Asad, our paths cross again. I just finished answering another question you had posted, but there are some interesting talking points to raise from your current questions.
Asad wrote:
Q1:
From the passage:
The 'laws' has not been applied to 'continental United States'; laws are applied to the place which is farther from the equator than the continental United States is.
The author is 100% sure (Because the author used the word ''Obviously") that IF the laws are applied then it is more effective in preventing collisions in those countries that are farther from equator THAN the continental United States is. So, from the above writing, it seems that the world "probably" MUST be replaced with "definitely" in the correct choice E.
One thing you should know about GMAT™ answer choices by the time you take the exam is that correct answers often adopt cautious, non-committal language (e.g.,
may,
sometimes) while incorrect answers typically use more definitive, often overreaching language (e.g.,
will,
must,
always/never). This is not to say that you can cross off anything with definitive language in it, just that being mindful of it can help guide you through some otherwise tricky choices. In this case, there is a logical connection between the laws mentioned and the countries that have adopted such laws. Since
daylight visibility is worse in these countries, they have taken safety measures to
prevent automobile collisions by passing the laws mentioned. However, and this speaks to your question, there is no guarantee that preventative measures will work, law or no law. Notice the not-so-definitive
would just before the word in question. The
obviously has more to do with potential than a certain outcome. That is, the author is arguing that it makes sense to enact laws about using lights during daytime driving in areas that would be more dimly lit and thus more likely to cause automobile accidents, nothing more.
Asad wrote:
Q2:
One more thing:
The wording of the last sentence (In fact....) of the passage is not good to me. The better version should be:
In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than is the continental United States IS.
Am I missing anything here?
There is nothing wrong with the placement of
is in the original sentence. (Trust me, GMAC™ spends a lot of money coming up with questions and testing them. If something were grammatically incorrect, then it would not appear in a correct answer by the time the question made it through to an actual test.) It is really a matter of taste, kind of like splitting an infinitive. The more you place between the comparative marker--
than--and the second item being compared, the easier it is to lose track of the comparison. For example, I would hate to see a sentence that included an additional prepositional phrase with the
is at the end:
In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than the continental United States, with all its fields of grain in the midwest and stunning autumnal displays in the northeast, is.
That sentence is harder to follow than one that would place
is directly after the comparative
than. Do I always side with traditional or stilted grammar? Not at all. In fact (if I may use the transition), I once got into a friendly debate with a grammar professor of mine whose spiel was to diagram sentences, someone who held the traditional view that infinitives should
never be split. I pointed out that, due to popular culture, some infinitives sounded strange without a split infinitive, and I gave the example
To boldly go where no man has gone before.
I mean, really, who prefers
To go boldly...? Like it or not, language is ever in motion. I side with the linguists on that one.
- Andrew