From an experiment using special extrasensory perception cards, each b

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended core meaning of this sentence is that Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof that showed that his subjects could practically identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Verb Forms + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• For referring to the purpose or intent of an action, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb") is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing") construction.

A: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "proof for subjects who"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof on behalf of subjects who could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference; the intended meaning is that Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof that showed that his subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "proof for a card"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof on behalf of a card in the dealer's hand that was to be identified by subjects with thought transference; the intended meaning is that Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof that showed that his subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference.

C: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "proof of subjects"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof of the existence of unspecified subjects with the ability to identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference; the intended meaning is that Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof that showed that his subjects could practically identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference. Further, Option C uses the needlessly wordy phrase "are able to identify", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

D: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrase "proof that subjects could identify... by using thought transference", conveying the intended meaning - that Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof that showed that his subjects could practically identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference. Further, Option D uses the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of the verb" - "to + identify" in this sentence) to refer to the purpose of the action "using thought transference". Besides, Option D is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

E: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "capable to use"; the use of the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of the verb" - "to + use" in this sentence) incorrectly implies that the subjects were capable for the purpose of using thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand; the intended meaning is that the subjects had the ability to use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand; please remember, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb"- "to + use" in this sentence) is the preferred construction for referring to the purpose or intent of an action. Further, Option E uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "identifying" in this sentence) to refer to the purpose of the action "use thought transference"; please remember, for referring to the purpose or intent of an action, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb") is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing" - "identifying" in this sentence) construction.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Infinitive vs Present Participle" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Meaning:
1. From an experiment, Joshep Banks claimed proof.
2. Proof that “ Subject are able to identify cards”

With this meaning in View, lets do POE.

Split # 1 : “Poof that” Vs “Proof For”
As per intended meaning of this sentence, we need to say Rhine has found proof that not proof for someone.
Option A,B – Incorrect.


Lets do choice by choice POE for rest


C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand
“Preposition of” is followed by an action here – should be followed by noun or noun phrase - Incorrect


D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
Correct – no error.


E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand
“Capable to” is not correct in this context, should be “capable of”

A. Joshep Banks Rhine didn’t claim proof for subjects
B. Joshep Banks Rhine didn’t claim proof for a card
C. Joshep Banks Rhine didn’t claim proof of subjects
D. Joshep Banks Rhine did claim of the 'fact' that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference. Hence use of 'that' is correct.
E. Joshep Banks Rhine 'claimed - subjects 'are' - not parallel - inappropriate.

The reasoning mentioned above for striking out E is wrong. We need to see the only intended meaning.
For example - Rhine claimed that sun rises in the east. Here Claimed is past tense and rises is present tense. So in the above mentioned case, the proof submitted may be a universal truth, which we don't know. The reason for elimination of E should be the usage of wrong idiom "Capable to". [Capable of is the right idiom.]

Yes, I agree with your point. For expressing universal truths (such as the example you mentioned: sun rises in the east), we always use simple present, even though the clause occurs within a statement in the past. 'subjects are....' is such a universal truth.
[recap: a universal truth... not an universal truth.. because the pronunciation begins with "yu"]

From an experiment using special extrasensory perception cards, each bearing one of a set of symbols, parapsychologist Joseph Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand.

A. for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand


Why is B wrong? I dont quite understand the explanation ...

Thank you!

The substance of the proof is NOT "a card in the dealer's hand", but the fact that "subjects could identify". Therefore D is better than B.

[While posting, please include all the options in the question. You may please add other options in this post as well.]

Hi,

I have one question here: how can we determine which the intended meaning is? I mean, it is also reasonable to think that Joseph was trying to justify the existence of people who can identify the card by using thought transference, right? So how can we confirm that it is not really the intended meaning of the sentence?

Thank for helping me!

I would suggest not to bother too much over the "intended meaning" issue. You may safely follow the following:

It has not been mentioned in any official guideline that the correct answer must retain the meaning of the original sentence. If there is only one grammatically correct choice, it must be selected even when it deviates in meaning from the original. However if there are two grammatically correct sentences, select the one that agrees with the intended meaning of the original sentence (unless the original meaning is something absurd).

Hi sayantanc2k,

Thank for your response. I understand your point, but my question is just right here. As long as the original meaning is not something absurd, then we could properly remain it, right? So what is the problem with choice (A), I mean the meaning of choice (A) is "Joseph was trying to justify the existence of people who can identify the card by using thought transference", which is not something nonsense or unacceptable, isn't it? So why did we rule out this choice reasoning "It is not the intended meaning"?

Thank for your help!

Option A could mean that Joseph claimed something for (on behalf of) the subjects - the claim was not for the subjects. The meaning is unrealistic in option A.

From an experiment using special extrasensory perception cards, each bearing one of a set of symbols, parapsychologist Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand.

A. for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand

Answer analysis:

A) This sentence sounds pretty good other than the preposition "for," which usually indicates an intended recipient. Because the subjects of this experiment are not intended to receive, or benefit from, the results of the experiment, this does not make any logical sense. We also notice "for" being replaced in 3/5 of the answers.
B) Same issue as A. The card is neither the recipient nor the beneficiary of Rhine's claims.
C) Not bad, probably the second best choice, but the word order is suspect. It should say "to identify a card in the dealer's hand with thought transference." In other words, the direct object of the verb should precede the modifying prepositional phrases.
D) Correct. "By" is the best preposition to describe a method or process using a gerund (-ing). "I was able to find my brother by shouting his name into the crowd" sounds better than "I was able to find him with shouting." The "with" construction works only if "with" is preceded by a noun rather than a gerund. For example, "I was able to sink the free throw with a flick of my wrist."
E) "are capable to use" is incorrect. It should say "are capable of using."
--

Please note: as in many cases, the GMAC does not provide the best possible answer here. The best possible answer would use the template "proof of A who could use B to C." In other words, it would address the issue of word priority (placing key phrases earlier in the sentence) by placing the phrase "thought transference" earlier in the sentence.

Correct answer: From an experiment using special extrasensory perception cards, each bearing one of a set of symbols, parapsychologist Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference.

Best answer(s): From an experiment using special extrasensory perception cards, each bearing one of a set of symbols, parapsychologist Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof of subjects able to use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand, or of subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand.

If we vertically scan first few words of answer choices, we can see split of ‘for’ , ‘of’ and ‘that’. We use ‘that’ to state something.
Read the portion before underline part ‘claimed statistical proof’. Here we need ‘that’ because ‘parapsychologist Joshep Banks….’ is stating. Eliminate A, B and C.
In option E, ‘capable to’ is wrong idiom. Correct idiom is ‘capable of’. Eliminate E.

Hence C is the correct answer.

From an experiment using special extrasensory perception cards, each bearing one of a set of symbols, parapsychologist Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand.

A. for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand

- As Joshep Banks Rhine is claiming a proof here, the usage of "for" will be inappropriate if you read the entire sentence. Reading the sentence with "for" means we are explaining what the proof is for and not explaining what the proof is.

B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference

- As Joshep Banks Rhine is claiming a proof here, the usage of "for" will be inappropriate if you read the entire sentence. Reading the sentence with "for" means we are explaining what the proof is for and not explaining what the proof is.

C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand

- As Joshep Banks Rhine is claiming a proof here, the usage of "of" will be inappropriate if you read the entire sentence. Reading the sentence with "of" means we are explaining what the proof is of and not explaining what the proof is.

D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference

- CORRECT

E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand

"capable to use" is incorrect should be "capable of using"

Hence, Answer is D

Did you like the answer? Hit Kudos

It is possible to claim proof of something (He claims proof of ESP) or to claim proof that something is true (He claims proof that ESP is real). It is not appropriate to use claim proof for either of those things. Eliminate answers (A) and (B).
Rhine is trying to claim proof that something is true: the subjects are capable of ESP. He is not trying to claim proof of subjects themselves. Eliminate answer (C).Capable to is not a correct idiom. Eliminate answer (E).
OA:D

Posted from my mobile device

A. for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand

Said simply, "From an experiment, the parapsychologist claimed proof for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand." This is saying that the psychologist is claiming proof for subjects, who have the ability to use thought transference, to identify a card in the dealer's hand. Well, it's not totally bogus. This is saying that the subjects could use thought transference, not that they are using it in such an experiment. So I'm not crazy about the meaning here, but the other answers provide more context. Lets continue and see what else we can find.

B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference

"From an experiment, the parapsychologist claimed proof for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference." In this context, the sentence says that "Joseph claimed proof for a card to be identified by subjects with thought transference." When we look at the modifier "subjects with thought transference," this shows us an unclear meaning. Do they mean that subjects, along with thought transference, together will identify a card? Or perhaps it means, subjects with this ability of thought transference can identify a card. Or in a possessive manner, subjects with thought transference can, while they take the train to work, identify a card. That is enough for me to eliminate B.

C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand

"From an experiment, the parapsychologist claimed proof of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand." This means that the parapsychologist was able to find proof, at some point in time, subjects were able to identify a card in the dealer's hand. This might as well say that the psychologist found proof, that in 20BC, subjects were able to identify a card in the dealer's hand. This doesn't show that this proof is a result of the experiment. C is out.

D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference

"From an experiment, the parapsychologist claimed proof that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference."

This is a decent choice. The psychologist claimed proof THAT X Y. Lets use it in its own example. From an experiment, I proved that cats eat dogs. This seems to be the most idiomatic of the bunch, and it solves the "with" error that B had. We'll see in just a second that E has some errors as well.

E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand

Without rephrasing the sentence, the meaning here says that the results of the experiment are that the parapsychologist now has evidence to prove that some subjects are capable of identifying a card using thought transference, which makes sense! But the idiom is "capable of."

Please can you give me the reason to analysis why answer D is correct and not E. I'm unable to find errors in answer E