Piaget’s research revealed that children can learn to count long befor

Question

Piaget’s research revealed that children can learn to count long before  the recognition that  a pint of water poured from a small glass into a large one remains the same amount of water.

(A) the recognition that
(B) they can recognize that
(C) they would recognize
(D) they could have the recognition of
(E) having the recognition of

rbonito · Answer

Pretty clear it’s B but the non underlined part “remains the same amount of water” is giving me a headache. Would this be considered correct had that part been underlined?

Posted from my mobile device

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

The right answer is  B . This is a pretty straightforward parallelism/comparison question. As with a lot of parallelism/comparison questions on SC, the key to the question is often found in the non-underlined portion. In this case, we see that "children can learn to count before...". Hence, what must come after is another action being performed by the children in the simple present.

A  - This is not even another action.  OUT

B  - Two actions being compared, both in simple present ( can learn vs can recognize ).  CORRECT

C & D  - "Would, could" are in the conditional tense, and make this sentence not parallel.  OUT

E  - This too is not even really another action, "having the recognition" has the word "having" in the gerund form, not the verb.  OUT

Pretty straightforward, but I see another interesting question from  rbonito  in the comments:

Well this part is actually perfectly right. A good way to confirm this is to first ID the verb, in this case "remains". The next step is to ask yourself, what "remains the same...". In this case, its "a pint of water", which is a singular noun idea, and therefore lines up just fine with "remains", since that is the thing that remains the same amount.

- Matoo

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

Here's the   official explanation   provided by the GMAC for this question:

This sentence indicates that one milestone in children’s development occurs earlier than another such milestone. The original version expresses the earlier milestone in terms of what the children can do ( children can learn to count ). That version inappropriately contrasts the time when they are able to learn to count with a later condition ( the recognition that  … ). However, the most likely intended meaning is that the ability to count develops earlier than the ability to recognize the fact about quantities mentioned later in the sentence. This can be clearly and concisely communicated by making the reference to the second ability parallel with the reference to the first:  can count  … before they  can recognize  ….

Option A:  This is unclear in drawing a contrast between the time when children can do something and the time of a specific act, event, or condition ( the recognition ).

Option B:  Correct. This is grammatically correct and rhetorically effective. The parallel verb phrases  can learn  and  can recognize  express a clear relationship.

Option C:   Can … before they would  does not make good sense. The indicative mood of  can  is incompatible with the subjunctive  would . The sentence would convey a clear and coherent meaning if  would  were changed to  can , or even if  would  were simply omitted.

Option D:  The verb form  could  means either  were able to  or  would be able to . Neither of those meanings is appropriate to this context. The sentence would be best if the verb in this part of the sentence were parallel with  can  in the previous part; the relationship is between the time when children  can  do one thing and the time when they  can  do another thing. Using  the recognition of  instead of  the recognition that  makes this ungrammatical; the verb  remains  has no subject.

Option E:  The verb in this part of the sentence should be parallel with  can  in the previous part; the relationship is between the time when children  can  do one thing and the time when they  can  do another thing. Using  the recognition of  instead of  the recognition that  makes this ungrammatical; the verb  remains  has no subject.

The correct answer is B.

Please note that I'm not the author of this explanation. I'm just posting it here since I believe it can help the community.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Piaget’s research revealed that children can learn to count long befor

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Piaget’s research revealed that children can learn to count long befor

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards