Studying skeletons unearthed near Rome, DNA evidence was recovered by

Hi Experts GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo

Can you please explain what is so awkward about (D)

(A) and (B) are clearly out since opening verb-ing modifier should modify scientists and not evidence.

(C) being is not used in passive continuous tense also I feel evidence from is incorrect. It should be evidence by studying ..

(D)they correctly refers to scientists and not skeletons , is the phrase - from it- wordier?

(E) I did not select this since was confused if recovered is verb or modifier? note that there is no helping verb here. Does 'they' can only refer to subject in first independent clause ie scientists?

Option D gives a lot of importance to the noun skeletons, going so far as to make it the subject of the sentence. This means that the they is not very clear. It could refer to skeletons or scientists. For example:

A allowed B to enter the room, and he took the test. Super ambiguous, as the he could refer to either A or B.

Also, the structure of the sentence (with D) is not very good. There is a big difference between setting the sentence up as [the two things that scientists did] and setting the sentence up as [skeletons did one thing, and scientists did the other].

In option E, recovered is a verb (subject: scientists). We don't use a helping verb as we're in the active voice.

Scientists recovered DNA evidence. (active)
DNA evidence was recovered by scientists. (passive)

Studying skeletons unearthed near Rome, DNA evidence was recovered by scientists, who were able to deduce from this that an epidemic of malaria struck in the empire’s waning days.

A. Studying skeletons unearthed near Rome, DNA evidence was recovered by scientists, who were able to deduce from this
Modifier error, Studying seems to be modifying DNA instead of scientists.

B. In studying skeletons unearthed near Rome, DNA evidence was recovered by scientists, who were able to deduce from this
Modifier error, Studying seems to be modifying DNA instead of scientists.

C. Scientists recovered DNA evidence from studying skeletons unearthed near Rome, being able to deduce from this
being able is not required.

D. Skeletons unearthed near Rome allowed scientists to recover DNA evidence, and they were able to deduce from it
It seems that skeletons is allowing the scientists to recover DNA , which is not the case.

E. Scientists studying skeletons unearthed near Rome recovered DNA evidence from which they were able to deduce
No error

Hello,

I am not sure if 'they' is referring to 'scientists'. It seems is referring to 'skeletons', the main subject, what makes this sentence awkward since 'skeletons are allowing and deducing something ...'.

Then, I would like specialist's help on this one too.

On the other hand, 'and' is clearly incorrect in letter D because conveys an idea of addition rather than a causal-effect one. In other words, the correct meaning is 'because of a discovery in some DNA evidence, scientists could deduce there was a malaria epidemic in a specific period/date'.

Best,

Your observation is correct. If a pronoun is the subject of a clause and has two possible antecedents of which one is the subject of another clause in the sentence, then the pronoun would unambiguously, by virtue of parallelism, refer to the subject antecedent. Hence in option D, "they" clearly refers to "skeletons", and hence the sentence is wrong.

Hello Arpit/ adkikani,

I am not sure if your doubt still persists. Here is the explanation nonetheless.

Choice D is straight incorrect because it says that Skeletons allowed the scientists to recover DNA evidence. This meaning is absolutely illogical.

In Choice E, the word recovered is undoubtedly a verb because the original sentence has already established that scientists did the action of recovering DNA evidence.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hi everyone. In 'E', could you please explain why 'they' cannot refer to both 'skeletons' and 'scientists'?

Hello svanbergh13,

Thank you for the query.

Well, Arpit adkikani has already given a good reply to your question.

The thing is just the presence of multiple nouns of the same number as the number of the pronoun does not make the pronoun ambiguous.

A pronoun must have a logical antecedent in the sentence.

In case, a pronoun refers to two nouns logically, then there arises the pronoun ambiguity issue.

In order to find which noun does the pronoun logically refer to, just replace the pronoun with the possible noun antecedent. If the sentence still makes sense, then that noun is the antecedent of the pronoun.

Now, in choice E, pronoun they cannot refer to skeletons because it does not make sense to say to that the skeletons were able to deduce anything. Hence. scientists is the only logical plural noun that pronoun they can refer to. Hence, there is no pronoun ambiguity in Choice E.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Why is D wrong? I think it is somewhat clear that "they" refer to "Scientists". Whereas, answer E shows a change in meaning as there is no cause and effect between "studying skeletons" and "recovered DNA" . I think "by studying skeletons" then "scientists discovered DNA evidence", so E must be wrong.

But E is OA so.............. (I am very confused, understanding that A, B, C is obviously wrong and D is kind of awkward)

Take a look at this post for a discussion on the usage of the pronoun they in option D. If you're not comfortable removing option D for that, let's go with meaning:

Option D
Skeletons unearthed near Rome allowed scientists to recover DNA evidence, and they were able to deduce from it...

1. This option literally says that skeletons allowed scientists to recover DNA. Was this an matter of permission?
2. It's not at all clear which scientists this option is talking about. We seem to be reading about scientists in general.
3. We really can't say where the DNA came from. As in, there is very little to link the DNA to the skeletons.

Option E
Scientists studying skeletons unearthed near Rome recovered DNA evidence from which they were able to deduce

1. This option doesn't use the word allow, thereby removing one possible source of ambiguity.
2. We are looking at a specific group of scientists here: the ones studying the skeletons.
3. It's much easier to link the DNA evidence to the skeletons here, as it is the scientists who are studying the skeletons who have recovered the DNA evidence.

GMATNinja, AjiteshArun, egmat
VeritasKarishma
Kindly help me with this:

Studying skeletons unearthed near Rome, DNA evidence was recovered by scientists, who were able to deduce from this that an epidemic of malaria struck in the empire’s waning days.

Apart from all other errors those stood out to people in discussion. Kindly throw some light on, What does "this" refer to in this sentence? If this refers to "DNA Evidence", is this an eligible referent?
As per the Manhattan GMAT "On the GMAT, do not use this or these in place of nouns. A sentence such as This is great is un-acceptably vague to the GMAT."
(D) Skeletons unearthed near Rome allowed scientists to recover DNA evidence, and they were able to deduce from it
(E) Scientists studying skeletons unearthed near Rome recovered DNA evidence from which they were able to deduce

Generally, in English
The usage of this to refer to some person, event, or thing mentioned in the sentence (or even outside the sentence: Don't do this) is acceptable. Here are a few examples:

1. He studied at Stanford, and this allowed him to develop the network that he needed.

2. Companies in the area want MBAs; we know this because we've spoken with them.

3. Electric cars are generally quite expensive, but this is not.

4. You should take accounting and marketing as these are the most important for you. (these is the plural form)

Such usage is allowed in English, but may not be very precise. For example, in (3), the one after this is understood:
3a. Electric cars are generally quite expensive, but this one is not.
or
3b. Electric cars are generally quite expensive, but this electric car is not.

Similarly, in (4), the sentence assumes a word like subjects:
4a. You should take accounting and marketing as these subjects are the most important for you.

An interesting point here is that that and those are much more common than this and these in such constructions (something like 10:1 if I remember correctly). For example, we can generally expect people to prefer

1a. He studied at Stanford, and that allowed him to develop the network that he needed.
to
1b. He studied at Stanford, and this allowed him to develop the network that he needed.

and

4b. You should take accounting and marketing as those are the most important for you.
to
4c. You should take accounting and marketing as these are the most important for you.

Perhaps the sentence is assuming a word like discovery here:
DNA evidence was recovered by scientists, who were able to deduce from this discovery that an epidemic of malaria struck in the empire’s waning days.

On the GMAT
Such usage is vague, but I would not go so far as to say that it is "unacceptably vague". It is, however, a very good sign that the option we're considering is incorrect. All in all, I'd advise you to use it as just that: a sign. Be aware of this concept, use it, but don't put it all the way up there with something like SVA.

Studying skeletons unearthed near Rome, DNA evidence was recovered by scientists, who were able to deduce from this that an epidemic of malaria struck in the empire’s waning days.

(A) Studying skeletons unearthed near Rome, DNA evidence was recovered by scientists, who were able to deduce from this
Mod -- gerund "studying..." incorrectly modifies "DNA evidence"

(B) In studying skeletons unearthed near Rome, DNA evidence was recovered by scientists, who were able to deduce from this
Idiom -- "in studying" is wrong, should be "by studying"
Still wrong mod & both A and B are also in passive voice

(C) Scientists recovered DNA evidence from studying skeletons unearthed near Rome, being able to deduce from this
demonstrative pronoun "this" is far from antecedent "DNA evidence" & should be changed to "it"
"being able to" is unnecessary

(D) Skeletons unearthed near Rome allowed scientists to recover DNA evidence, and they were able to deduce from it
Meaning -- "skeletons" did not "allow" & "they" in the second CL now refers to subject "skeletons"


(E) Scientists studying skeletons unearthed near Rome recovered DNA evidence from which they were able to deduce
scientists == they
DNA evidence == which

Hi VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATNinja2

What is the part of speech of the word studying in choice C?

Is it adjective, meaning --> skeletons who were studying. (and hence the choice is incorrect as saying skeletons were studying is illogical) OR is that choice saying scientists recovered evidence BY studying skeletons...?

I have this doubt because of the explanation given to this question in OG - The sentence incorrectly states that DNA evidence was recovered from studying skeletons rather than from the skeletons.

PS: I am aware about the another error in this choice regarding being able to.

Thanks,
ShubhamP

Yeah, OG explanations are written by random contractors, not the question-writers -- so sometimes those explanations aren't the greatest. I see what they're going after here, but it's not all that clear.

I wouldn't overthink the issue with "studying" in (C), since there are other reasons to eliminate that answer choice. But you're very much on the right track: there are two ways to interpret "studying", and neither of them are ideal:

1. "Studying" is an adjective. So the skeletons are studying... physics? Math? Culinary arts? Total nonsense.
2. "Studying" is a gerund, and the scientists recovered DNA evidence from the act of studying. This is pretty shaky, partly because "by" would be a better choice of preposition, and partly because it makes more sense to say that the scientists gathered DNA evidence from the skeletons themselves -- not from the act of studying them.

Would I eliminate answer choice (C) purely because of the issue with "studying"? Nope, but I'd be very suspicious of it -- it's a very confusing usage, and we obviously have a better option in another answer choice. But the GMAT gave you a clearer error elsewhere in (C), so it's not worth losing too much sleep over the "studying" problem.

I hope that helps a bit!

Hello experts, MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, AjiteshArun, egmat

I have some doubts about answer choice C. What are the primary points wrong with it? Based on my analysis and the above, it seems there are three errors: (1) "studying skeletons" seems to illogically suggest there are type of skeletons (i.e., skeletons that are studying); (2) "being able" I always get tripped with "being," but I don't believe I ever seen it used correctly as a modifier; (3) "this" is too far away from its antecedent - "DNA evidence" (also is the use of "this" along as a pronoun always too colloquial for the GMAT?)

Thank you in advance!

Hi samgyupsal,

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I wouldn't say that studying skeletons is incorrect because it implies that the skeletons are studying, although now that you've brought the possibility up, I don't think that I'll ever look at this question the same way again.

1. To take C out, we could check what the DNA was recovered from, and we can do this even if we go with "studying skeletons" ~ "the studying of skeletons". That is, if the DNA evidence was recovered from X, what should that X be?

i. Scientists recovered DNA evidence from skeletons.
ii. Scientists recovered DNA evidence from (the) studying (of) skeletons.

(i) is better than (ii) because it's more reasonable to say that the DNA evidence was recovered from the skeletons themselves (than it is to say that it was recovered from studying skeletons).

2. I follow a very permissive approach to usage, so I would not advise you to look at the pattern you've found as an absolute rule.

3. The same thing applies to this. Also, you may want to try this question before taking a decision on this.