Scientists claim that the discovery of the first authenticated mammal

Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow down our options quickly so we know how to answer questions like this when they pop up on the GMAT! To begin, let's take a quick look at the question and highlight any major differences between the options in orange:

Scientists claim that the discovery of the first authenticated mammal bones in amber could provide important clues of determining, in addition to how, when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies.

(A) of determining, in addition to how, when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies

(B) in the determination of how and when the islands of the West Indies were colonized by mammals

(C) to determine how mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies and when they did

(D) for determining when the islands of the West Indies were colonized by mammals and how they were

(E) for determining how and when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies

After a quick glance over the options, there are a couple key differences we can focus on to narrow down our options:

1. of determining / in the determination of / to determine / for determining (Idioms)
2. “mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies” / “the islands of the West Indies were colonized by mammals” (Active vs. Passive Voice)

Since #2 on our list is an “either/or” split, let’s start there. No matter which way we go, we’ll eliminate 2-3 options rather quickly. We know that the GMAT always prefers active voice whenever possible, so let’s eliminate any options that use passive voice:

(A) of determining, in addition to how, when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies

(B) in the determination of how and when the islands of the West Indies were colonized by mammals

(C) to determine how mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies and when they did

(D) for determining when the islands of the West Indies were colonized by mammals and how they were

(E) for determining how and when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies

We can eliminate options B & D because they use passive voice, which is not preferable on the GMAT. Now that we have it narrowed down, let’s tackle #1 on our list, which is an idiom issue. Both “for determining” and “to determine” are okay to use, but any other option is not. Let’s eliminate any options that don’t use the idiom correctly:

(A) of determining, in addition to how, when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies

(C) to determine how mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies and when they did

(E) for determining how and when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies

We can eliminate option A because “of determining” is not idiomatically correct. Now that we have it narrowed down to 2 options, we need to look at each one more closely for problems:

(C) to determine how mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies and when they did
This is INCORRECT for a couple reasons. First, this is overly wordy - “how...and when they did” isn’t necessary. Just saying “how and when” covers it. Second, the pronoun “they” isn’t 100% clear or necessary to add in.

(E) for determining how and when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies
This is CORRECT! It’s clear, concise, and uses active voice - all things the GMAT is looking for!

There you have it - option E is our winner!

Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.

Hi,
In option D
Since "they" is a pronoun, which can only refer to the nearest noun entity which is mammals in this case then why there is pronoun-antecedent ambiguity.
Please explain

A pronoun does not have to refer to the nearest noun of the same number. It can refer to any reasonably close noun. In fact, in many cases, a pronoun does not refer to the nearest noun of the same number.

For example:

The laws of the two states regulated interstate trade, but they were written in very confusing ways.

Clearly, "they" refers to the further away plural noun "laws," rather than to the closer noun "states."

to indicates purpose Subject is "The discovery" We need animate object for to. Hence eliminate ?

How about idioms, is there any diference between to and for?

Scientists claim that the discovery of the first authenticated mammal bones in amber could provide important clues of determining, in addition to how, when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies.

Meaning Analysis: Scientists have made a claim. What claim? They claim that the discovery of the first mammal bones in amber could provide important clues. What are these clues going to help us in? Well, these clues could help us determine when these mammals colonized the West Indies island and how did they do so.

Sentence Structure:
Scientists (subject)
claim (verb)
that (connector)
the discovery (subject)
of the first authenticated mammal bones in amber (prepositional phrase modifying the subject "the discovery")
could provide (verb)
important clues (object of the sentence)
of determining, in addition to how, when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies. (prepositional phrase modifying the object of the sentence) (the additive phrase "in addition to" is used, this states that the information "how mammals occupied the islands" is more like additional information. In other words, it is not essential information)



I don't think of in "could provide important cluesof determining" is correct. I guess "provide for" is the correct idiom.

On a broader aspect, the structure of this sentence is not the best way to convey the intended meaning. For native speakers, this choice would be easy to eliminate.


I don't see any grammar error in this choice. However, like (A), this choice too seems not the best way to convey the intended meaning. We could hold onto this choice till we get a better option.


I am okay with the "to" in "could provide important clues to determine" but I am not comfortable with the latter part of this sentence "when they did". It seems as if the sentence is incomplete. It feels as if the sentence is going to tell us something more about what happened when the mammals colonized the islands.

E.g. The discovery could provide clues to determine when the mammals colonized the islands and when they did reach a population bottleneck.


I am happy with the usage of "for" in "could provide important clues for determining" but again, the latter part of the sentence seems off. "And how they were"? what is the author trying to say? "how they mammals were feeling after the colonization?" "how they were behaving with each other?" The ending clearly seems off.


This sentence converts the additional information of "the how aspect" to a vital information by using the connector "and" and that is completely fine. The meaning is conveyed with correct usage of grammar + the sentence structure is simple and nothing seems incomplete or too off.

Correct choice: (E)

Note - This is a clear example that during SC we need to choose the best choice that conveys the meaning. Just because an answer choice appears to be grammatically correct doesn't make the choice automatically correct.

First glance

The five answer choices begin with different prepositions: of, in, to, or for. This part of the sentence is likely testing idioms or parallelism.


Issues

(1) Idiom: provide clues of / clues in the determination of

The construction provide clues of is incorrect. Eliminate choice (A). It’s acceptable to say provide clues for, as in answers (D) and (E). It is also acceptable to say provide clues to, as in choice (C). In some circumstances, it can be possible to say provide clues in determining, but not provide clues in the determination of; eliminate choice (B).

For meaning reasons, the official solution objects to clues to determine in choice (C) but says that clues to help determine would be acceptable. While this point is technically valid, it’s extremely hard to spot; most people would not notice this. It may be better to look for a different reason to eliminate (C).

(2) Meaning: in addition to how

Meaning: when they did / how they were

In the original sentence, the placement of in addition to how makes the meaning hard to decipher. Other choices indicate that the sentence is trying to say the clues can help to determine both how and when something occurred. Because in addition to how is placed between two commas, though, it’s not immediately apparent whether these words apply to of determining (before the first comma) or when mammals colonized (after the second comma). Eliminate choice (A) for ambiguous meaning.

Check the other choices to see how they convey the how and when information. Answers (B) and (E) are fine: How and when are placed together and the remainder of the sentence is clear.

Answers (C) and (D) are problematic however:

(C) how mammals colonized ... and when they did. (When they did what?)

(D) when the islands … were colonized … and how they were. (How they were what?)

In both cases, it’s not immediately clear what the final verb refers to. In choice (C), this problem could be fixed by adding the word so: when they did so. The addition of so would allow the second part to refer back to the action earlier in the sentence: when they did so (= when they colonized the islands). Choice (D) would need to add the word colonized (how they were colonized). Eliminate choices (C) and (D) for ambiguous meaning.

The Correct Answer

Correct answer (E) uses an acceptable idiom (clues for) and clearly and unambiguously conveys the two things that those clues might help to determine: how and when mammals colonized the islands.

C: I believe that option C is wrong because the subject of the infinitive ( to determine ), which is logically"Scientists", is not clear.
It is not clear who to determine. Ex: I am ready to help you. In this sentence "I" is the person who will perform the action(help).

Scientists claim that the discovery of the first authenticated mammal bones in amber could provide important clues of determining, in addition to how, when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies.


(A) of determining, in addition to how, when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies
-of is the wrong preposition, ‘for determining’ is idiomatic
-‘in addition to how’ is terrible style

(B) in the determination of how and when the islands of the West Indies were colonized by mammals
-‘in the determination of’ is needlessly wordy

(C) to determine how mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies and when they did
-to determine is not idiomatic here

(D) for determining when the islands of the West Indies were colonized by mammals and how they were ?
-this choice expresses an incomplete though…’how they were…’ Were what?

(E) for determining how and when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies
Correct

I would not recommend eliminating options based on preposition usage only.

Here is my approach:
the pronoun "they" is not having a proper antecedent to refer to.
they can be scientists, mammals, etc.
Hence C and D are out.

B is having passive voice, though it is not a wrong approach, but the usage of preposition "in" and noun "determination" makes it weaker compared with other options. Other options are better than B. B is out.

Between A and E, the {comma + when} usage makes when an RPM and it got no noun to refer.
A is out.

Hence E is clear win

Is the use 'in determination of' correct within the given context? I thought it means that the clues would be found during determination rather than clues being used for determining.

Thanks in advance.

If I put "so" after "did" in choice C, will it be correct ? "to determine how mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies and when they did so"


PS. Thank you, GMATNinja your explanation is very clear, and I always find your explanation first.

"For determining" is idiomatic and more concise.

B is also written in the passive voice.

Thank you for the kind words!

As for whether (C) would be improved if we tacked on a "so" at the end, I suppose you could argue it would be a little clearer, but the real question is whether this new version of (C) would then be clearer and more logical than (E). And even with this adjustment (E) is still better.

First, (C) unnecessarily introduces a new clause at the end of the sentence. To see more on why this is problematic, check out this post.

Also, (C) tosses in a confusing pronoun, which, while it isn't definitively wrong, isn't ideal either. (E) eliminates the pronoun, gets rid of the unnecessary clause and is generally clearer and more concise than the altered version of (C), so (E) is still our winner.

Takeaway: the broader point here is that SC is often about pinpointing definitive errors, but other times it's about making a side-by-side comparison and asking yourself which is better. By improving (C), we're essentially sliding it from the domain of "error" to the domain of "not wrong, but still not as good as an alternative answer."

I hope that helps!

egmat what is the error in the original questionas per your error analysis?

Hello arnav532,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can help resolve your doubt.

The main error in Option A is the use of the phrase "clues of determining", which leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the discovery of certain bones could provide important clues that could help determine how and when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies. Further, Option A uses the passive and needlessly wordy phrase "in addition to how, when", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

egmat

Can you please help in ruling out option C?

Option C - to determine how mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies and when they did

Per my understanding, 'They' can not logically refer to islands or West indies. The only logical referent is Mammals. SO pronoun ambiguity should not be an issue here. Is option C incorrect because of incorrect idiom 'to determine'. I believe the difference between 'to determine' and 'for determining' in the context of this question is too subtle to be considered a basis for elimination

Thanks, Devansh