varotkorn wrote:
Dear
VeritasPrepBrian AnthonyRitz IanStewart GMATGuruNY MartyTargetTestPrep,
Q1. What's wrong with D.?
(D) While most casualties in 19th-century wars resulted from disease, over two-thirds of the troops killed on the battlefield in World War I resulted from direct combat.I do not buy the explanation on P. 101 in the Veritas SC book quoted below:
Quote:
Answer choices C and D both contain subtler errors of faulty predication; you cannot say "two-thirds of the troops killed on the battlefield in World War I resulted from direct combat." The troops did not result from combat; the causalities did.
Choice D. does NOT say that troops result from combat. It says troops
KILLED on the battle field result from combat. What's wrong with choice D.?
Q2. Does choice E. change the intended meaning from the original sentence by expanding the entire population in question?
- The original clearly states that
over two-thirds of the troops killed on the battlefield in World War I resulted from direct combatThe original sentence intends to mean
2/3 of the TROOPS killed on the battlefield in WW I. It limits the scope to be just those involved in TROOPS.
-
(E) Whereas most casualties in 19th-century wars resulted from disease, over two-thirds of the casualties in World War I resulted from direct combat on the battlefield.However, Choice E. shifts this meaning to be
2/3 of all the casualties in WW I. All of the casualties include civilians not involved in battlefield - e.g. children, women, elders, doctors, nurse, politicians, monks, preachers, victims of criminals, hungers ...
IMO, choice E. changes the intended meaning.
Thank you in advance!
I'm sorry that you do not buy the book rationale for why C and D (and A) are wrong, but that rationale is 100% accurate.
As I say in my classes,
none of the troops resulted from direct combat. Not the troops who were killed, and not the troops who survived. I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, but
all of the troops, including the "troops killed," resulted from a loving evening between their parents. That's where little baby troops come from.
Their "deaths," perhaps, result from combat, or their "casualties," but not the troops, nor any subset thereof. This is, by far, the main problem with C and D.
Worse, D compares "casualties" to "troops killed" -- maybe not fatal standing alone, but certainly not a perfectly logical comparison, either.
And now, a few words on "intended meaning": I just want to say that I abhor this phrase, "intended meaning," as it relates to GMAT sentence correction. It's not your fault -- this is an idea that floats around in the larger GMAT community, like a virus.
But it's wrong. "Intended meaning" is simply, flatly, not a thing. There is no rule on the GMAT, whatsoever, that requires the correct answer to express the same meaning as the original version of a sentence correction question. The
only standard of meaning in GMAT Sentence Correction is whether that meaning is logical or illogical.
Does E change the meaning from its original focus on only troop deaths to "casualties" more generally? Sure, I guess. Also, I don't care.
It's not illogical to compare casualties in the two wars, so E is not wrong on this basis.
_________________
Anthony RitzDirector of Test Prep
Read my reviews on GMAT Club