Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 07:40 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 07:40
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
555-605 Level|   Verb Tense/Form|                     
User avatar
RashedVai
Joined: 24 Feb 2017
Last visit: 03 Apr 2025
Posts: 173
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 114
Status:wake up with a purpose
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting, Entrepreneurship
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Businessconquerer
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Last visit: 07 Jul 2025
Posts: 2,841
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 185
Products:
Posts: 2,841
Kudos: 1,182
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
BijayKru
Joined: 24 Sep 2018
Last visit: 05 Aug 2025
Posts: 60
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 27
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V37
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V37
Posts: 60
Kudos: 24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
TheNightKing
Joined: 18 Dec 2017
Last visit: 20 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,139
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 421
Location: United States (KS)
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Posts: 1,139
Kudos: 1,302
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
solidcolor
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

A. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them
B. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
C. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
D. 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete
E. to complete them took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years


I am having a tough time trying to understand the meaning here. the army.......is more than 2000 years old and took 700,00 artisans more than 36 years to complete. But complete what? The army itself?

generis, Sorry for the tag. I waited for a couple of days but got no response from the community. Can you help me with this one?
User avatar
ajaygaur319
Joined: 05 May 2019
Last visit: 01 Jan 2021
Posts: 126
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 143
Location: India
Posts: 126
Kudos: 654
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
solidcolor
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

A. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them
B. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
C. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
D. 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete
E. to complete them took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years

Edit: This topic is found in earlier versions of OG, such as OG 12. Since then, GMAC has altered this question slightly over the years. The version in OG 2018 is HERE

Can someone please explain the meaning of in his afterlife in the sentence and what it is modifying in the sentence.
avatar
nkshmalik1
Joined: 01 Jan 2019
Last visit: 10 Nov 2022
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 142
Posts: 30
Kudos: 13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja and other experts.
There is a doubt in the verb-ed modifiers. The correct choice when plugged in with the sentence appears as:-
Quote:
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete.

After deconstructing the sentence I got confused with the role of "took" . Is it "the army of terra-cotta warriors" that took the artisans more than 36 years?

or is the sentence being said from a third person perspective? Else "took" looks as if modifying "the army of terra cotta warriors" rather and how could "the army of terra cotta warriors" does the action of taking?

There is one more example of OG where the correct choice is as follows:-

Quote:
Combining enormous physical strength with higher intelligence, the Neanderthals appear to have been equipped to face any obstacle the environment could put in their path, but their relatively sudden disappearance during the paleolithic era indicates that an inability to adapt to some environmental change led to their extinction.
Here, the sentence,
Quote:
the Neanderthals appear to have been equipped to face any obstacle the environment could put in their path
sounds as if it has been said by a 3rd person , else how can neanderthals themselves appear?

Please clear this doubt I am stuck with such kind of sentence correction question and I cant decipher the action in the sentence.

Thanks,
Ankush
User avatar
EducationAisle
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nkshmalik1
After deconstructing the sentence I got confused with the role of "took" . Is it "the army of terra-cotta warriors" that took the artisans more than 36 years?
Yes that's a correct interpretation.

Quote:
or is the sentence being said from a third person perspective? Else "took" looks as if modifying "the army of terra cotta warriors" rather and how could "the army of terra cotta warriors" does the action of taking?
took will always be a verb (and never a modifier). The modifier (past participle) of the verb take is taken (and not took).

So, no element of confusion here :) .

It's a common usage Ankush. For example, following is correct:

The homework took me 5 hours to complete.

Again, took is used as as simple past tense verb. From what I know, this is pretty much the only usage of took.
avatar
mba757
avatar
Current Student
Joined: 15 Jun 2020
Last visit: 04 Aug 2022
Posts: 305
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 245
Location: United States
GPA: 3.3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China's first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

A. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them
(1) pronoun/antecedent error: “the army [of terra-cotta warriors]” = singular but “them” is plural; moreover, we know “army” is singular with the subsequent/corresponding verb “is,” which is not underlined; (2) unnecessary/redundant pronoun: it’s already clear what took 36 years to complete

B. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
(1) unnecessary/redundant pronoun: it’s already clear what took 36 years to complete

C. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
bingo

D. 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete
(1) lack of parallelism: “…the army of terra-cotta warriors…is more than 2000 years old…AND [missing a verb after the parallelism trigger – ‘and’] 700,000 artisans took…”

E. to complete them took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years
(1) lack of parallelism: “…the army of terra-cotta warriors…is more than 2000 years old…AND to complete them…” – “is” is not parallel to “to complete”; (2) pronoun/antecedent error: “the army [of terra-cotta warriors]” = singular but “them” is plural; moreover, we know “army” is singular with the subsequent/corresponding verb “is,” which is not underlined
User avatar
peanuts
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 17 May 2020
Last visit: 29 May 2021
Posts: 61
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 34
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q50 V38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

Meaning: army of terra-cotta is more than 2000 y.o. and took 700k artisans more than 36 years to complete

A. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them "them" wrongly refers to army of terra-cotta which is a singular noun
B. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it "took" has "army of terra-cotta" as its subject already, no need to refer to "it" again
C. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete Correct
D. 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete lack verb
E. to complete them took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years them wrongly refer to "army of terra-cotta"
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

A. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them
B. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
C. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
D. 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete
E. to complete them took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years
Request Expert Reply:
Hi Experts,
created to protect Qin Shi Huang--> is it essential or non-essential modifier? I'm a bit confused about the classification!
avatar
TarunKumar1234
Joined: 14 Jul 2020
Last visit: 28 Feb 2024
Posts: 1,107
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 351
Location: India
Posts: 1,107
Kudos: 1,348
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

A. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them-> The army.....took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete. "Them" is incorrect.
B. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it->The army.....took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete. "it" is incorrect. Because it refers to singular noun the Army, but we don't need it.
C. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete-> It is better. Let's keep it.
D. 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete-> Now, subject is 700,000 artisans. Which should be The army.
E. to complete them took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years-> "them" need singular pronoun as subject is singular.

So, I think C. :)
User avatar
haithamnimer
Joined: 09 May 2019
Last visit: 28 Sep 2021
Posts: 60
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 312
Location: Jordan
Concentration: Operations, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 2.87
WE:Supply Chain Management (Consumer Packaged Goods)
Posts: 60
Kudos: 34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
solidcolor
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

A. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them
B. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
C. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
D. 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete
E. to complete them took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years

Edit: This topic is found in earlier versions of OG, such as OG 12. Since then, GMAC has altered this question slightly over the years. The version in OG 2018 is HERE


The Question tested both parallelism and pronoun vague:

A. it is wrong, because of vague pronoun (THEM)
B. it is wrong, because of vague pronoun (IT)
c. The right answer "parallel" as below:

the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete

D. Not parallel
E. it is wrong, because of vague pronoun (THEM)
User avatar
Green2k1
Joined: 06 Jun 2019
Last visit: 19 Aug 2024
Posts: 105
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 48
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Technology
Posts: 105
Kudos: 102
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja / egmat
could please explain the meaning of the sentence?

Sentence Structure
------Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement,
the army of terra-cotta warriors
-----created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife
is more than 2,000 years old and
took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

As per my understanding
- Army is more than 2000 years old (making sense)
- Army took 700,000 artesian (or is it ? "700,000 artesian took more than 36 year to complete the army) ------- (z)

although option (D) appears to have punctuation error in case of (z) as two ICs are not connected properly (missing ,), but kind of conveying the correct meaning.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,885
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Green2k1
Hi GMATNinja / egmat
could please explain the meaning of the sentence?

Sentence Structure
------Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement,
the army of terra-cotta warriors
-----created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife
is more than 2,000 years old and
took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

As per my understanding
- Army is more than 2000 years old (making sense)
- Army took 700,000 artesian (or is it ? "700,000 artesian took more than 36 year to complete the army) ------- (z)

although option (D) appears to have punctuation error in case of (z) as two ICs are not connected properly (missing ,), but kind of conveying the correct meaning.


Hello Green2k1,

Thank you for the PM. :-)


You are confused about the usage "the army... took 7000,000 artisans to complete." This expression is correct. We often say that the project took 10 members to finish. The meaning conveyed here is that it took 10 members to finish the project. More simply, 10 members finished the project. So yes, these are all different expressions to convey the same idea. All these expressions are correct.

Yes, Choice D uses a simple more familiar expression, but it has the blatant structural error. Hence, it is incorrect.

Let me know if you need further clarification on this question. :-)


Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha
User avatar
Crytiocanalyst
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Last visit: 27 May 2023
Posts: 950
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 309
Posts: 950
Kudos: 208
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
i chose C since it doesn't offer the pronoun isuue of the army completing it others
A has them on it
B has it in it
C feels consice and nice
D subject turns to the artisians rather than the army
E this isn't entirely suitable
hence IMO C
User avatar
sid0791
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Last visit: 28 Feb 2024
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 81
Kudos: 10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
egmat DmitryFarber

In this sentence, I get that verb is "army" but what I didn't get was why we are using "took"?
As doer of "took" shouldn't be army right? As the army can't complete itself, someone else did. Thus how "took" has "army" as a doer?

If the doer of "took" is not "army" then "took" should be a v-ed modifier.

Please help me understand, what exactly I am missing
User avatar
MissBong
Joined: 02 Apr 2021
Last visit: 15 Jan 2025
Posts: 56
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 167
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38 (Online)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38 (Online)
Posts: 56
Kudos: 45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi AndrewN,

Could you please help me with a doubt.

In the correct answer choice (C), I found the following structure maddening:
The army took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete.

The meaning comes out strange. Subject "The army" takes the verb "took" here. So, the army took more than 700,000 artisans to complete. Fair enough. But the addition of "more than 36 years" makes it weird. No?

This sounds normal: The project took 10 men to complete. Or, I took more than 3 hours to complete the project.
This doesn't: The project took 10 men more than 3 months to complete.
This should be correct: 10 men took more than 3 months to complete the project.

The construct in (C) as it stands currently looks weird. And (D) looks like a better choice to me, but (D) joins two independent clauses with just a conjunction "and". Also, the object should be placed after "complete" in (D). So, (D) too has issues.

Please, share your thoughts on the matter.
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MissBong
Hi AndrewN,

Could you please help me with a doubt.

In the correct answer choice (C), I found the following structure maddening:
The army took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete.

The meaning comes out strange. Subject "The army" takes the verb "took" here. So, the army took more than 700,000 artisans to complete. Fair enough. But the addition of "more than 36 years" makes it weird. No?

This sounds normal: The project took 10 men to complete. Or, I took more than 3 hours to complete the project.
This doesn't: The project took 10 men more than 3 months to complete.
This should be correct: 10 men took more than 3 months to complete the project.

The construct in (C) as it stands currently looks weird. And (D) looks like a better choice to me, but (D) joins two independent clauses with just a conjunction "and". Also, the object should be placed after "complete" in (D). So, (D) too has issues.

Please, share your thoughts on the matter.
I think you are getting bogged down in the details, MissBong, by which I mean the numerical information. Would the following look strange to you?

The project took them a long time to complete.

It looks and sounds fine to me, even though I do not advocate relying on your ear for SC. The sentence above is just a generic version of what we see in answer choice (C): subject-verb-object-modifier (for took)-infinitive. Compare:

1) The project took them a long time to complete.

2) The army took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete.

The second sentence adds a few details, but the same basic grammatical information is on display and is just as functional.

Perhaps the answer choice makes more sense now. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
User avatar
MissBong
Joined: 02 Apr 2021
Last visit: 15 Jan 2025
Posts: 56
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 167
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38 (Online)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38 (Online)
Posts: 56
Kudos: 45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN
MissBong
Hi AndrewN,

Could you please help me with a doubt.

In the correct answer choice (C), I found the following structure maddening:
The army took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete.

The meaning comes out strange. Subject "The army" takes the verb "took" here. So, the army took more than 700,000 artisans to complete. Fair enough. But the addition of "more than 36 years" makes it weird. No?

This sounds normal: The project took 10 men to complete. Or, I took more than 3 hours to complete the project.
This doesn't: The project took 10 men more than 3 months to complete.
This should be correct: 10 men took more than 3 months to complete the project.

The construct in (C) as it stands currently looks weird. And (D) looks like a better choice to me, but (D) joins two independent clauses with just a conjunction "and". Also, the object should be placed after "complete" in (D). So, (D) too has issues.

Please, share your thoughts on the matter.
I think you are getting bogged down in the details, MissBong, by which I mean the numerical information. Would the following look strange to you?

The project took them a long time to complete.

It looks and sounds fine to me, even though I do not advocate relying on your ear for SC. The sentence above is just a generic version of what we see in answer choice (C): subject-verb-object-modifier (for took)-infinitive. Compare:

1) The project took them a long time to complete.

2) The army took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete.

The second sentence adds a few details, but the same basic grammatical information is on display and is just as functional.

Perhaps the answer choice makes more sense now. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
Thank you AndrewN for your response. Could you share on what grounds did you discount (D) except for the lack of "comma" between the two independent clauses?
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MissBong
Thank you AndrewN for your response. Could you share on what grounds did you discount (D) except for the lack of "comma" between the two independent clauses?
Hello again, MissBong. I eliminated answer choice (D) because, although it might seem virtually the same as (C), the rearrangement of information fails to deliver on the basic X and Y parallel construct. Consider a barebones version of the latter part of the sentence:

(D) The army is {age} and artisans...

If you want to argue that the clause about artisans is meant to be a separate, independent clause, you would then expect to see another reference to the army, since artisans took {so many} years to complete is not an independent clause. In this sense, the it that we see at the end of (B) is more fitting (although that option messes up in the beginning).

Now, consider the same type of stripped-down sentence to test (C):

(C) The army is {age} and took artisans {so many years} to complete.

The parallel verbs is and took introduce different continuations of the same stem, the army _____, and the clause works either way. When you know how to spot the types of issues that are commonly tested, you can navigate even a long-winded sentence such as this one with confidence. Just stick to the basics.

Show SpoilerMy Timer Result
Attachment:
Screen Shot 2022-07-03 at 14.49.46.png
Screen Shot 2022-07-03 at 14.49.46.png [ 76.29 KiB | Viewed 1746 times ]
Thank you for following up.

- Andrew
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
189 posts