Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Carolyn and Brett - nicely explained what is the typical day of a UCLA student. I am posting below recording of the webinar for those who could't attend this session.
Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.
Proponents of the school of thought positing that the Americas were
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Aug 2015, 01:05
2
8
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
95% (hard)
Question Stats:
38% (02:31) correct 62% (02:24) wrong based on 557 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Proponents of the school of thought positing that the Americas were peopled more than 15,000 years ago by a group forced to traverse thousands of miles of ice fields have themselves had to overcome obstacles in trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those who argue that such a trek was indeed impossible and thus the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have had to account for the presence of artifacts in southern Chile that indicate that the New World was inhabited over 15,000 years ago.
A) in trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those who argue that such a trek was indeed impossible and thus the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have had to B) by trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those who argue such a trek was indeed impossible and thus the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have to C) in trying to account for such an improbable journey, whereas those arguing that such a trek was indeed impossible and that the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have themselves to D) in trying to account for such an improbable journey, whereas those that argue that such a trek was indeed impossible and the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have had to E) by trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those arguing that such a trek was indeed impossible and thus that the first peopling of the Americas happened much later, they have to
Re: Proponents of the school of thought positing that the Americas were
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Aug 2015, 05:32
7
Harley1980 wrote:
Proponents of the school of thought positing that the Americas were peopled more than 15,000 years ago by a group forced to traverse thousands of miles of ice fields have themselves had to overcome obstacles in trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those who argue that such a trek was indeed impossible and thus the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have had to account for the presence of artifacts in southern Chile that indicate that the New World was inhabited over 15,000 years ago.
A) in trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those who argue that such a trek was indeed impossible and thus the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have had to B) by trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those who argue such a trek was indeed impossible and thus the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have to C) in trying to account for such an improbable journey, whereas those arguing that such a trek was indeed impossible and that the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have themselves to D) in trying to account for such an improbable journey, whereas those that argue that such a trek was indeed impossible and the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have had to E) by trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those arguing that such a trek was indeed impossible and thus that the first peopling of the Americas happened much later, they have to
This question has many words, but eliminating the wrong answers shouldn’t be as difficult as in other questions. First off, we have the 3:2 split of “by trying to account” and “in trying to account”.
“By trying” implies that the proponents started to overcome the obstacles by trying to account for such an improbable journey. But that’s the very obstacle these scholar face: trying to account for this improbable journey. Eliminate (B) and (E).
Next, (C) creates a funky meaning by saying “have themselves to account for”. They are not accounting for themselves in any respect. Rather, they themselves have had “to account for the presence of artifacts.”
(D) uses the “those that”. It should be those who”, since we are talking about people.
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4558
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Proponents of the school of thought positing that the Americas were
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 10 Aug 2015, 04:37
1
This question hinges on one major point and one fine point.
1. Major point --- Whether we use ‘have to’ or ‘have had to' as the verb for those who oppose the thesis? 2. fine point ---Which is the appropriate transitional conjunction we have to use, yet or whereas?]
First thing is that ‘have to’ is inappropriate unless it is a daily chore or a universal point.
For a debate that started sometime ago and that which still continues, ‘have had to’ is the apt verb; so, B C and E can be dumped instantly.
Between A and D, I would reckon there is no forthright contrast implied in the passage by the author. He seems to express that while this is A’s point, this is B’s point. This is more indicative. So, A using ‘yet’ is a shade more preferable to choice D using ‘whereas’. But this is my personal proposition; I am keen to know the official version; Magoosh’s questions in the forum seem to be getting finer and finer
_________________
you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote No one knows this better than a GMAT student does. Narendran +9198845 44509
Originally posted by daagh on 10 Aug 2015, 03:27.
Last edited by daagh on 10 Aug 2015, 04:37, edited 1 time in total.
Proponents of the school of thought positing that the Americas were
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Aug 2015, 03:51
daagh wrote:
This question hinges on one major point and one fine point.
1. Major point --- Whether we use ‘have to’ or ‘have had’ to as the verb for those who oppose the thesis? 2. fine point ---Which is the appropriate transitional conjunction we have to use, yet or whereas?]
First thing is that ‘have to’ is inappropriate unless it is a daily chore or a universal point.
For a debate that started sometime ago and that which still continues, ‘have had to’ is the apt verb; so, B C and E can be dumped instantly.
Between A and D, I would reckon there is no forthright contrast implied in the passage by the author. He seems to express that while this is A’s point, this is B’s point. This is more indicative. So, A using ‘yet’ is a shade more preferable to choice D using ‘whereas’. But this is my personal proposition; I am keen to know the official version; Magoosh’s questions in the forum seem to be getting finer and finer
Appreciate your analysis but I think the use of THAT after those is incorrect in D ;So A is anytime better.
_________________
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali
Re: Proponents of the school of thought positing that the Americas were
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Aug 2015, 04:06
Harley1980 wrote:
Proponents of the school of thought positing that the Americas were peopled more than 15,000 years ago by a group forced to traverse thousands of miles of ice fields have themselves had to overcome obstacles in trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those who argue that such a trek was indeed impossible and thus the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have had to account for the presence of artifacts in southern Chile that indicate that the New World was inhabited over 15,000 years ago.
A) in trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those who argue that such a trek was indeed impossible and thus the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have had to B) by trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those who argue such a trek was indeed impossible and thus the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have to C) in trying to account for such an improbable journey, whereas those arguing that such a trek was indeed impossible and that the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have themselves to D) in trying to account for such an improbable journey, whereas those that argue that such a trek was indeed impossible and the first peopling of the Americas happened much later have had to E) by trying to account for such an improbable journey, yet those arguing that such a trek was indeed impossible and thus that the first peopling of the Americas happened much later, they have to
Can someone please explain why is C wrong?
1) Eliminated B and E as it should be "in trying to account"
2) Eliminated D as there should be parallelism in argue THAT..... and THAT the first peopling
Re: Proponents of the school of thought positing that the Americas were
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 Dec 2017, 14:36
this question is indeed interesting. The first time I read the original question, it took me around 45 second to comprehend and map out the position of main subjects and main verbs.
Next, I notice the tense "have had", so only A and D are left; other option choices do not parallel with the tense. D changes the meaning b/c of "whereas" vs "yet", and "and" vs "and thus" "and" vs "and thus" -> the original sentence has causal relaitonship "whereas" indicates a contrast while "yet" just introduces another clause.
close
38% (02:31) correct 
