had to be done by the "scientists," without a doubt. Therefore, the phrase is a noun modifier modifier "scientists" and therefore needs to touch that word. That's precisely why (A) & (B) make the misplaced modifier mistake. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/modifiers- ... orrection/

Participle modifiers are not easy. You have to ask yourself: is this a concrete action performed by someone in the sentence? Then that's a noun-modifier. Participial phrases modify verbs and clauses when they explain a further consequence of some action, or something caused not by the subject but by the action of the independent clause.
Stocks felt sharply yesterday, sending the bond market into a panic.
What "[sent] the bond market into a panic"? Not the noun "stocks" but the entire action, the fact that stocks fell.
The governor signed the new crime bill, sending a strong message to his harshest critics.
The concrete action is the one in the main clauses, "signing." The participle communicated a less concrete, more far-reaching effect of the action in the main clause.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

I have some thoughts about the correct sentece. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I remember a worng example in the MGMAT GUIDE: I see the man clenning the steps yeasterday. since the "cleaning" and "see" don't happen at the same time, it is wrong.

In the correct sentence: Digging in sediments in northern China, scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-formsemerged much earlier than previously thought.
In my views, "suggesting" and “gathered" also do not happened at the same time, but "suggest" is diffrent from the verb "clean" which happens instantly. "Suggest" is a constant action which happens all the time. Thus, that's why "suggesting" is correct here. Am I right?

Dear liu1993918,
I'm happy to respond. Yes, as you found out from MGMAT, a present participle (verb + "ing") takes on the tense of the main verb. If we need to establish a different time, we need to use a subordinate clause.
I see the man cleaning the steps yesterday. = wrong
I see the man who was cleaning the steps yesterday. = correct

Now, in this sentence, the very tricky thing is --- what is the tense of the main verb? The main verb is NOT "gathered," a past tense verb. The main verb is "have gathered," which is a present perfect verb. For more on the perfect tenses, see:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-verb ... ct-tenses/

The present perfect tense is a notoriously tricky tense, because even though it refers to an action that began in the past, either the action is still continuing, or its effect or relevance is still continuing. In some way, the action or its consequences are still very much present to us, even though the beginning of the action is in the past
"...scientists have gathered evidence ..."
Suppose that is factually true. What does it mean? Either the scientists are still gathering the evidence now, or the evidence-gathering has come to an end but the process of sorting through the evidence, interpreting it, and deciding what it means is still very much present to use In one way or another, the action of evidence-gathering is having a profound impact on our present moment. That is precisely what the present perfect tense implies.

The participle is completely correct --- the "digging" was simultaneous with the "evidence gathering" --- they are both in the present-perfect-tense time frame.

There's absolutely no problem here Does this make sense?
Mike

Hi, is it right to use past perfect in choice A&B?
I think it's better to use past tense since there is "previously" in this sentence, am I right?
If not, please correct me. Thanks!

Dear Ptting,
I'm happy to respond.

Here's a blog on the perfect tenses:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-verb ... ct-tenses/

In (A) & (B), the sentence would end " . . . much earlier than they had previously thought." Yes, using the past perfect with "previously" is a wee bit redundant, a wee bit awkward. Here's the important thing to understand, though: it's not deal-breaker wrong. In other words, sometimes, the OA on an official SC question is a bit awkward, a bit less than ideal --- it's just better than all the other answers. This kind of small picayune mistake could be part of an OA on the GMAT. It's not trainwreck wrong. It's less than ideal, but in a pinch, could be passable.

All of mathematics has that very clear right vs. wrong distinction. Grammar has that on a few things, such as SVA, but for the most part, it is a lot of shades of gray. Using "previously" with the past perfect is not pure white, but it's not jet black either: it's light gray.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi mikemcgarry / daagh / chetan2u,


If we have options like-

(C) scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than
(D) scientists have gathered evidence that suggests complex life-forms emerged much earlier than

Is there any difference between two OR both are exactly same..??

Please assist.


Thanks and Regrds
Prakhar

Dear Prakhar,
I'm happy to respond.

First of all, I will point out a grammar mistake in your question. It's not
If we have options like-
It should be:
If we have options such as-

The GMAT is usually fussy about having a "that" to begin a "that" clause, such as the one beginning with "complex life-forms . . ." The verb "to suggest" is a verb that takes "that"-clauses, and if this verb is followed by a clause, the GMAT usually wants the word "that" to appear.

(C) scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than . . . = perfect

(D1) scientists have gathered evidence that suggests complex life-forms emerged much earlier than . . . = missing the "that," probably not acceptable by GMAT standards

(D1) scientists have gathered evidence that suggests that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than . . . = technically correct, but awkward and redundant-sounding, so not ideal.

The best of the three is option (C).

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi mikemcgarry,

Thanks alot for such a debrief.
I agree that in the above-mentioned examples, C is best.

But what I am more concerned about is that.

Is NOUN + THAT + VERB = NOUN + VERB-ing OR it depends on context..??
If depends on context, then can you please provide few examples so that I can comprehend this concept at my best.
I come across question on same concept:

In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for
women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women’s
property laws.

A. arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights
B. arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women
C. a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights
D. a treatise advocating women’s equal political and legal rights
E. a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women

OA- E

I agree that we need parallelism after legal rights ( For women and for changes)
But, if we leave this aside..
Is there any difference between C and D..??

Thanks and Regards,
Prakhar

Dear Prakhar,
I'm happy to respond.

The short answer is: it depends.

In the structure [noun]"that"[verb], the "that" clause is clearly a noun-modifier modifying the noun it touches. That's the only option.

In the structure [noun][participle], the participle usually would be an noun-modifier modifying the noun, but participles can be either noun-modifiers or verb modifier, and this allows them considerably more flexibility in their use. Example
Yankee Doodle came to town riding on a pony.
In that oft-quoted sentence, the participle "riding" is acting as a verb modifier, modifying the action of the clause. It describes the manner in which Yankee Doodle "came." The participle "riding" is not modifying the noun "town;" thus, the "that" clause substitution would produce a very different, illogical, and incorrect sentence.
Yankee Doodle came to a town that rides on a pony (!)

Often if the participle is a verb or clause modifier, it would be separated from the noun by a comma:
The teacher yelled at the class, scaring the students into obedience.

It all depends on context. In the question about Lucretia Mott (OG13, SC #41; OG2016, SC #60), (C) & (D) have identical meanings, but as you know, both are wrong in the larger context of that sentence.

My friend, it is 100% impossible to arrive at mastery of SC by learning some ideal collection of rules. The problem is that there is always too much that depends on context. To arrive at mastery, it is absolutely indispensable to develop the habit of reading. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/how-to-imp ... bal-score/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

hi experts,
I genuinely want your help to distinct A and C, although I totally got that evidence as the subject of sentence is incorrect,
I am confused for the OE for A and C, because I want to make it clear why "suggesting" in A is ambiguous.


C, which is correct, use "suggesting" as well,
why suggesting in C is correct , while suggesting in A is ambiguous.

one more question,

my understand is that suggest introduce a THAT clause include action and doer, or introduce a noun/noun phrase that won't include both doer and action,
am I right?


waiting for your reply
have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,
I'm happy to respond, my friend.

If I may make a suggestion: please don't use the quote function for ordinary quotes from books or from the problem. The quote function is typically used, as above, to indicate the quote of another speaker on GMAT Club. Using it for each quote from a book makes your post chunkier and harder to follow. See how I used colors and quote marks in what I quoted above.

The problem with (A) is NOT the word "suggesting." The problem is the misplaced modifier. Consider (A) in the context of the whole underlined sentence:
Digging in sediments in northern China, evidence has been gathered by scientists . . .
Who was "digging in sediments in northern China"? That's a noun-modifier, and according to the Modifier Touch Rule, it should be touching the noun that it modifies. Well, we know that "evidence" was NOT doing the "digging." This is a classic misplaced modifier mistake. It's tricky because we can't look at the underlined part alone and figure this out: we have to look at how the choice "plugs in" to the sentence around it. Choice (A) is a train wreck when read with the non-underlined part that precedes it.

That's the problem with (A). Also, (A) has a weird passive construction that comes across as lily-livered. It has multiple problems. Nevertheless, the word "suggesting" in (A) is 100% perfectly fine, as it is in (C).

Now, let's talk about (D). (D) is 100% grammatically correct. In terms of grammar, it is completely flawless. Despite this, it is an abysmally wrong answer choice. It passes in terms of grammar but it spectacularly fails in terms of rhetoric. You are 100% right: grammatically, the word "suggest" can be followed by a "that" clause or by a noun. That's correct but besides the point.

Consider (C) & (D) side by side:
(C) scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than
(D) scientists have gathered evidence that suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that which was
These two have the same meaning, and both are 100% grammatically correct. Version (C) is like a lean Olympic athletic, sleek, efficient, direct, powerful. By contrast, (D) is the longest answer--rarely is the longest answer the correct one! Here, (D) is bloated, weak, indirect, flabby---it seems to be trying to win a contest for saying what it has to say in the most words possible. Any answer choice trying to win that contest is automatically wrong on the GMAT.

I realize it can be hard for a non-native speaker to sense the rhetorical construction. One important clue is when a single word switches between noun vs. verb among the answer choices. As a very general guideline, we usually get a more powerful and more direct sentence when use the verb form, the action form, rather than a noun.
"...suggesting that complex life-forms emerged..." = That's an action! That's direct & powerful!
"...that suggests a much earlier emergence of ..." = Yawn! Boring!

My friend, here's what I'll say. Look at advertising slogans. The grammar is often atrocious, but ads are packed with direct and powerful language, including lots of commands. Play a game with these: try restating the slogans using nouns rather than verbs and using more indirect language.
Original: Our product changes people's lives!
Changed: A change in peoples lives takes place because of our product.
The business that had the second version as its advertising slogan would go out of business very quickly! Have fun changing advertising slogans, making them as indirect and weak as possible. Once you appreciate the pattern of changing direct language to indirect language, it will give you more appreciate for how the test writer changes the direct language of an OA, such as (C), and creates an obviously wrong answer, such as (D).

Does all this make sense?

Have a good day, my friend!
Mike

thanks Mike,
I will pay attention



glad to get your explanation.

I am reviewing the OG16SC again,

I figured out that it will save time if I can break the effective approach or catch the test points
different approach costs different time.

I focus more on OE this time, because OE mentions the test points of each SC,
unfortunately, I realized that OE confused me, and I would suspect whether I missed something or misunderstand something.
such as "suggesting" in this case, I review it correct while OE says it is ambiguous.

I feel better after getting your explanation
thanks again Mike.

I genuinely want your suggestion of my focus on OE



Yes, not easy for me
what I get now is if no ambiguous, more concise , more better.
sometimes, ambiguous is not easy either.
I always fail the ambiguity such as
plants are efficient at acquiring carbon than fungi. (incorrect SC of OG16, #41)

it is common, but.. I always realize afterwards. I hope I could catch the ambiguity at first glance.

have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,
I'm happy to respond, my friend.

Keep in mind that, in the GMAT, there's a BIG difference between the quality of the questions and the quality of the explanations. The questions are among the finest standardized test questions on the planet. These questions are released questions from the real GMAT: each one had to have a mountain of data behind it to get onto the test, and then it acquired another mountain of data while it was on the GMAT. These are some of the best measured, best documented questions ever created. By contrast, the explanations were written only when the OG was prepared, probably by some starving grad student. Maybe it was proofread once or twice, but essentially no statistical quality-control procedure was implemented on the explanations. Some are excellent, some are OK, and some are lacking. They are not consistent at all. I write questions & explanations for a living: some of my very best questions, < 1%, possibly may approach the level of the questions in the OG, but almost every explanation I write is better than the one given in the OG. You see, it's tricky, because it's all in the same book, in the same font: it makes a naive student believe that it's all of the same quality, but it's not.

The moral is: spend time studying the OG questions, but don't expect the OE in the book to be very illuminating. Sometimes it will help, but not always. Instead, come here to GMAT Club. The GC experts such as souvik101990 or sayantanc2k or I can give much better explanations than you find in the OG. Always search for an official question before posting it again, but you definitely will find much better explanations here than you will find in the OG. Later this year, Magoosh will be issuing a "companion to the OG" app that will have solutions to all the OG SC questions.

As for spotting ambiguity, one trick is to recognize the typical patterns. The one you cite (OG16, SC #41) has a very typical pattern, one a call a "subjective comparison" vs. an "objective comparison." Consider the ambiguous sentence:
Mike likes opera more than Chris.
That's ambiguous, because it could be either a "subjective comparison" (i.e. a comparison to the subject of the sentence) or an "objective comparison" (a comparison to the direct object of the sentence).
unambiguous subjective comparison: Mike likes opera more than Chris does.
unambiguous objective comparison: Mike likes opera more than he likes Chris.
In real life, I am quite fond of my friend Chris despite the fact that he doesn't like opera and I do, so the subjective comparison is the true statement.

That's an example of a formulaic ambiguity. Not all ambiguities on the GMAT follow a pattern like this, but some do, and the more patterns you can spot, the quicker you will be.

Does all this make sense?

Have a wonderful day, my friend.
Mike

Hi Mike,

(C) scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than

In this option than previously thought needs a subject...who previously thought ?
like in A) atleast this part is covered and it says that the scientists had previously thought

(A) evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had

I understand A) is wrong due to other reasons,but I feel C) is correct if it was
scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had

Please correct me me if I am wrong .

Saksham.

Dear Saksham,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, choice (C) is perfect as it---it doesn't need the pronoun subject to be correct. In fact, that extra word is not needed, so in a way, it's redundant, and the GMAT doesn't like redundancy.

This is one of the hardest thing for students, especially non-native speakers, to appreciate: in the second branch of parallelism, words that already have been stated in the first branch often do not need to be repeated, because they are implied. See:
Dropping Common Words in Parallel on the GMAT

When two clauses are in parallel with a "than" comparison, it's strongly implied, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that the subject is the same. Because the subject is the same here, we don't need any pronoun.

Does all this make sense?
Mike