Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
63% (01:53) correct
37%
(02:11)
wrong
based on 11575
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Like the grassy fields and old pastures that the upland sandpiper needs for feeding and nesting when it returns in May after wintering in the Argentine Pampas, the sandpipers vanishing in the northeastern United States is a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in farming practices.
(A) the sandpipers vanishing in the northeastern United States is a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in
(B) the bird itself is vanishing in the northeastern United States as a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in
(C) that the birds themselves are vanishing in the northeastern United States is due to residential and industrial development and changes to
(D) in the northeastern United States, sandpipers' vanishing due to residential and industrial development and to changes in
(E) in the northeastern United States, the sandpipers' vanishing, a result of residential and industrial development and changing
(A) the sandpipers vanishing in the northeastern United States is a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in
(B) the bird itself is vanishing in the northeastern United States as a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in
(C) that the birds themselves are vanishing in the northeastern United States is due to residential and industrial development and changes to
(D) in the northeastern United States, sandpipers' vanishing due to residential and industrial development and to changes in
(E) in the northeastern United States, the sandpipers' vanishing, a result of residential and industrial development and changing
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/31/science/birds-that-nest-in-the-grasslands-find-their-habitats-under-siege.html
But like the grassy fields and old pastures that the bird needs for feeding and nesting when it returns in May after wintering on the Argentine pampas, the upland sandpiper is vanishing from the Northeast as a result of changes in farming practices, the return of abandoned agricultural land to forest, and residential and industrial development.
But like the grassy fields and old pastures that the bird needs for feeding and nesting when it returns in May after wintering on the Argentine pampas, the upland sandpiper is vanishing from the Northeast as a result of changes in farming practices, the return of abandoned agricultural land to forest, and residential and industrial development.
05 Nov 2017, 14:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
The GMAT usually doesn't get poetic like this, and it’s one of the very few metaphors I’ve ever seen on official SC questions. Like any other GMAT SC question that uses “like”, we need two nouns that are logically comparable – and the tricky part here is deciding which of the metaphorical comparisons is actually “logically comparable.”
We covered some similar issues in our YouTube webinar on comparisons, so head on over there if you prefer your explanations in video form.
The bigger problem: “the sandpipers vanishing… is a result…” The sandpipers (plural!) are the subject; vanishing is just an adjective. So the subject-verb agreement is wrong here. (If you think this “sounds OK”, you’re not wrong. The subject-verb agreement would be OK if “sandpipers” was possessive, because then “vanishing” would be the subject. But that’s not what’s actually happening here.)
So (A) is out.
The parallelism also works well later in the sentence: “the bird itself is vanishing… as a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in….” That’s great: the bird is vanishing as a result of X and of Y. Keep (B).
That doesn’t make any sense at all: we could compare the fields and pastures to the birds, and then say that all three of those things are vanishing. But we can’t compare the fields and pastures to the fact that the birds are vanishing.
So we can eliminate (C), too.
Plus, (D) doesn’t actually have an independent clause, which means that it isn’t a proper sentence. So (D) is gone.
We covered some similar issues in our YouTube webinar on comparisons, so head on over there if you prefer your explanations in video form.
Quote:
The comparison here is shaky, but I’m not 100% sure that it’s absolutely wrong. Is there any reason why we can’t compare “the grassy field and old pastures” with “the sandpipers”, since both are vanishing? I guess not. So we can tolerate the comparison, even though there are better versions below.
The bigger problem: “the sandpipers vanishing… is a result…” The sandpipers (plural!) are the subject; vanishing is just an adjective. So the subject-verb agreement is wrong here. (If you think this “sounds OK”, you’re not wrong. The subject-verb agreement would be OK if “sandpipers” was possessive, because then “vanishing” would be the subject. But that’s not what’s actually happening here.)
So (A) is out.
Quote:
Not bad, the comparison is clarified somewhat by the use of “the bird itself”: that phrase is nicely comparable to “the grassy fields and old pastures”, since both are disappearing.
The parallelism also works well later in the sentence: “the bird itself is vanishing… as a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in….” That’s great: the bird is vanishing as a result of X and of Y. Keep (B).
Quote:
This isn’t a total disaster, but it’s not great, either. “Like the grassy fields and old pastures…, that the birds themselves are vanishing... is due to… development and changes…” In this particular use of “that”, the word basically means “the fact that.” So we’re literally comparing “the grassy fields and old pastures” to “the fact that the birds are vanishing.”
That doesn’t make any sense at all: we could compare the fields and pastures to the birds, and then say that all three of those things are vanishing. But we can’t compare the fields and pastures to the fact that the birds are vanishing.
So we can eliminate (C), too.
Quote:
A lot of this is pretty clunky, but the real problem is that the grassy fields and old pastures are compared to “sandpipers’ vanishing.” And that doesn’t make sense: we’re literally comparing fields and pastures to “vanishing” – and not to the sandpipers themselves.
Plus, (D) doesn’t actually have an independent clause, which means that it isn’t a proper sentence. So (D) is gone.
Quote:
(E) has exactly the same issues as (D): the comparison is nonsense, and the sentence isn’t actually a real sentence, since it lacks an independent clause. So (B) is the best we can do.
10 May 2012, 07:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
Like the grassy fields and old pastures that the upland sandpiper needs for feeding and nesting when it returns in May after wintering in the Argentine Pampas, the sandpipers vanishing in the northeastern United States is a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in farming practices.
The sentence says that the reasons for the disappearance of grassy fields and old pastures and sandpipers in the northeastern US are the same – residential and industrial development and changes in farming practices. By the way, the upland sandpipers need the grassy fields and old pastures for nesting and breeding when they return in May after spending winter in the Argentine Pampas.
Error Analysis
1. Presence of “Like” tells us that there is a comparison here. The meaning tells us that the sentence compares the vanishing of grassy fields and old pastures with that of sandpipers. Now, “Like” is followed by “grassy fields and old pastures” that have been illogically compared with “the sandpipers vanishing”. Since “grassy fields and old pastures” are in the non-underlined portion of the sentence, we need “sandpipers” or “the bird” as the subject of the main clause to make the comparison logical.
2. The sentence uses the phrase “sandpipers vanishing”. Notice that there is no apostrophe after sandpipers. Hence, “sandpipers” is a plural noun now and “vanishing” is the modifier that modifies “sandpipers”. Now plural “sandpipers” does not agree in number with singular verb “is”.
POE:
Choice A: the sandpipers vanishing in the northeastern United States is a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in: Incorrect for the reasons stated above.
Choice B: the bird itself is vanishing in the northeastern United States as a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in: Correct. “the bird” has now been correctly compared with “the grassy fields and old pastures”.
Choice C: that the birds themselves are vanishing in the northeastern United States is due to residential and industrial development and changes to: Incorrect. 1. Use of “that” is incorrect. 2. The phrase “changes to farming practices” is awkward.
Choice D: in the northeastern United States, sandpipers’ vanishing due to residential and industrial development and to changes in: Incorrect. 1. The modifier “in the northeastern US” should not be at the beginning of the main clause. 2. The comparison is now illogically between the “the grassy fields and old pastures” and “sandpipers’ vanishing”. 3. There is no verb for “sandpipers’ vanishing”. So we have a fragment and not a main clause. 4. We don’t need “to” before “changes in…”.
Choice E: in the northeastern United States, the sandpipers’ vanishing, a result of residential and industrial development and changing: Incorrect. 1. Same modifier error as in Choice D. 2. Same fragment error as in Choice D.
1. The entities compared in the sentence must be grammatically as well as logically parallel.
2. We must have a subject and a verb to form a clause. Absence of any one makes the sentence a fragment.
Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
Like the grassy fields and old pastures that the upland sandpiper needs for feeding and nesting when it returns in May after wintering in the Argentine Pampas, the sandpipers vanishing in the northeastern United States is a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in farming practices.
The sentence says that the reasons for the disappearance of grassy fields and old pastures and sandpipers in the northeastern US are the same – residential and industrial development and changes in farming practices. By the way, the upland sandpipers need the grassy fields and old pastures for nesting and breeding when they return in May after spending winter in the Argentine Pampas.
Error Analysis
1. Presence of “Like” tells us that there is a comparison here. The meaning tells us that the sentence compares the vanishing of grassy fields and old pastures with that of sandpipers. Now, “Like” is followed by “grassy fields and old pastures” that have been illogically compared with “the sandpipers vanishing”. Since “grassy fields and old pastures” are in the non-underlined portion of the sentence, we need “sandpipers” or “the bird” as the subject of the main clause to make the comparison logical.
2. The sentence uses the phrase “sandpipers vanishing”. Notice that there is no apostrophe after sandpipers. Hence, “sandpipers” is a plural noun now and “vanishing” is the modifier that modifies “sandpipers”. Now plural “sandpipers” does not agree in number with singular verb “is”.
POE:
Choice A: the sandpipers vanishing in the northeastern United States is a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in: Incorrect for the reasons stated above.
Choice B: the bird itself is vanishing in the northeastern United States as a result of residential and industrial development and of changes in: Correct. “the bird” has now been correctly compared with “the grassy fields and old pastures”.
Choice C: that the birds themselves are vanishing in the northeastern United States is due to residential and industrial development and changes to: Incorrect. 1. Use of “that” is incorrect. 2. The phrase “changes to farming practices” is awkward.
Choice D: in the northeastern United States, sandpipers’ vanishing due to residential and industrial development and to changes in: Incorrect. 1. The modifier “in the northeastern US” should not be at the beginning of the main clause. 2. The comparison is now illogically between the “the grassy fields and old pastures” and “sandpipers’ vanishing”. 3. There is no verb for “sandpipers’ vanishing”. So we have a fragment and not a main clause. 4. We don’t need “to” before “changes in…”.
Choice E: in the northeastern United States, the sandpipers’ vanishing, a result of residential and industrial development and changing: Incorrect. 1. Same modifier error as in Choice D. 2. Same fragment error as in Choice D.
1. The entities compared in the sentence must be grammatically as well as logically parallel.
2. We must have a subject and a verb to form a clause. Absence of any one makes the sentence a fragment.
Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
