According to scholars, the earliest writing was probably not a direct

Let's start by putting (A) and (B) side-by-side:


The verb tense in (A) is really confusing, and it's definitely not our best option. We have three different verbs in the sentence, all of which describe "the earliest writing", which:

• ..."was probably not a direct rendering of speech"
• "...was more likely to begin..."
• and "...later merged with spoken language."

That middle piece is wacky. All three of these things happened in the past, and need to be in the same version of past tense. So the underlined portion is odd: why would we say "was more likely to begin", when we could just say "more likely began as"? "Begin" is in present tense (i.e., a general characteristic), and "was more likely to begin" doesn't make much sense -- it's almost as if the earliest writing had some probabilistic quality or something, and there was a good chance that it would eventually begin "as a separate and distinct symbolic system."

That's so much messier than (B), which just says that according to scholars, it's likely that the earliest writing actually began "as a separate and distinct symbolic system."

So we can get rid of (A), and keep (B).


There are two little problems with (C), particularly when we compare it with (B).

First, I don't know why we would switch the verb "began" to the participle "beginning", considering that the rest of the sentence features nice, simple, past tense verbs ("the earliest writing was... and later merged..." So in this sense, (B) is clearly better than (C).

The other issue is that it doesn't really make sense to say that the earliest writing was beginning "from a separate and distinct symbolic system." The earliest writing didn't evolve from some other separate and distinct system; the earliest writing WAS the separate and distinct symbolic system.

So we can ditch (C).


We could make a lazy argument that (D) is wordy and awkward, and that's not necessarily wrong. (D) definitely sounds like crap, and I don't think that you could ever use the phrase "was begun" in a correct sentence. At least I can't think of one.

The more concrete argument is that that parallelism is wrong in (D). Again, we have three different verbs in the sentence, all of which are actions performed by "the earliest writing":

• ..."was probably not a direct rendering of speech"
• "...it was more than likely begun from..."
• and "...later merged with spoken language."

Notice that (D) breaks the parallelism by shoving an "it" into the list of verbs. We can say that "the earliest writing was probably not a direct rendering of speech", and we can also say that "the earliest writing... later merged with spoken language. But we can't say that "the earliest writing... it was more than likely begun..."

If it helps, check out (B) again, which features three nice, parallel verbs.

Plus, "from" doesn't make sense, for the same reasons as answer choice (C). See above for more on that issue.

Anyway, (D) is out.


(E) features the same parallelism issue as (D), and that's enough by itself to eliminate (E).

Plus, there's no preposition after "began", so that tweaks the meaning: "[the earliest writing systems] began a separate and distinct symbolic system..." Huh? The writing system didn't "begin" a new symbolic system; it WAS a separate symbolic system, so we'd need to say that it "began as" a separate system.

And for bonus points, I'm not sure that there's a good reason to include an extra "it" at the beginning of the underlined portion -- it's a non-referential pronoun (classic example: "it is raining" is an acceptable sentence, but the "it" has no referent), and that's not necessarily wrong, but there's no reason to use that extra pronoun at all in this particular sentence.

So (E) is out, and we're left with (B).
_________________

According to scholars, the earliest writing was probably not a direct rendering of speech, but was more likely to begin as a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication, and only later merged with spoken language.

a)was more likely to begin as -- more must be accompanied by than
b)more than likely began as -- correct
c) more than likely beginning from -- beginning from is not parallel with merged.
d) it was more than likely begun from -- begun is not the correct form, began must be used to make it parallel to merged.
e) it was more likely that it began. -- more must be accompanied by than.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that the earliest writing more than likely began as a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Grammatical Construction + Parallelism + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

A: Trap. This answer choice incorrectly uses the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb" - "to + begin" in this sentence) to refer to an event that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

B: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrase "began as", conveying the intended meaning - that the earliest writing was at the beginning a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication. Further, Option B correctly uses the simple past tense verb "began" to refer to an event that concluded in the past. Additionally, Option B is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

C: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "beginning from"; the use of "from" incorrectly implies that the earliest writing grew out of a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication; the intended meaning is that the earliest writing was at the beginning a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "beginning" in this sentence) to refer to an event that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

D: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "was...begun from"; the use of "from" incorrectly implies that the earliest writing was grown out of a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication; the intended meaning is that the earliest writing was at the beginning a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication. Further, Option D uses the needlessly wordy clause "it was more than likely begun from", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

E: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "it began"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that the earliest writing started a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication; the intended meaning is that the earliest writing was at the beginning a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication. Further, Option E uses the needlessly wordy clause "it was more likely that it began", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

Hence, B is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

I will go with B

The sequence of events is first it was a symbolic system of communication, then the writings and then merged with the spoken language.

So "was more likely to begin as" must use "began". A, C and D are eliminated.

E is not sounding correct to ears because it is not using "as" or "from" in the end.

The explanation is based on my knowledge only.
_________________

very hard and beautiful question.
the first pattern is
no A but B, both A and B are of the same type of word.

above pattern is very easy to remember. this pattern applies to every case.
but the problem happen with the verb to be

she is not beautiful now but begin to be beautiful

now the pattern is
not+to be +but +verb.
this pattern is hard to remember. very hard. I miss this question.

According to scholars, the earliest writing was probably not a direct rendering of speech, but was more likely to begin as a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication, and only later merged with spoken language.

Let's try to understand the sentence, as we glance through we come to know that the sentence tense is most probably past tense because of the words - was & merged. In the underlined portion as well we should be looking for an option that is in past tense.

Also, in comparison questions, the word "more" is always followed by the word "than".

(A) was more likely to begin as

- more likely to begin is non-idiomatic, also the word begin does not go with the words - was and merged, begin should be in the past tense. We are also missing the word THAN after the word MORE.

(B) more than likely began as

- CORRECT - BEGAN is parallel with the words - was and merged (past tense), THAN is used after MORE
- IDIOM - Not X but more than likely Y

(C) more than likely beginning from

- missing verb here, beginning is not a verb, also does not go along with was and merged.

(D) it was more than likely begun from

- Begun - is not the correct tense here. Does not go along with was and merged.

(E) it was more likely that it began

In this awkward, unclear, and wordy construction, the first it must be followed by is, not was, because the theory is current; the second it acts as the subject of the subordinate clause, and this usage requires the omission of the comma after communication.

Hence, Answer is B

Did you like the answer? 1 Kudos Please

This construction tests idiomatic usage of
'Not X But Y' where X and Y must be in parallel construction.

X: "a direct rendering of speech" is a phrase and hence Y cannot be a clause.

So, choices A,D and E are out.

Choice C is incorrect because it is using present participle 'begining' instead of past participle 'began'.

Hence, IMO Correct Ans is B

Posted from my mobile device

Hi GMATNinja,
In option D,

"...the earliest writing was probably not a direct rendering of speech, but it was more than likely begun from a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication, and only later merged with spoken language."
I think you might have missed the but after the comma.

1. Since ",but" is joining two independent clauses, there is no comma splice here. Also, isn't the pronoun it that follows but redundant?
Since, the independent clauses (the earliest writing was probably not a direct rendering of speech, but it was more than likely begun from a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication) have the same subject. Can we reject option because of redundancy due to repetition of subject in the independent clauses ?

2. For Not X, But Y parallelism --> Can we reject option A, D and E based on parallelism(Not X , but Y) ?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/qotd-as-crim ... 58304.html --> think of “not/but” as a parallelism trigger, not an idiom.

Whenever Not X , But Y appears in a sentence , should we ensure that X and Y are parallel ?

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , sayantanc2k, DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , other experts-- please enlighten
_________________

Hi Skywalker18!

You're right, GMATNinja missed the "but" in option D, but the parallelism issue is still there (you are correct that "Not X, but Y" should follow parallel structure). The extra "it" destroys the parallel structure:

...the earliest writing was not a rendering..., but it was begun from..., and only later merged...

You're correct that "it" is redundant here. So for either that reason, or the fact that it ruins parallelism here, it's incorrect. We can definitely eliminate D and E because they do not follow correct parallelism here, since we want three verb phrases, not clauses. However, A, B, and C all have verb phrases (rather than clauses), so we can't eliminate them based on parallelism alone.

-Carolyn
_________________

Hi GMATNinja

Can you please resolve the following query:

1. Does the usage of "comma + but" always signifies an independent clause?
2. Can i conclude that in the following sentence we have an independent clause after ", but" and another independent clause after ", and" ?

"According to scholars, the earliest writing was probably not a direct rendering of speech, but more than likely began as a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication, and only later merged with spoken language."

1. No. I'm not sure that this is the issue, but just to be clear: by definition, the word "but" turns an independent clause into a dependent clause.

• Independent: "Burritos are delicious." --> can stand alone as an independent sentence
• Dependent: "But burritos are delicious." --> definitely can not stand alone as an independent sentence

There are also other uses of the word "but" that don't introduce a clause at all. Here's an example:

"Jay Gould has argued that many biological traits are not the products of natural selection, but are simply random by-products of other evolutionary developments."

I simplified some things, but the heart of this sentence is actually in a GMATPrep question. You can see that "but" is NOT followed by a full clause at all -- it's just a verb phrase by itself (parallel to the phrase after the word "not" in this case). And that can be fine. More generally, "but" or any other conjunction (and, or, etc.) does not necessarily separate clauses from each other; those conjunctions can also separate verbs or verb phrases or items in a list.

So don't assume that "but" necessarily has to be followed by a full clause.

2. Also no. Again, an independent clause must be able to stand on its own as a complete sentence. "More than likely began as a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication" isn't a complete sentence, since there's no subject! The same is true of "only later merged with spoken languages." Notice that the OA contains two instances of "comma + conjunction," and neither introduces an independent clause.

So yes: if we're connecting two clauses with a conjunction such as "but," we'd need to use a comma, but conjunctions such as "but" and "and" have other uses, such as separating the elements in a list.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi Everyone,
I don't get the parallelism in answer (B). "a direct rendering of speech" and "more than likely began..." are parallel?
Thank you in advance.

Regrads,
R

Hi rszarate, since right hand side is a verb (more than likely began), the parallel element on the left hand side, will be another verb (was in this case).

Parallelism is:

....the earliest writing:

i) was probably not a direct rendering of speech,
but
ii) more than likely began as...

So, parallel elements are was and began, both of them verbs.
_________________

Hi EducationAisle, thank you very much for you response!

Sorry bro, but I still don't get it
You are mention the parallel form generated by "BUT" ("X, but Y" in which X and Y are parallels)
I'm referring to the parallel trigger "NOT X, BUT Y," in which X and Y are parallels.

Really appreciate any kind of help!

Regards,
R.

Well, that's the learning from this sentence. The presence of a not does not always indicate a not X but Y structure.

It could as well be a X but Y structure, as is the case here.

For example, both the following sentences would be correct:

(i) He was not lazy but was active (X but Y).

(ii) He was not lazy but active (Not X but Y).

In statement (i), was after but may seem redundant (though not wrong), because the verb was is getting repeated.

However, in the sentence under consideration, the verb after but is not the same (was before but and began after but). Hence there is no redundancy issue as well.
_________________

pls, explain why choice A is wrong? thank you.
I do not understand why "was more likely" in choice A is wrong.

Hi Thang

The problem lies not so much in "was more likely" than in what follows. We are talking about an event in the past (the early development of writing) and hence the "beginning" of this must be represented in some form of past tense. In Option (A), "begin" is in the present tense which indicates the present likelihood, which again must be represented by a present tense form of "was" ie; "is more likely to begin". This would result in a logical problem since early writing is clearly not "likely to begin".

If we use the construct "was more likely to" then it must be followed by the past perfect tense ie; but was more likely to have begun as....

Since this is not among any of the answer options, we go with the best option available ie; Option B: more than likely began as.

Hope this helps.
_________________

hi everyone,

What does it mean to say "According to scholars, the earliest writing was probably not a direct rendering of speech, but more than likely began as.."

I am specifically confused on the meaning of 'more than likely'? What is the function of the word than here?

Hi

The sentence intends to say that in the early stages, writing probably began as a separate system of communication and not just as another form of communicating speech. The word "rendering" means "to make" or "to provide". The sentence means that writing was not simply used as a substitute for speech (for eg; currently I am typing all this because I cannot speak to you) but as a separate mode of communication by itself.

The word "than" plays its usual comparative role here. The clause intends to say that this idea of writing being a separate form of communication is not just "likely" (that is to say, just a mere possibility) but more than that ie; more than likely.

Hope this helps.
_________________