GMATE1 wrote:
egmat wrote:
Hence, this comparison can be expressed both ways:
Like experts, computers can do A, B, and C.
As experts do, computers can do A, B, and C.
It is so because the basis of the comparison is what these two entities can do. So the computers have been compared to the experts because both can perform the same tasks. The action is inherent in the comparison.
Dear
egmat, dear
GMATNinja, dear
DmitryFarber,
I am still confused by the usage of "like" here as many others seem to be, eventhough I read all the explanations.
It makes perfect sense to me that
we can say "Like experts, computers can do A, B, and C". This is the form which is often used on the GMAT and is typically explained.
BUT this is not the form we have in the question (and answer choice C). Furthermore
GMATNinja, you give the example of "Like a moldy piece of fruit, Donald Trump has fine orange hair." but again this is not the form used in this question (specifically answer choice C). Instead we have: "Computers that can X,Y and Z like an expert" (where X,Y & Z are the verbs understand, recognize and reason).
What truely bothers me is not the fact that we have the verbs can understand, can recognize and can reason but the placement of them. If the sentence were "computers, like experts, can X,Y and Z" then this sentence would be in the form which typically appears when like is correctly used and it would be clear to me that we are comparing two nouns which each can do X,Y and Z. But here
we are saying that "computers can do X,Y and Z", which in my opinion is a clause because we have the subject "computers" and the verbs "can understand, recogize and reason" which are compared to the noun "experts" in the second half of the sentence.
I would highly appreciate if someone could explain to me
why the clause before the like is not part of the comparison and instead only the subject/noun of the clause is. Thank you very much!!
I feel your pain here. You're right that the "like" construction here is a little different from the typical one we see on the GMAT, but it isn't wrong. To see why it's okay, consider a simple example:
Tim dances like a maniac.
At first glance, you might think that "like" is describing the action "dances" and is therefore no good, as it should describe a noun instead. But another way to interpret the sentence is that "Tim dances as though he
is a maniac." In other words, if we're describing Tim as a maniac, we're really using one noun to describe another, and this usage is fine.
This is more or less what we have in (C), in which "computers" are described as a kind of "expert." And while it isn't as obvious as the "like" constructions we're more accustomed to on the GMAT, it isn't an error either.
More importantly, (A) and (B), both have concrete problems. (A) has faulty parallelism: "deciding" clearly isn't parallel to "other purposes." And the "which" in (B) makes it sound as though "experts" can be used "for purposes" -- and that doesn't make logical sense. So those are both out, and we're stuck with "like."
Takeaway: If you ever decide that a given construction is wrong, but after eliminating all instances of it, you're left with answer choices that all have definitive errors, it means you have to accept that your initial analysis was flawed, and perhaps that construction is okay, after all. At that point, all you can do is move on to evaluate other issues.
I hope that helps!
close
01 Mar 2021, 04:18
