In some African languages, verbs not only encode the timeframe of

A). not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, which may be direct observation, hearsay, or intuition, resulting in speakers of those languages who cannot state facts without an attribution to some source ----- languages who cannot speak does not make sense


B). not only encode the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; therefore, speakers of those languages cannot state a fact without some source of attribution ….. not only verb … but also noun –un//.

C). encode not only the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; as a result, speakers of those languages cannot state facts without attributing them to a source ---- correct choice that specifies by using whether, the speaker’s knowledge is from direct observation, hearsay, or intuition

D. do not encode the timeframe of an event; they also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge -- whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition -- resulting in the inability of those languages' speakers to state facts and not attributions to some source --- do not en code is totally opposite to do not only encode. Meaning diametrically changed.

E. not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; speakers of those languages, therefore, do not state facts without attributing them to sources …. The origin stands good for all the four factors. --- 1.speaker's knowledge, 2.direct observation, 3. hearsay, or 4. intuition. Origin should stand for only speaker’s knowledge

_________________

Ambiguity is not a problem here. We only have to worry about multiple antecedents for "them" if there is potential for confusion. When I say "My friends can't eat peanuts without dropping some of them on the floor," we know that "them" doesn't mean friends.

As for the second issue, the question is testing parallelism. We have two choices for how to handle the closed markers of "not only . . . but also":

1) We can put parallel verbs after each marker. A and E do this with "encode" and "imply." D uses a different structure but still compares those two verbs.

2) We can put one verb (in this case, "encode") before "not only," and then make the objects of those verbs parallel.
(Only C does this, making "timeframe" and "origin" parallel.) In that case, we have to cut one of the verbs. SC 11 in the OG does a similar move in getting rid of the noun "idolization."

B breaks parallelism entirely by mixing "encode" and "origin."

Other eliminations:

A) It's not clear what action is "resulting" in the second part. Also, this doesn't result in "speakers"; it results in a situation.
D) This garbles the meaning. The speakers can't speak facts without an attribution. That's different from saying that they can't state facts and not attributions.
E) This puts "direct observation, hearsay, or intuition" on the same level as "knowledge" by tacking them on as a list. These should be potential sources of knowledge.

Remember that A does not have any monopoly on meaning. It's not the "original sentence"; it's just one option, and if it's flawed, we may need to make a significant change.
_________________

let's understand :-

A transitional phrase is something like “for example” or “in other words.” A sentence with a transitional phrase could read as follows:

I have a big test tomorrow; as a result, I can't go out tonight.

(C) has it !

In C, I removed this answer choice because

1) I thought usage of "them" is ambiguous. It can refer to Languages or Speakers. Is there any golden rule over here? Sometimes we consider it a Pronoun Ambiguity error and sometimes we don't.

2) I thought, it encodes the timeframe and imply the origin. If we emit imply then the meaning will change. In other questions they mention same logic.

Where am I getting wrong? GMAT SC is quite confusing.


_________________

Hey guys,

I was wondering if I can get avdice about the issue when an answer changes the original meaning of the sentence.
In SC questions I often pick an answer that is grammatically correct but changes the meaning of the sentence.

If the most part of the original sentence is underlined, than, I thought, the meaning of this part has to be questioned. But when I do that, I am in the wrong.

Just to show you some example:

in-some-african-languages-verbs-not-only-encode-the-136179.html

In some African languages, verbs not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, which may be direct observation, hearsay, or intuition, resulting in speakers of those languages who cannot state facts without an attribution to some source.

A.not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, which may be direct observation, hearsay, or intuition, resulting in speakers of those languages who cannot state facts without an attribution to some source

B.not only encode the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; therefore, speakers of those languages cannot state a fact without some source of attribution

C.encode not only the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; as a result, speakers of those languages cannot state facts without attributing them to a source

D.do not encode the timeframe of an event; they also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge -- whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition -- resulting in the inability of those languages' speakers to state facts and not attributions to some source

E.not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; speakers of those languages, therefore, do not state facts without attributing them to sources

The correct answer here is C. I picked E. Turns out, E changes the meaning of the original sentence most part of which is underlined and is wrong.

So, in terms of meaning, should I stick to the original sentence no matter how wrong this sentence is?

This has been recommended by several experts that pronoun ambiguity is acceptable on GMAT. So, we should not use it to eliminate answer choices.


This is indeed slightly surprising. The word "imply" has been totally eliminated in the correct answer. I believe I have seen this in a couple of official questions at max., but this is not very common.

Perhaps someone from Manhattan can reply, since this seems to be from Manhattan.

Just because the whole sentence is underlined it doesn't mean that the meaning is incorrect. You need to correct meaning if the meaning is illogical. You will often get down to a few options that are both grammatically correct and then you have to determine which one has the proper meaning. In this question, option E does have a meaning issue because it fails to create a list of things that form the origin of the speakers knowledge, instead including knowledge as part of a four item list.

KW
_________________

I should also point out that the meaning is different between answer choice A and answer choice C. Getting down to the correct answer requires you navigate grammar and meaning at the same time...

KW
_________________

A general recommendation that I have come across is

i) Understand the "intended meaning" of the original sentence.
ii) See which option depicts this "intended meaning" most appropriately.

Intended meaning is very difficult to determine, especially if the sentence is largely underlined. As Dmitry states above, option A does not necessarily show the intended meaning of the sentence - it's just one of the five options. Our correct answer (like we saw in this question) may vary significantly from what the "intended" meaning of option A seems to suggest.

You need to eliminate options with illogical meaning and the correct answer needs to match the meaning of the NON-UNDERLINED portion of the original sentence...

KW
_________________

Hi Experts,

In Option C, Whether..or used to refer 3 elements? Is that correct?

I read whether..or is a dual word marker and it should refer only 2 elements.

for example: Whether X or Y.

Please help

Thanks,
Maddala
_________________

No, there's no such limit on "whether." We can link two items with "whether . . . or" or multiple items with commas and "or." In theory, we could even use the form "whether X or Y or Z," but this is a little too intentionally stylish to show up on the GMAT.
_________________

Hi DmitryFarber and KyleWiddison,

As I studied in some other question following constructions are wrong:

"either A, B or C"
"neither A, B or C"

As seen in OA, we have "whether A,B or C" so this construction holds true.

Is it just because of the idiomatic usage? Also in "Thursdays with Ron", Ron said "whether x or not" is wrong as it takes all the possible scenarios in the world. Am I correct on this?
_________________

Either or neither are typically used to show a decision between TWO alternatives. By definition, whether is used to express a choice between alternatives and doesn't have the same idiomatic connection with TWO alternatives.

"Whether or not" can be used in some instances, but not when "whether" by itself is sufficient. [See this post from Ron on our site: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t8376.html]

KW
_________________

In some African languages, verbs not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, which may be direct observation, hearsay, or intuition, resulting in speakers of those languages who cannot state facts without an attribution to some source.

(A) not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, which may be direct observation, hearsay, or intuition, resulting in speakers of those languages who cannot state facts without an attribution to some source wrong, does not make sense

(B) not only encode the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; therefore, speakers of those languages cannot state a fact without some source of attribution incorrect use of idiom not only X but also Y

(C) encode not only the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; as a result, speakers of those languages cannot state facts without attributing them to a source correct

(D) do not encode the timeframe of an event; they also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge -- whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition -- resulting in the inability of those languages' speakers to state facts and not attributions to some source wrong meaning

(E) not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; speakers of those languages, therefore, do not state facts without attributing them to sources wrong parallelism

In some African languages, verbs not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, which may be direct observation, hearsay, or intuition, resulting in speakers of those languages who cannot state facts without an attribution to some source.

(A) not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, which may be direct observation, hearsay, or intuition, resulting in speakers of those languages who cannot state facts without an attribution to some source

(B) not only encode the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; therefore, speakers of those languages cannot state a fact without some source of attribution

(C) encode not only the timeframe of an event but also the origin of the speaker's knowledge, whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; as a result, speakers of those languages cannot state facts without attributing them to a source
--> correct.

(D) do not encode the timeframe of an event; they also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge -- whether direct observation, hearsay, or intuition -- resulting in the inability of those languages' speakers to state facts and not attributions to some source

(E) not only encode the timeframe of an event but also imply the origin of the speaker's knowledge, direct observation, hearsay, or intuition; speakers of those languages, therefore, do not state facts without attributing them to sources
_________________

Hi @Mike McGarry @GMATNinja kindly help us with explanation. I am not sure how encode and imply have the same meaning and how verb can be omitted to maintain parallelism.

Thank You

You are right in that there is meaning shift in the correct option C. However please note that nowhere in official guide is it stated that the meaning of the original sentence must be retained. When none of the grammatically correct options convey the meaning of the original sentence, one must not bother about sticking to the original meaning or omitting one of the main verbs (,which results in change in meaning), though such a case is not expected in the real GMAT.

IMO C
Original sentence has following issues
1)Which in A is referring to knowledge ...and knowledge can't be direct observation, hearsay or intuition..
2)later part of the sentence is illogical. Resulting in people.... does not make sense.

Posted from my mobile device