It is currently 10 Dec 2017, 20:58

Close

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

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a

  post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

6 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4321

Kudos [?]: 8307 [6], given: 366

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2012, 10:37
6
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
A. that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of------ best answer maintaining //ism

B. that a black hole lies at the Milky Way’s center and ----- the dangling phrase after the fanboy ‘and’ does not go in tandem with the clause before the conjunction

C. that there is a black hole lying at the Milky Way’s center and ------same non-//ism as in B

D. of a black hole lying at the Milky Way’s center and --- reported findings are best introduced by a relative clause using - that -use of prepositional phrase of a black hole is unidiomatic

E. of a black hole that lies at the center of the Milky Way and of --- same mistake as in D
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Kudos [?]: 8307 [6], given: 366

Expert Post
36 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4542

Kudos [?]: 8932 [36], given: 111

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2012, 13:19
36
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
venmic wrote:
can anyone explain detailed explanation for each of the ansvver choices please
Thanks

I am responding to a private message from venmic. I am happy to elaborate on this. :-)

Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe.
(A) that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of
(B) that a black hole lies at the Milky Way’s center and
(C) that there is a black hole lying at the Milky Way’s center and
(D) of a black hole lying at the Milky Way’s center and
(E) of a black hole that lies at the center of the Milky Way and of


Rather that pick through each answer one at a time, let's attack this strategically, looking at splits. See this blog for more on this strategy:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-sente ... trategies/

The first split is "that" vs. "of" at the very beginning. The phrase "a theory that A did B" is idiomatically correct. The phrase "a theory of A doing B" is inferior --- this construction will not be correct on the GMAT. Right away, (D) & (E) are out.

The phrase "a black hole lies ...." is active and direct, just what the GMAT likes --- we see this in (A) & (B). Meanwhile, (C) has the abominably indirect monstrosity "there is a black hole lying ...." On the GMAT SC, any time you have a choice of "[noun] [verb]" vs. "there is a [noun] [participle]", then every single time, the first will be correct and the second will be wrong. Here, we can eliminate (C) on these grounds.

Finally, we have the complex parallel construction at the end of the sentence:

....lies at the center
// of the Milky Way
and
// of many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe.


We need these to prepositions in parallel --- we are talking about something at the center of both the Milky Way and other galaxies. That means we must construct the first part in parallel ---- so "Milky Way's center" is wrong because it violates the parallelism. We need "of the Milky Way and of" at the end of the underlined section, to complete the parallelism correct. Only (A) & (E) do this correctly, but we have already eliminated (E) for other reasons.

This leaves (A) as the only possible answer.

Does this make sense?

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8932 [36], given: 111

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 183

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 103

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Apr 2013, 00:48
Just a quick query Club members and Gurus ;
Let's say the Recent findings lend to two things
1) a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way
2) many of the 100 billion other galaxies exist in the universe(I have modified the sentence , now we have a verb rather than verb-ed modifier )

In this case do we need to repeat the THAT in each part.
"theory that A and that B" or "theory that And B " which is correct.. [ both A,B are independent of each other]
_________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 103

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4542

Kudos [?]: 8932 [1], given: 111

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Apr 2013, 11:47
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
sujit2k7 wrote:
Just a quick query Club members and Gurus ;
Let's say the Recent findings lend to two things
1) a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way
2) many of the 100 billion other galaxies exist in the universe(I have modified the sentence , now we have a verb rather than verb-ed modifier )
In this case do we need to repeat the THAT in each part.
"theory that A and that B" or "theory that And B " which is correct.. [ both A,B are independent of each other]

Dear Sujit2k7
It's not a hard and fast rule, but typically "that" clauses are long enough that it makes sense to use two separate "that" clauses simply for rhetorical clarity. It's not grammatically wrong to say "I think that P and Q", but because P & Q are probably relatively long clauses, having a second "that" will just make the overall sentence structure much clearer. The GMAT absolutely will not test this particular point on the Sentence Correction.
BTW, if you're interested, here's a blog on talking about beliefs -----
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-idiom ... ieve-that/
Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8932 [1], given: 111

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2013, 06:19
I completely agree with the reasons on why options B, C, D, and E are incorrect. However, I am unable to understand the original sentence itself.

If the sentence were "Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of many of the 100 billion other galaxies.", I would have agreed that the parallelism is maintained (thought I would never understand how one black hole can lie at the center of the Milky Way and at the center of many of the 100 billion other galaxies at the same time :) -- each of the galaxies can have a separate black hole of its own -- presence of "a" before "black hole" has created an absurd theory!).

However, the original sentence structure is:
..... a BH lies at the center of the X and of Y estimated to exist in the universe.
What is "estimated to exist in the universe" -- answer is "100 billion other galaxies" which is a part of Y. Thus "the Milky Way" is not parallel to "many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe".

I am not able to find any sensible meaning of the sentence. Any help on this will be appreciated.

I tried to find the source of the question, but could not find anywhere. I doubt whether this question is from any reputable source and worth brainstorming!

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4321

Kudos [?]: 8307 [0], given: 366

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2013, 10:44
Doe 007: I think you got the parsing of the A wrongly. Of X and Y is limited to -of the Milky Way(X) and -of the many other galaxies(Y) - . Whether it is 100 billion or 1000 billion is an inessential factor, since it is not what the text is converging on. On the contrary, the existence of a black hole is the heart of the finding. So, at the centre of the Milky Way and at the centre of the many of the galaxies are //, IMO.

Secondly, I feel that the text is trying to say that at the centre of each of these many galaxies (It is just many galaxies and not all galaxies) lies a black hole of its own. So, the suspicion whether all galaxies have a common hole may be a high inference.
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Kudos [?]: 8307 [0], given: 366

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4542

Kudos [?]: 8932 [1], given: 111

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2013, 12:11
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
doe007 wrote:
I completely agree with the reasons on why options B, C, D, and E are incorrect. However, I am unable to understand the original sentence itself.

If the sentence were "Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of many of the 100 billion other galaxies.", I would have agreed that the parallelism is maintained (thought I would never understand how one black hole can lie at the center of the Milky Way and at the center of many of the 100 billion other galaxies at the same time :) -- each of the galaxies can have a separate black hole of its own -- presence of "a" before "black hole" has created an absurd theory!).

However, the original sentence structure is:
..... a BH lies at the center of the X and of Y estimated to exist in the universe.
What is "estimated to exist in the universe" -- answer is "100 billion other galaxies" which is a part of Y. Thus "the Milky Way" is not parallel to "many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe".

I am not able to find any sensible meaning of the sentence. Any help on this will be appreciated. I tried to find the source of the question, but could not find anywhere. I doubt whether this question is from any reputable source and worth brainstorming!

Dear doe007,

Consider the sentence ---
I would like to drive the car of my neighbor and the car of each one of his friends.
Admittedly, not a gem of rhetoric, but grammatically correct. Well, the underlined cars are in parallel, and in parallel, we are allowed to drop common elements, which omission would shorten the sentence to
I would like to drive the car of my neighbor and of each one of his friends.
This sentence, slightly better though still not ideal, is also grammatically correct. Notice, this sentence in no way implies that there is only one car, shared by neighbor & friends alike ---- rather, it quite clearly implies: my neighbor has one car, and each one of his friends has one car, and I want to drive all these cars (presumably not all at once).

Similarly, with the sentence:
Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of many of the 100 billion other galaxies.
A perfectly good, perfectly clear sentence, both grammatically and logically correct. Consider the expanded version -----
Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and that a black hole lies at the center of many of the 100 billion other galaxies.
This version is far less economical, and therefore more awkward and clunky, but it makes more explicit the parallelism. This sentence says there is "a black hole" at the center of the Milky Way, and if we went to interview every other galaxy in the Universe (all 10^11 of them, admittedly, a large task!), then if we asked the spokesman of each galaxy, "Does your galaxy have a black hole at its center", the answer for the majority would be "Yes, we have a black hole at the center of our galaxy." The word "each" might have made this a shade more clear, but really it's perfectly clear from both versions above. The fact that "a black hole at the center" is a condition true for the majority of galaxies in now way implies that it is the same black hole. You are not reading the parallelism properly.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8932 [1], given: 111

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 358

Kudos [?]: 427 [0], given: 45

Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2013, 17:02
(A) that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of - a bit wordy but not outside normal grammar rules

(B) that a black hole lies at the Milky Way's center and - Milky Way's has a center but does not possess the "center"; "center" is the noun that preposition describes, and now it seems there are two theories

(C) that there is a black hole lying at the Milky Way’s center an - Milky Way's has a center but does not possess the "center"; "lying" is not a verb so relative clause "that" is incomplete

(D) of a black hole lying at the Milky Way's center and - prepositional phrases should be replaced with that-clauses when possible, based on concision power; "lying" is not a verb so relative clause "that" is incomplete; Milky Way's has a center but does not possess the "center"

(E) of a black hole that lies at the center of the Milky Way and of - prepositional phrases should be replaced with that-clauses when possible, based on concision power.

Kudos [?]: 427 [0], given: 45

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 32

Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3.2
Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2013, 17:58
Though Picked E . .But Later On Agree With A . .

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 32

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2013, 18:29
What I see, "estimated to exist in the universe" is dangling after the parallel parts.

As I mentioned before, presence of "a" before "black hole" means the same BH is in the center of milky way as well as many other galaxies.

The original sentence is very awkward.

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Apr 2013
Posts: 51

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 76

Schools: Duke '16
Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2013, 21:22
I chose A.

Its Good as it is because D and E start with saying of which refers to something being 'derived from' and there has been no reference made to an origin of anything here

All I did was then look at the last word which was "of" many 100 billion galaxies

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 76

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2013, 21:49
Hi Mike, thanks for your comment. I missed your post before!

mikemcgarry wrote:
I would like to drive the car of my neighbor and of each one of his friends.

"The car" means only one specific car. This sentence might be correct colloquially but not grammatically.


mikemcgarry wrote:
Similarly, with the sentence:
Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of many of the 100 billion other galaxies.

As long as the sentence is like this, it is ok. But the part "estimated to exist in the universe" is dangling awkwardly.

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4542

Kudos [?]: 8932 [0], given: 111

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2013, 10:42
doe007 wrote:
Hi Mike, thanks for your comment. I missed your post before!
mikemcgarry wrote:
I would like to drive the car of my neighbor and of each one of his friends.

"The car" means only one specific car. This sentence might be correct colloquially but not grammatically.

Dear doe007,
I am gong to play Devil's Advocate with you, partially because I believe I am right, but more because I don't want you to get anything like this wrong on the real GMAT. This is very important stuff.

It is absolutely true that we can eliminate common repeated words in parallel structure without changing the meaning. That is a fundamental and incontestable principle in GMAT grammar.

Consider this sentence:
(a) Last summer, I visited the Ben & Jerry's shop in Brattleboro and the Ben & Jerry's shop in Burlington.
That's a perfectly correct sentence, grammatically and logically, although rhetorically it has some issues because it's too wordy.
From the GMAT's point of view, an improvement would be:
(b) Last summer, I visited the Ben & Jerry's shop in Brattleboro and in Burlington.
Obviously, there's not one single ice-cream shop that is simultaneously in two different cities, nor does this sentence imply this. If you want to say sentence (b) is wrong, you have to say that sentence (a) is wrong also, because by the well-established parallelism rule, they are entirely equivalent.

It's true, for clarity, one might add some kind of separating words .....
(c) Last summer, I visited the Ben & Jerry's in Brattleboro and also in Burlington.
(d) Last summer, I visited the Ben & Jerry's in Brattleboro and two weeks later, in Burlington.
That may enhance the clarity, but they are not necessary for the fundamental meaning.

I have chosen to prolong this discussion with you because parallelism is so supremely important on the GMAT SC, and understanding all the subtleties related to parallelism, including everything about what words we can omit, is absolutely crucial to SC success.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8932 [0], given: 111

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2013, 18:49
mikemcgarry wrote:
doe007 wrote:
Hi Mike, thanks for your comment. I missed your post before!
mikemcgarry wrote:
I would like to drive the car of my neighbor and of each one of his friends.

"The car" means only one specific car. This sentence might be correct colloquially but not grammatically.

Dear doe007,
I am gong to play Devil's Advocate with you, partially because I believe I am right, but more because I don't want you to get anything like this wrong on the real GMAT. This is very important stuff.

It is absolutely true that we can eliminate common repeated words in parallel structure without changing the meaning. That is a fundamental and incontestable principle in GMAT grammar.

Consider this sentence:
(a) Last summer, I visited the Ben & Jerry's shop in Brattleboro and the Ben & Jerry's shop in Burlington.
That's a perfectly correct sentence, grammatically and logically, although rhetorically it has some issues because it's too wordy.
From the GMAT's point of view, an improvement would be:
(b) Last summer, I visited the Ben & Jerry's shop in Brattleboro and in Burlington.
Obviously, there's not one single ice-cream shop that is simultaneously in two different cities, nor does this sentence imply this. If you want to say sentence (b) is wrong, you have to say that sentence (a) is wrong also, because by the well-established parallelism rule, they are entirely equivalent.

It's true, for clarity, one might add some kind of separating words .....
(c) Last summer, I visited the Ben & Jerry's in Brattleboro and also in Burlington.
(d) Last summer, I visited the Ben & Jerry's in Brattleboro and two weeks later, in Burlington.
That may enhance the clarity, but they are not necessary for the fundamental meaning.

I have chosen to prolong this discussion with you because parallelism is so supremely important on the GMAT SC, and understanding all the subtleties related to parallelism, including everything about what words we can omit, is absolutely crucial to SC success.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


Dear Mike,
Thank you for the insightful reply. Please understand that I have no problem in my understanding on removing common repeated words and I completely agree with your assertions. Also, the examples in your last post are correct.

However, I have a little problem to understand how can a specific object (e.g., the car) can refer to many different objects. Can "the car" mean Civic of Sam, Corolla of Tracy, Santro of John, Murano of Laura, and Mustang of Harry at the same time?

I have the biggest problem in considering the original sentence of this topic as a grammatically correct sentence because of the dangling portion at the end and so far I didn't hear anything from anybody.

As I mentioned before, I could not find source of the question from anywhere and I seriously doubt if brainstorming on this question is worth!

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4542

Kudos [?]: 8932 [0], given: 111

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 May 2013, 10:14
doe007 wrote:
Dear Mike,
Thank you for the insightful reply. Please understand that I have no problem in my understanding on removing common repeated words and I completely agree with your assertions. Also, the examples in your last post are correct.
However, I have a little problem to understand how can a specific object (e.g., the car) can refer to many different objects. Can "the car" mean Civic of Sam, Corolla of Tracy, Santro of John, Murano of Laura, and Mustang of Harry at the same time?
I have the biggest problem in considering the original sentence of this topic as a grammatically correct sentence because of the dangling portion at the end and so far I didn't hear anything from anybody.
As I mentioned before, I could not find source of the question from anywhere and I seriously doubt if brainstorming on this question is worth!

Dear doe007,
Consider this sentence.
I have great appreciation for the car of each one of my five friends.
In that sentence, there's no problem with the words "the car" standing in for the Civic of Sam, the Corolla of Tracy, the Santro of John, the Murano of Laura, and the Mustang of Harry all at once. The word "each" forces the "one for each"' reading of the sentence.

Admittedly, the word "each" goes a long way toward clarifying that the words "the car" are plural in content and distributed over a group. Also, admittedly, without the word "each", this particular sentence would be ambiguous.
I have great appreciation for the car of my five friends.
Hmm. Now, it is possible for five people to own a single car --- the "one for all" reading ---- or it is possible that each friend owns her or his own car --- the "one for each" reading --- and the speaker admires all five. Notice ----- it's not that the former is automatically the correct reading. Either reading is perfectly acceptable because the sentence is ambiguous.

Now, back to our famous sentence.
Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe.
To simplify things --- there's no problem with the single black hole at the center of the Milky way, so for clarity, let's eliminate that.
Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a black hole lies at the center of many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe.
Now, both "black hole" and "center" are singular, and that fine. Here, there is absolutely no ambiguity that there could be just one galactic center with one black hole for all 100 billion galaxies --- that's crazy! Because that reading, the "one for all" reading, is simply impossible, this forces us to take the "one for each" reading as the correct reading.

I believe you are assuming, if the word "each" is not explicitly present, that the "one for all" is the only possible reading. I assert, that in cases such as this, we need to examine both the "one for all" and "one for each" readings. Most typically, the GMAT will make everything explicitly clear, either in the wording or the context, so only one of these is possible. Here, the context of the question makes clear which reading we must pick.

I don't know the source for this question either, and often that does make me suspicious, but I think it's a good question.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8932 [0], given: 111

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 May 2013, 21:26
Dear Mike, I appreciate your effort and time spend on one single conversation. Your expert comments helped me to correct some of my concepts at different times. Here, please allow me to make my points little more clear for the last time.

It is ok to say:
Last week, I visited the museum in Italy.
Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and in Germany.
Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and the museums in Germany, France, and Belgium.
I want to drive each of the cars of George and Bill.


However, it is not ok to say:
Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and the museum in Germany, France, and Belgium.
Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and in 5 other countries.


The point here is, the same common word cannot refer to singular noun and plural noun (or the sense of plural) at the same time.

For this reason, I conveyed that the sentence "I would like to drive the car of my neighbor and of each one of his friends." is incorrect
But, the following sentences of your examples are grammatically correct.
Last summer, I visited the Ben & Jerry's shop in Brattleboro and in Burlington.
I have great appreciation for the car of each one of my five friends.
I have great appreciation for the car of my five friends.


mikemcgarry wrote:
I have great appreciation for the car of my five friends.
Hmm. Now, it is possible for five people to own a single car --- the "one for all" reading ---- or it is possible that each friend owns her or his own car --- the "one for each" reading --- and the speaker admires all five. Notice ----- it's not that the former is automatically the correct reading. Either reading is perfectly acceptable because the sentence is ambiguous.

The example shown here is ambiguous (as you said) at most, but it is grammatically correct as I mentioned above.


Now, back to the original sentence: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe.

Structure of the original sentence is:
..... a BH lies at the center of X and of Y estimated to exist in the universe.

If the sentence were as follows, I would have agreed that the parallel structure was maintained.
..... a BH lies at the center of X and of Y.
Here Y = "many of the 100 billion other galaxies"
To maintain the parallelism, we cannot break down "many of the 100 billion other galaxies" into two parts.

With reference to the original sentence:
What is "estimated to exist in the universe"? -- the answer is "100 billion other galaxies". This makes "100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe" one indivisible phrase.

Now see, we have two indivisible parts "many of the 100 billion other galaxies" and "100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe", and there is a overlap between these two parts. This situation creates the following two alternatives for us to consider:
1) Parallelism prevails: "the Milky Way" is parallel to "many of the 100 billion other galaxies", and "estimated to exist in the universe" is dangling after the parallel parts.
2) Modification prevails: "100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe" is indivisible. In that case, "the Milky Way" is not parallel to "many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe" in the perfect sense.

As "estimated to exist in the universe" is in non-underlined part, we need to treat second scenario above as our case.


Now at this point, I see that we may not agree on the same point and it is ok to leave the matter if you wish so.

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4542

Kudos [?]: 8932 [0], given: 111

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2013, 10:51
doe007 wrote:
It is ok to say:
(1) Last week, I visited the museum in Italy.
(2) Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and in Germany.
(3) Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and the museums in Germany, France, and Belgium.
(4) I want to drive each of the cars of George and Bill.


However, it is not ok to say:
(5) Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and the museum in Germany, France, and Belgium.
(6) Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and in 5 other countries.

The point here is, the same common word cannot refer to singular noun and plural noun (or the sense of plural) at the same time.

Dear doe007,
With all due respect, it seems to me there's an inconsistency between what you say and sentence #2 ---- if #2 is correct, then there's no reason that #6 shouldn't be correct.
The phrasing "the museum in Italy" sounds a little funny to me, only because there are so many museums in Italy you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one. I'm going to change "museum" to "parliament building", which presumably is something unique in each country. Then, I would assert
(7) Last week, I visited the parliament building in Italy.
(8) Last week, I visited the parliament building in Italy and in Germany.
(9) Last week, I visited the parliament building in Italy, in Germany, in France, and in Spain.
(10) Last week, I visited the parliament building in Italy and in three other countries.
(11) Last week, I visited the parliament building in Italy and in twenty other countries.
I'm sure we both agree #7 is correct. If you accept #2 above as correct, then you would have to accept #8 as correct, and probably #9 as correct as well. But #10 is just a more concise way to say #9, so if #9 is correct, how can #10 not be correct? Finally, once we accept that a number is correct, then it is immaterial what number it is, so #11 would have to be correct also. I would assert all five are correct. I would be very curious to know where you think the correct sentences end and what you use as your criterion. Strictly, if using a singular for multiple referents is always incorrect, then not only #8-11 would be incorrect, but also your #2. If you allow #2, I think you have to allow all the rest. What do you think?

doe007 wrote:
For this reason, I conveyed that the sentence " (12) I would like to drive the car of my neighbor and of each one of his friends." is incorrect
But, the following sentences of your examples are grammatically correct.
(13) Last summer, I visited the Ben & Jerry's shop in Brattleboro and in Burlington.
(14) I have great appreciation for the car of each one of my five friends.
(15) I have great appreciation for the car of my five friends.

Hmm, #15 now strikes me as way too ambiguous, though grammatically correct. I don't understand your criterion --- if you think #13 & #14 are correct, how can you say #12 is incorrect? The words "each one" indicates a singular individual --- indefinite, but singular. Therefore, it is of the form
[singular object]"of"[singular individual]"and of"[singular individual]
either to say
(16) .... the car of Lydia and of Hilda ....
or
(17) .... the car of Lydia and of each one of her 27 friends ....
If you allow #16, there's no reason to reject #17.
doe007 wrote:
Now, back to the original sentence: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe.

Structure of the original sentence is:
..... a BH lies at the center of X and of Y estimated to exist in the universe.

If the sentence were as follows, I would have agreed that the parallel structure was maintained.
..... a BH lies at the center of X and of Y.
Here Y = "many of the 100 billion other galaxies"
To maintain the parallelism, we cannot break down "many of the 100 billion other galaxies" into two parts.

With reference to the original sentence:
What is "estimated to exist in the universe"? -- the answer is "100 billion other galaxies". This makes "100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe" one indivisible phrase.

Now see, we have two indivisible parts "many of the 100 billion other galaxies" and "100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe", and there is a overlap between these two parts. This situation creates the following two alternatives for us to consider:
1) Parallelism prevails: "the Milky Way" is parallel to "many of the 100 billion other galaxies", and "estimated to exist in the universe" is dangling after the parallel parts.
2) Modification prevails: "100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe" is indivisible. In that case, "the Milky Way" is not parallel to "many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe" in the perfect sense.
As "estimated to exist in the universe" is in non-underlined part, we need to treat second scenario above as our case.
Now at this point, I see that we may not agree on the same point and it is ok to leave the matter if you wish so.

I admit, this question is not ideal, but you seem to have it in for this question. The conflict you spell out between parallelism and modification seems entirely non-existent to me.

Strictly, the parallelism is between "of the Milky Way" and "of many". Here, we get into an issue that MGMAT likes to call "subgroup modifiers." The latter term, "of many", makes no sense without making clear the larger group.
"of the Milky Way"//"of many of the 100 billion other galaxies"
That's the parallelism. Now, as it happens, the second term of the parallelism has modifier, even though the first one doesn't. This is 100% legal, and appears in correct answers in the GMAT OG.

For example, consider OG13 SC #110 --- here's the OA, choice (C):
(C) Published in Harlem, the Messenger was owned and edited by two young journalists, A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader, and Chandler Owen.
The two individuals named, A. Philip Randolph and Chandler Owen, are in parallel, and only the first one has modifying clause. There's absolutely no problem with that.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8932 [0], given: 111

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Posts: 28

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 13

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, International Business
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V31
WE: Information Technology (Telecommunications)
Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Dec 2013, 02:10
Great explanation Mike.

However I have a very basic question ( Its really very basic :? )
This is correct
...of the Milky Way and of billion other....
Now consider below statement
.....of the Milky Way and billion other....
Does it mean
1) at the center of Milky way and billion other Galaxies (at the center of distance between these... I know this meaning sounds ridiculous :oops: )
OR
2) at the center of milky and at the center of billion other Galaxies as well

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 13

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4542

Kudos [?]: 8932 [0], given: 111

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Dec 2013, 11:47
Conquistador22 wrote:
Great explanation Mike.

However I have a very basic question ( Its really very basic :? )
This is correct
...of the Milky Way and of billion other....
Now consider below statement
.....of the Milky Way and billion other....
Does it mean
1) at the center of Milky way and billion other Galaxies (at the center of distance between these... I know this meaning sounds ridiculous :oops: )
OR
2) at the center of milky and at the center of billion other Galaxies as well

Thanks

Dear Conquistador22,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

First of all, you may find this blog relevant:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-paral ... ce-inside/

This is correct:
... center of the Milky Way and of billions of other galaxies ...
implying each galaxy, including our own Milky Way, has its own center.

This is also correct:
... centers of the Milky Way and billions of other galaxies ...
same implication as the one above.

This changes the meaning:
... center of the Milky Way and billions of other galaxies ...
That implies one center common to billions of galaxies. Pure nonsense.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8932 [0], given: 111

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 14 Jul 2013
Posts: 32

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 39

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Apr 2014, 05:19
although I did not get it right,
what I understood is -
black hole lies at the center of x and of y

someone, please correct if I am wrong.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 39

Re: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a   [#permalink] 24 Apr 2014, 05:19

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 79 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a

  post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.