While most of the earliest known ball courts in Mesoamerica date to 90

Hello scwong59 / Laurie,


I will be glad to help you out with this one.


Following is the structure of the sentence with Choice E:


While most of the earliest known ball courts in Mesoamerica date to 900–400 b.c.,

the finding

of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati and

of representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics at San Lorenzo

attest to the fact

that the Mesoamerican ballgame was well established by the mid-thirteenth century b.c.



The sentence intends to say that there was one finding. Two items were found, but there was one finding that took place. Hence, we need singular verb attests for the finding.


From grammar stand-point, the finding applies to both of waterlogged... and of representations.... Hence, this singular subject needs singular verb attests.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hello Everyone!

Let's take a look at this question to find any ways to quickly rule out options to get us to the correct answer! First, here is the original question with the main differences between each option highlighted in orange:

While most of the earliest known ball courts in Mesoamerica date to 900–400 b.c., waterlogged latex balls found at El Manati and representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attest to the fact that the Mesoamerican ballgame was well established by the mid-thirteenth century b.c.

(A) waterlogged latex balls found at El Manati and representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attest
(B) waterlogged latex balls found at El Manati and the painting of representations of ballplayers on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attests
(C) waterlogged latex balls found at El Manati and ceramics painted with representations of ballplayers found at San Lorenzo attests
(D) the finding of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati and the painting of representations of ballplayers on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attests
(E) the finding of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati and of representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics at San Lorenzo attest

Right away, we see 3 places where there are differences between each option:

1. How they begin (waterlogged latex balls found / the finding of waterlogged latex balls)
2. How they end (attest / attests)
3. How they deal with the ceramic paintings of ballplayers

To answer this question as quickly as possible, start with an item on our list that will eliminate 2-3 answers right away. For us, the easiest way to do this is by dealing with #2 on our list: attest / attests.

The verb "attest/attests" is referring back to BOTH the waterlogged latex balls and the ceramic paintings; therefore, we MUST use the plural verb "attest" to agree with its plural subject! Let's see how each option stacks up:

(A) waterlogged latex balls found at El Manati and representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attest
(B) waterlogged latex balls found at El Manati and the painting of representations of ballplayers on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attests
(C) waterlogged latex balls found at El Manati and ceramics painted with representations of ballplayers found at San Lorenzo attests
(D) the finding of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati and the painting of representations of ballplayers on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attests
(E) the finding of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati and of representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics at San Lorenzo attest

We can eliminate options B, C, and D quickly because they use a singular verb with a plural subject!

Now that we only have options A & E to choose from, let's look at both answers to see which one is the better choice:

(A) waterlogged latex balls found at El Manati and representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attest

This is the CORRECT answer because it uses the correct plural verb "attest" to agree with its plural subject. It also uses clear and concise wording to convey the intended meaning: the two types of artifacts found are proof the game existed at that time!

(E) the finding of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati and of representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics at San Lorenzo attest

This is INCORRECT because it changes the original meaning. The phrases "the finding of waterlogged latex balls" and the finding "of representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics" change the focus. By saying "the finding of" these two artifacts is the proof of how long this game existed, we're ignoring the important fact that the existence of these two artifacts is the proof - NOT the action of someone finding them!

There you go - option A is the correct choice!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

In D plural subject does not agree with "attests"

Yes! And I proudly(?) accepted my demerits above: https://gmatclub.com/forum/while-most-o ... l#p1877969.

Can not "the finding of ... and the painting of..." and
"the finding of ... and of the painting of..." mean the same thing?

If a finding contains two things, the "of" before the second thing cannot be omitted?

Could someone please help explain?

There's no general rule governing this issue. Context is everything here.

Take another look at (D): "the finding of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati and the painting of representations of ballplayers on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attests..."

In this option we have two things attesting to the fact that this game was established by the 13th century B.C.: (1) the finding of waterlogged balls at El Manati and (2) the painting of representations of ballplayers found at San Lorenzo.

If we had an "of" before the second element, the parallelism would change. Now, the two elements in bold would be parallel to each other: "the finding (1) of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati and (2) of the painting of representations of ballplayers on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attests..." Take a look at that second element now: "the finding... of the painting of representations found at San Lorenzo." We could refer to "the finding of X at San Lorenzo". We could refer to "X found at San Lorenzo". But we can't refer to "the finding of X found at San Lorenzo". That's redundant.

(Of course, others have pointed out that (D) has a subject-verb disagreement: X and Y attests, and this is probably the easiest way to get rid of this option.)

Now let's revisit (E): "the finding of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati and of representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics at San Lorenzo attest..." The structure is different here: "found" doesn't appear in the second element, so we don't have the redundancy issue anymore. But we still have a subject-verb disagreement: "the finding... attest." So (E) is wrong regardless.

Takeaway (shouted very loudly from a snowy rooftop): it's impossible to memorize every acceptable construction or idiom on the GMAT. With a few exceptions, you're far better off relying on the logic, grammar, and structure of a given option than attempting to rely on an ironclad rule.

I hope that helps!

Hi EMPOWERgmatVerbal,

Thanks for your explanation. I like that you mentioned "the finding of" as an action and not the artifacts that they found. None of other people mentioned this.
As for choice E, can I interpret the sentence structure as "the finding (of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati and of representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics at San Lorenzo) attest", which makes "finding" the action of the two items underlined, hence makes it a SV agreement error?

Thanks!

I'm glad you like the explanation, el1234! Also, great catch on the subject-verb agreement error in option E!

@experts GMATNinja daagh egmat the phrase "While most of the earliest knownball courts in Mesoamerica date to 900–400 b.c." correctly modifies "waterlogged latex balls" that comes after the comma but how does it modify "representatives of ballplayers"? How is representatives parallel with known courts in Mesoamerica ?

A: While most of the earliest known ball courts in Mesoamerica date to 900–400 b.c., waterlogged latex balls found at El Manati and representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attest to the fact that the Mesoamerican ballgame was well established by the mid-thirteenth century b.c.

kriti
Reasoning: In the case of archeology and anthropology especially with reference to dating, Deductive Logic, and circumstantial evidence, etc are considered concrete proof and legal tools.
In the given case, the comparison is okay because the ball courts in Mesoamerica are compared with the related latex balls in El Manati and the painting of the players in Son Lorenzo. A can't be faulted for improper comparison.
Reasoning apart, the reason that A is one up over the rest is compliance with the SV number agreement.

Hi egmat,
The price of pen and the price of pencil IS/ARE $10. Which one (IS/ARE) will be correct? It seems that there are 2 items here, so shouldn't it be ARE? Also, do you think that this sentence is legit? Appreciating your help!

Request Expert Reply:
Hi honorable experts,
MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, GMATGuruNY, VeritasPrepHailey, BrightOutlookJenn, AjiteshArun and other experts
I'm totally confused with the meaning of choice E and F. Are these 2 versions same in meaning?
(F) the finding of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati and of representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics at San Lorenzo attest

Something like:
I want to eat banana, drink water, take medicine.
Vs
I want to eat banana, to drink water, to take medicine.

Any difference in meaning here? Appreciating your help, experts.

Why A is right?

Can waterlogged latex balls attest ANYTHING?
This seams like a personification...

Hi

Let me try to address your query. The short answer is that there is no difference in meaning between (E) and (F) (though both are incorrect because of the usage of the plural verb "attest" to refer to the singular noun "the finding"!)

When assessing parallelism, it helps to think of it as being similar to a mathematical expression with the items of the list appearing inside a parentheses. Upon expansion, the part outside the parentheses will apply to each of the items of the list. For example:

(i) At the next meeting, the company directors will (assess the yearly plan, discuss the compensation policy, and make a final decision regarding closure of the Bosnian operations).

Here, "company directors will" will apply to each of "assess", "discuss" and "make". This is correct.

(ii) At the next meeting, the company directors (will assess the yearly plan, will discuss the compensation policy, and will make a final decision regarding closure of the Bosnian operations).

Here, "the company directors" will apply to each of "will assess", "will discuss" and "will make". This is also correct and means the same as (i).

Hope this helps.

can anyone further explain the "while" clause?

I don't see the comparison / parallelism as correct.

this clearly doesn't make sense: While running through the woods, the bee was found to be on the back of John's neck.

isn't that the same as our sentence? I know daagh said it's okay for archeological proof but if it's not then it wouldn't work right.

While most of the earliest known ball courts in Mesoamerica date to 900–400 b.c., waterlogged latex balls found at El Manati and representations of ballplayers painted on ceramics found at San Lorenzo attest to the fact that the Mesoamerican ballgame was well established by the mid-thirteenth century b.c.

Those are different constructions. To see why, consider two examples:

1) While cooking dinner, the house caught fire from Tim's unattended stir-fry.

Here, a modifying phrase, "cooking dinner" follows "while," and whatever this phrase is describing should come immediately after. In this case, it appears to be "the house" that is cooking dinner, so this is clearly illogical.

2) While Tim was cooking dinner, the house caught fire.

Now, an entire clause follows "while." In this case, there's no problem. "Tim was cooking dinner" is a complete sentence, and "the house caught fire" is also a complete sentence. "While" connects these two sentences, so there's no modifier issue, and this construction is perfectly acceptable.

Your sentence is more like the first example, in which there was a modifier problem, while (A) is more like the second example, in which two clauses are connected.

I hope that helps!

Hello TheUltimateWinner,

I apologize for the late revert. But here I am nonetheless.


The price of the pen and the price of the pencil ARE $10.

This sentence takes the plural verb "are" because the sentence has the plural subject - The price of the pen and the price of the pencil. The prices of these items have been mentioned individually. So, they form the plural subject. Now study the following sentence:

The price of the pen and of the pencil IS $10.

This sentence takes the singular verb "is" because the sentence mentions one cumulative price of both the entities. Please note that the connector "and" does not connect two nouns. It connects two prepositional phrases - of the pen and of the pencil. Prepositional phrases do not make subjects. Hence, the subject in this sentence is singular.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha