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 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
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 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
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.
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
76% (01:26) correct
24%
(01:55)
wrong
based on 4432
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.
A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who
B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors
C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors
D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors
E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who
A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who
B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors
C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors
D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors
E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who
02 Sep 2013, 05:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
'stunning evidence ... ' in (D) is an absolute phrase. An absolute phrase is a group of words that modifies an independent clause as a whole.
What is the evidence? It is that "400,000-year-old wooden spears have been unearthed from an ancient hunting ground". The entire clause is the evidence. It's something similar to appositive.
10 Jul 2012, 08:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.
A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who
B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors
C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors
D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors
E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who
Meaning analysis:
Researcher s in Germany have unearthed wooden spears from ancient lakeshore ground, .It is the evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.
Error analysis:
Here three clauses
SV agreement: 1) Researchers –Have, 2) Lakeshore hunting ground –appears &3) who -hunted
Verb Tense
Pronoun:
Here It is ambiguous, it does not have clear antecedent. It may refer to “old wooden spears “ or lakeshore hunting ground . In both cases its uses is wrong . It cant refer to “old wooden spears”.
As per meaning it is to be referring to lakeshore hunting ground. Then Redundancy comes into picture, no need to write here “IT” because “What “already expressed the intended meaning.
There is no problem with “WHO” can be use for human ancestor
Modifier:
Stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.
It is a abstract modifier which modifies precedent clause “Researcher s in Germany has unearthed wooden spears from ancient lakeshore ground “
Using of “AS” is wrong because as must be followed by clause , but there is no clause in original sentence .”As” can’t be used as here because it does not discuss any position . so its wrong
POE:
A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who :WRONG
B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors :WRONG
C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors WRONG
D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors :CORRECT (appears to be correct idiom , Abstract Modifier “ stunning evidence that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed “clearly modifies preceding clause
E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who : wrong because use of “from what appears that it” makes it ambiguous and clause “stunning evidence …….. is fragment
A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who
B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors
C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors
D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors
E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who
Meaning analysis:
Researcher s in Germany have unearthed wooden spears from ancient lakeshore ground, .It is the evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.
Error analysis:
Here three clauses
- 1) Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears (
2) what it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors
3) stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed. : Fragment , no verb is here
SV agreement: 1) Researchers –Have, 2) Lakeshore hunting ground –appears &3) who -hunted
Verb Tense
- Clause 1:Present perfect -OK (Researchers have unearthed wooden spears , whose effect s still we going to study/read)
Clause 2 Past tense –not ok as we discuss it in present (here there is no reason to change the tense) , So it is to be in present
Clause 3:Simple past –ok as it true past fact.
Pronoun:
Here It is ambiguous, it does not have clear antecedent. It may refer to “old wooden spears “ or lakeshore hunting ground . In both cases its uses is wrong . It cant refer to “old wooden spears”.
As per meaning it is to be referring to lakeshore hunting ground. Then Redundancy comes into picture, no need to write here “IT” because “What “already expressed the intended meaning.
There is no problem with “WHO” can be use for human ancestor
Modifier:
Stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.
It is a abstract modifier which modifies precedent clause “Researcher s in Germany has unearthed wooden spears from ancient lakeshore ground “
Using of “AS” is wrong because as must be followed by clause , but there is no clause in original sentence .”As” can’t be used as here because it does not discuss any position . so its wrong
POE:
A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who :WRONG
B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors :WRONG
C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors WRONG
D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors :CORRECT (appears to be correct idiom , Abstract Modifier “ stunning evidence that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed “clearly modifies preceding clause
E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who : wrong because use of “from what appears that it” makes it ambiguous and clause “stunning evidence …….. is fragment
Attachment:
