Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears

Question

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what  it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who  systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who

B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors

C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors

D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors

E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

'stunning evidence ... ' in (D) is an absolute phrase. An absolute phrase is a group of words that modifies an independent clause as a whole.
What is the evidence? It is that "400,000-year-old wooden spears have been unearthed from an ancient hunting ground". The entire clause is the evidence. It's something similar to appositive.

grbjha · Answer

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who

B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors

C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors

D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors

E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who

Meaning analysis:
Researcher s in Germany have unearthed wooden spears from ancient lakeshore ground, .It is the evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

Error analysis:
Here three clauses

Researchers

have

appears

lakeshore hunting ground

stunning evidence of human ancestors who

: Fragment , no verb is here

SV agreement: 1) Researchers –Have, 2) Lakeshore hunting ground –appears &3) who -hunted

Verb Tense

(Researchers have unearthed wooden spears , whose effect s still we going to study/read)

(here there is no reason to change the tense) , So it is to be in present

Pronoun:
Here It is ambiguous, it does not have clear antecedent. It may refer to “old wooden spears “ or lakeshore hunting ground . In both cases its uses is wrong . It cant refer to “old wooden spears”.
As per meaning it is to be referring to lakeshore hunting ground. Then Redundancy comes into picture, no need to write here “IT” because “What “already expressed the intended meaning.
There is no problem with “WHO” can be use for human ancestor

Modifier:
Stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.
It is a abstract modifier which modifies precedent clause “Researcher s in Germany has unearthed wooden spears from ancient lakeshore ground “
Using of “AS” is wrong because as must be followed by clause , but there is no clause in original sentence .”As” can’t be used as here because it does not discuss any position . so its wrong

POE:

A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who :WRONG

B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors :WRONG

C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors WRONG

D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors :CORRECT (appears to be correct idiom , Abstract Modifier “ stunning evidence that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed “clearly modifies preceding clause

E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who : wrong because use of “from what appears that it” makes it ambiguous and clause “stunning evidence …….. is fragment

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400_Explanation.docx [14.27 KiB]
Downloaded 1190 times

anandsebastin · Answer

D 

A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who
- not clear as to whether the spears or the hunting ground serve as evidence.

B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors
- "what it appears" is awkward (same goes for A, as well). Implies that the hunting ground itself is the stunning evidence.
C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and  is  stunning evidence that human ancestors
- highlighted portion should be "are" for plural "spears"
D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors
- "what appears to be" correct construction.
E.  appears that  it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who
-"what appears that" awkward construction again.

fozzzy · Answer

D is best Evidence That and meaning issue A and B use "it", C distorts the meaning has multiple issues, E has evidence of

My question is what does Stunning modify?  Researchers?

Zarrolou · Answer

Stunning is an adjective that refers to evidence: this is not a case of COMMA +ING VERB.

" Stunning evidence " refers to  "wooden spears" .

What is " stunning evidence that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed "? The wooden spears, not the researchers

Practicegmat · Answer

I am still not clear - how "stunning evidence" in (D) is modifying "spears"-a noun which is miles away from the modifier...
Can someone be more elaborate on this?
Thanks

Carcass · Answer

in A and B after what it has no sense because IT has an unclear antecedent: it refers to germany. Moreover, it doen'st appear by itself. so out

C D E

C appear was an ancient .........hunting ground.....AND is stunning...... clearly not parallel and the sentence doesn't show a clear meaning

E stunning of human is wrong . simply becasue the eveidence shows something so we need a restrictive pronoun "that". Using OF distort the meaning.

D wins. I admit that this question is pretty tough and convoluted.

regards

MKS · Answer

Researchers have found X from (a place ) what appears to be Y (place), STUNning ( Verb+ing modifier modifying entire preceding clause) evidence that (some postulation) human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

EducationAisle · Answer

Actually  stunning  in this case is not modifying preceding clause; it is just used as a  pureplay adjective , modifying the noun  evidence  (in the sense that the  evidence  is  stunning ).

This sentence actually uses an  absolute modifier  construct ( evidence that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed ).  Absolute modifiers  are tested quite extensively on GMAT and test takers must make themselves very comfortable with this construct, especially since this is  not  a very  intuitive  construct.

p.s.  Absolute modifiers  have been discussed in detail in our book. If you can PM me your mail id, I can send the corresponding section to you.

PiyushK · Answer

Unlock the convoluted sentence by referring following examples :

Simple:: I purchased vegetables from a Japanese shop. <<--- I am confident that shop was of a Japanese
Complex:: I purchased vegetables from what appears to be a Japanese shop. <<--- Here I am trying to figure out that it appears to be a Japanese shop.

Choice D is written on similar lines with additional absolute phrase modifier stunning evidence in the end.

Thank by Kudos if above explanation cleared your doubts

chetan86 · Answer

Word 'appear' only takes infinitive, and only D uses it correctly.

samusa · Answer

Hope you find below links useful. https://e-gmat.com/blog/gmat-verbal/sen ... ers-gmat-1 https://e-gmat.com/blog/gmat-verbal/sen ... ers-gmat-2

KarishmaB · Answer

Note that "stunning evidence ..." is not modifying "hunting ground". What is actually the stunning evidence? It is that "400,000-year-old wooden spears have been unearthed from an ancient hunting ground". The entire clause is the stunning evidence. An absolute phrase is a modifier. It can be a 'noun + noun modifier' when it modifies the entire preceding clause as happens in this case. An absolute phrase has some other usage too. Check out this post: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2014/09 ... -the-gmat/

thanhtam0102 · Answer

"It" in choices A & B are incorrect modifier, "appears was" is imprecise in choice C since two verbs are used together. "evidence of human ancestors", "Noun + of clause" is not preference in GMAT, " Noun + that + clause" as in choice D is better.
"appear + to be" is correct idiom.
Correct answer is D.

SiddyVR46 · Answer

I am unable to understand how 'stunning evidence ... ' in (D) works as an absolute phrase. If we consider 'stunning evidence ... ' in (D) as appositive then it will modify the noun preceding the appositive and hence modifying "an ancient lakeshore hunting ground" and not the whole phrase in front of it.

Can you please clarify on it.

KarishmaB · Answer

An absolute phrase modifies an entire clause. Check here: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2014/09 ... -the-gmat/

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Let’s try to simplify this question:

Researchers … have unearthed … spears from what …

The correct idiom that works here is ‘ what appears to be ’

Based on this clue, we can eliminate the other options and get to the right choice quickly enough.

Option A  – illogical sentence. The meaning is ambiguous. What serves as evidence?

Option B  – the use of ‘and’ changes the intent of the sentence.

Option C  – the use of ‘and’ again muddles the meaning and structure. 
 
Option D  – correct idiom.

Option E  – ‘from what appears that’ is incorrect.

Eliminate  Options A, B, C and E.

Option D  is the best choice.

Hope this helps!

Anagarwal15 · Answer

Hey there
Let us do some meaning analysis here

Meaning analysis:
In Germany, researchers have excavated wooden spears that are considered 400,000 years old. It can be seen from the excavation that the place where wooden spears is found was an old lakeshore ground used for hunting. This discovery is a piece of great evidence to prove that human ancestors used to hunt systematically from a time much earlier than what was previously assumed. This is the intended logical meaning.

A.  it   appears was  an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning  evidence of  human ancestors who 
The wooden spears appear as something or appear to be something. 'Appears was' is Incorrect. The usage of it is also incorrect since the meaning here to present back to wooden spears which are plural. Also, this choice does not represent the intended meaning. The wooden spears act as stunning evidence that something not evidence of something. The intended meaning is to present what the evidence is about.

B.  it   appears had been  an ancient lakeshore hunting ground  and stunning evidence  that human ancestors 
This choice repeats the first two errors of choice AThe usage of 'and stunning evidence' fails to show the meaning that wooden spears are stunning evidence. It seems that the excavation was done from what appeared ground and stunning evidence. This meaning is incorrect.

C.  appears was  an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors 
The usage of 'and stunning evidence' fails to show the meaning that wooden spears are stunning evidence.

D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors

E.  appears that   it is an  ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning  evidence of  human ancestors who
The usage of 'it' remains unclear here. The wooden spears act as stunning evidence that something not evidence of something. The intended meaning is to present what the evidence is about.

pk6969 · Answer

How do we know that one is an absolute modifier and one is an ing modifier? I thought stunning was an ing modifier.

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears

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

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears

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