Stimulants, such as caffeine, can eliminate pain and fatigue and enhan

ExpertsGlobal5, AjiteshArun PyjamaScientist or if any of you can help
I have got this one correct but I don't understand MGCAT's explanation regarding option C stating 'It is the process of using the stimulants themselves—not the retrospective fact of having used them—that leads to tolerance or addiction.'

What is the meaning of retrospective fact and apart from tense what's the difference between 'if used continuously for long periods' (option A) and 'people having used them continuously for long periods' (option C), how do these 2 options differ in terms of meaning, if you can give another simple example regarding difference of meaning in these 2

Thank you !!

Hi Dhwanii,

Thanks for the tag. Happy to respond.

The difference between "if used continuously for long periods" and "people having used them continuously for long periods" is subtle. And the MGMAT's explanation is flawless. To understand the difference you need to get yourself acquainted with where and how "having + participle" phrases, also known as "perfect participial phrases", are used. If you get that under your belt, you will be able to see the meaning difference here. If you are confused with what "retrospective fact" means, "retrospect" means "reviewing past events/ backward looking". I hope my examples below would help you with why it pertains to "having + verbed phrases":

As you can see, "having+participle" structure is used to state something "after you have done something​/​after something has happened to you".

Lets see an example that resembles the question at hand:
Having used the new pair of headphones, I can affirm that my previous headsets were a piece of crap.
Here, the retrospective fact of having used the new headphones led me to reach the conclusion that my previous headsets were crap. Now, you need to contrast the choices (A) and (C) by yourself and see if you can "catch" the meaning difference between the two choices.

Hope it helps.

Thanks a lot for your wonderful explanation, what I understand is we can't say 'people having used stimulants...' as it is not something that people have already done, act of using stimulants is not a thing of the past or not something that has already taken place. Essence of the statement would be better caught by using a conditional.

You've hit the nail right on its head this time.

As a parting advice I'd say, if you're stuck between two choices with respect too which one is correct, try to come up with simpler sentence using those contradictory structures. More often than not, you'll be able to understand the meaning difference they impart by looking at them through simpler sentences.

Regards. And best of luck for your preparation.

Hello Dhwanii,

We hope this finds you well.

As you have included us in your tags, we are just chiming in briefly to let you know that @PyjamaScientist's detailed explanation and your understanding of the same are both spot on.

Kudos!

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

GMATNinja

Thank you for this helpful explanation. Your reply relayed another concern that I had on the GMAT... too many "ands" in a sentence. I have been told in school to really only have one "and" in a sentence, but based on your response, it looks like this is not the case. I would be so appreciative to learn your view on the maximum number of "ands" in a sentence/without going overboard. Thank you again.

RonTargetTestPrep

Here is my take on this.
Whenever there's a participle phrase, always look for the subject it modifies. A Participle phrase can come before the subject or after the subject, describing a noun only, which is the subject.

To understand how it modifies the subject in this sentence, let's strip down the sentence to its bare bones.
Stimulants can enhance alertness but, if used continuously for long periods, can cause users to develop tolerance and even addiction.
So, at the core of this above sentence are two verb phrases coordinated by the but conjunction. Therefore, you can strip the first verb phrase, and you get this below sentence.

Stimulants, if used continuously for long periods, can cause users to develop tolerance and even addiction.
Clean right? Subject, modifier (describing the subject), verb phrase.

You can also put the modifier at the beginning of the sentence in the above sentence - not in the original though. (Can you guess why?)
If used continuously for long periods, Stimulants can cause users to develop tolerance and even addiction.

Only option A has the right structure - in which the modifier is modifying the stimulant - whereas in others it's modifying people - which is wrong.

Here are some of the similar OG questions.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/when-viewed- ... 68568.html
https://gmatclub.com/forum/defense-atto ... 84605.html

in option D] is there a ambiguity in using 'them'

Also is ' if used for long periods' an appositive phrase here?

Hi himanshu0123,
Them can refer to Stimulants though we have users because that is the is the only logical referent for them.


No, it's a participle phrase, modifying users. However, the same phrase modifies Stimulants in A because it is situated between the subject and the verb phrase, making it a subject modifier, whereas in option D, since the phrase is after ,but , which indicates that it is coordinating two independent clauses (Stimulants can eliminate pain... and users can develop tolerance...), and before a new independent clause, "users can develop tolerance", the phrase modifies users.
So, since the phrase is modifying the wrong subject, the option is wrong.

Hope it helps. Cheers.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.