GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 06 Apr 2020, 01:20

### 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

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

# Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 121
Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 02 Apr 2018, 06:34
2
1
10
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (01:25) correct 20% (01:42) wrong based on 711 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical makeup of the surface of Mars in recent eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was previously thought.

(A) eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was

(B) eras, therefore concluding that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water or more as was

(C) eras and have therefore concluded that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as

(D) eras and they have concluded, therefore, that its crust harbors up to three times as much water, or more, than

(E) eras and concluded, therefore, that the planet's crust is harboring up to three times more water as was

SPOILER:
Explain for me the "as well as previously thought" I don't get this.

Originally posted by gautrang on 09 Oct 2010, 20:58.
Last edited by hazelnut on 02 Apr 2018, 06:34, edited 2 times in total.
Formatted & moved the comments under spoiler
Retired Moderator
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5463
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2010, 22:49
4
4
A problem of using the correct comparative idiom

A. As much water than - wrong
B. as much water or more as water – wrong; should be at least as much water as or more water than to mean a sensible comparison
C. up to three times as much water as – correct idiom
D. as much water, or more, than - wrong. The completing as is missing and a comma is unduly intruding after more
E. more water as was - wrong; more water than is required.
_________________
One-to-one video private sessions on SC +91 98845 44509, <newnaren@gmail.com>
##### General Discussion
SVP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1725
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2019, 00:05
4
cool16 wrote:
Since in this sentence we have shift of tense from present to past , we have to keep verb in second part of comparison (during ellipses ) to convey proper tense of second part , otherwise the second part will confirm the present tense of first part .

Hi cool16, would just like to add few points to AjiteshArjun's post.

Your observation about the need to repeat the verb with the correct tense, if the tense is changing, is correct.

However, GMAT shows flexibility in this regard if the implied verb after the comparison indicator is a simple linking verb (especially is/was).

This is what's going on here:

....the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as (was) previously thought.

Since a simple linking verb (was) is being implied in the second part, it's fine to assume it, despite the tense change.

There are multiple other examples in OG:

Industry analysts said that the recent rise in fuel prices may be an early signal that prices of gasoline and heating oil will stay higher than usual through the end of the year.

Again, the actual sentence is:

...prices of gasoline and heating oil will stay higher than (is) usual....

Since a simple linking verb (is) is being implied in the second part, it's fine to assume it, despite the tense change.

Another example:

Heating-oil prices are expected to be higher this year than last because refiners are paving about \$5 a barrel more for crude oil than they were last year.

Again, the actual sentence is:

Heating-oil prices are expected to be higher this year than (were) last year

Since a simple linking verb (was) is being implied in the second part, it's fine to assume it, despite the tense change.

On the other hand, instead of a simple linking verb, if an action verb is involved and there is a tense change, then it becomes mandatory to explicitly mention the verb. So, following would be incorrect:

Peter works harder now than one year back.

Since an action verb (work) is involved, we need to explicitly mention the verb with the correct tense. So, the correct sentence would be:

Peter works harder now than he did one year back.
_________________
Thanks,
Ashish
GMAT-99th Percentile, MBA - ISB Hyderabad
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Join us for a free GMAT Live Online Class from anywhere in the world
Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2015
Posts: 29
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2016, 11:51
2
Here is the notes that I got from Thrursday's with Ron session on March, 26 2015 The use of AND

See the video from 31:40 to 48:00 below

Analysis:
- 2 Actions: The scientists ..
Action (1) ... found evidence
Action (2) ... concluded XXXXX
Separate, or Two aspects of the same action
Here the actions are ..
found evidence .. (evaluated it for some time) .. then concluded it ..
So, Action (2) is not instantaneous with Action (1)

- Option (A),(B) usage of ", __ing" is WRONG !!!

Example: Scientists have found signs that moving water existed on Mars in the planet's recent history, disproving the idea that Mars has always been dry.
Here "found signs" and ", disproving" are instantaneous actions. So usage of ",__ing" is correct here.

- Option (D) usage of ".. three time as much, or more, than ... " (need to use "AS MUCH AS" not "AS MUCH THAN")

- Option (E) usage of ".. is harboring .." means this is happeneing right now.. not what we mean.

CEO
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3174
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2019, 22:55
2
cool16 wrote:
AjiteshArun
Sorry , you did not get my point
Your example is totally different from the example in question
the example in question has a shift in verb tense .
in your example both entities in comparison are in past tense so we can ellipse verb as it will convey same tense.
But the example in question has present tense in first water and past in second , so to covey past tense in second entity we must require past verb "was" in option c , But its not there ...

for example lets take a simple example :

John is drinking more water than (is) Julie. => conveying john and julie drinking water at a same time.( same verb tense), we can omit "is " in second entity

John have drunk more water than julie did last monday => here if i omit did in second entity ,it will not convey intended meaning.

my question is what made the option c omit was and still correct
In the example you mentioned, Julie "borrows" the verb from "John". But that's the thing: option C is not an example of a tense shift.

Let's take another look at the key takeaways from the previous post: (a) the subject for was thought is it, and (b) water does not come into the picture until much later. That is, the first half does not "borrow" anything from the part before the than.

5. More water was lost than was previously thought. ← The was in was lost has nothing to do with the was in was thought. No "borrowing" going on here.
6. More water was lost than it was previously thought water was lost. ← This is where the was lost becomes relevant, when we get to water ("water was lost").

We can easily switch from the past to the present tense:

7. More water is lost than was previously thought. ← This sentence means that more water is lost (generally, on an ongoing basis) than ~"our previous estimates" of the same thing.
8. More water is lost than it was previously thought water is lost. ← This is to reinforce the fact that the is in is lost is not for was thought.

9. More water is lost than it is previously thought water is lost. ← Note how the word previously prevents us from interpreting the was in was thought as an is.

Now let's finish by removing the was, as it is not necessary. That is, with a previously, the reader understands that the idea has to be in the past tense.

10. More water is lost than previously thought.

Both these posts are quite dense, but I couldn't really tell how much detail you were looking for. If this post also didn't help, please don't hesitate to say that. Either I or someone else will give you an answer that you will find helpful.
_________________
CEO
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3174
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2019, 19:18
1
cool16 wrote:
Hi Expert
In OA (option C)
there is a comparison between Water now Vs Water that was previously thought.
so if we see the construction without ellipsis .we will see this
the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water than water that was previously thought.
Since in this sentence we have shift of tense from present to past , we have to keep verb in second part of comparison (during ellipses ) to convey proper tense of second part , otherwise the second part will confirm the present tense of first part .
As per my understanding the proper sentence after ellipses would be look like this

.....the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water than was previously thought.

Since i know the OA is absolutely correct . Please let me know where my reasoning is flawed?
Hi cool16,

You're absolutely right that this is an example of ellipsis. Let's take a simple sentence to see how ellipsis can work.

1. The GMAT is tougher than I thought. ← The use of ellipsis in this sentence is quite straightforward.

2. The GMAT is tougher than I thought it would be. ← The same sentence, with a few of the omitted words added.

3. The GMAT is tougher than I thought it would be tougher. ← Clearly, we can't just pick tougher up from the first half and put it in the second. Don't look at the "I thought it would be tougher" in isolation. That structure would be fine alone, but it is not correct when placed after than.

4. The GMAT is tougher than I thought it would be tough. ← This is the correct version of the sentence without any ellipsis. Again, don't look at the "I thought it would be tough" in isolation. Instead, think of it as an ~"amount", something like "how tough I thought the GMAT would be". So the sentence says that the GMAT is tougher than that ("tougher than how tough I thought it would be").

Now let's turn to the type of construction the question uses. One difference here is that we have a passive (was thought) after than. The biggest impact that this has on our analysis is that we cannot make water the subject of was thought (that is, we cannot say "water was thought"). We'll supply the words that have been omitted in a shorter (but similar) sentence.

5. More water was lost than was previously thought. ← Let's start with this sentence. This sentence is correct.

6. More water was lost than it was previously thought. ← Now we've supplied some of the missing words. This sentence is not correct though. We're not allowed to pick an arbitrary number of words to omit.

7. More water was lost than it was previously thought was lost. ← Now we've supplied enough of the missing words to make this sentence correct.

8. More water was lost than it was previously thought water was lost. ← Now we've added water in the right place.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 24 Apr 2018
Posts: 26
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2019, 20:27
1
AjiteshArun wrote:
cool16 wrote:
Hi Expert
In OA (option C)
there is a comparison between Water now Vs Water that was previously thought.
so if we see the construction without ellipsis .we will see this
the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water than water that was previously thought.
Since in this sentence we have shift of tense from present to past , we have to keep verb in second part of comparison (during ellipses ) to convey proper tense of second part , otherwise the second part will confirm the present tense of first part .
As per my understanding the proper sentence after ellipses would be look like this

.....the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water than was previously thought.

Since i know the OA is absolutely correct . Please let me know where my reasoning is flawed?
Hi cool16,

You're absolutely right that this is an example of ellipsis. Let's take a simple sentence to see how ellipsis can work.

1. The GMAT is tougher than I thought. ← The use of ellipsis in this sentence is quite straightforward.

2. The GMAT is tougher than I thought it would be. ← The same sentence, with a few of the omitted words added.

3. The GMAT is tougher than I thought it would be tougher. ← Clearly, we can't just pick tougher up from the first half and put it in the second. Don't look at the "I thought it would be tougher" in isolation. That structure would be fine alone, but it is not correct when placed after than.

4. The GMAT is tougher than I thought it would be tough. ← This is the correct version of the sentence without any ellipsis. Again, don't look at the "I thought it would be tough" in isolation. Instead, think of it as an ~"amount", something like "how tough I thought the GMAT would be". So the sentence says that the GMAT is tougher than that ("tougher than how tough I thought it would be").

Now let's turn to the type of construction the question uses. One difference here is that we have a passive (was thought) after than. The biggest impact that this has on our analysis is that we cannot make water the subject of was thought (that is, we cannot say "water was thought"). We'll supply the words that have been omitted in a shorter (but similar) sentence.

5. More water was lost than was previously thought. ← Let's start with this sentence. This sentence is correct.

6. More water was lost than it was previously thought. ← Now we've supplied some of the missing words. This sentence is not correct though. We're not allowed to pick an arbitrary number of words to omit.

7. More water was lost than it was previously thought was lost. ← Now we've supplied enough of the missing words to make this sentence correct.

8. More water was lost than it was previously thought water was lost. ← Now we've added water in the right place.

AjiteshArun
Sorry , you did not get my point
Your example is totally different from the example in question
the example in question has a shift in verb tense .
in your example both entities in comparison are in past tense so we can ellipse verb as it will convey same tense.
But the example in question has present tense in first water and past in second , so to covey past tense in second entity we must require past verb "was" in option c , But its not there ...

for example lets take a simple example :

John is drinking more water than (is) Julie. => conveying john and julie drinking water at a same time.( same verb tense), we can omit "is " in second entity

John have drunk more water than julie did last monday => here if i omit did in second entity ,it will not convey intended meaning.

my question is what made the option c omit was and still correct
Retired Moderator
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5463
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2010, 22:52
Explain for me the "as well as previously thought" I don't get this.

Does this question pertain to this problem?
_________________
One-to-one video private sessions on SC +91 98845 44509, <newnaren@gmail.com>
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 74
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2010, 00:24
the correct idiom is AS ... AS (do not miss 2nd one)
if there is COMPARATIVE form, there comes THAN
Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 889
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2011, 14:36
+1 C

Parallelism.
Idioms: "more" requires "than", otherwise it is wrong.
_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings
Manager
Joined: 09 Aug 2010
Posts: 72
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2011, 18:43
It makes me wonder if the GMAT keep the sentences correctly punctuated. I did not eliminate using idioms. Haha! I just saw that therefore should follow semicolon... and leaves me with C and D... But D has two stand alone clause not separated by a comma and AND...

So I got C. Hmmm... Wonder if that was pure coincidence

gautrang wrote:
Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical makeup of the surface of Mars in recent eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was previously thought.

(A) eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was
(B) eras, therefore concluding that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water or more as was
(C) eras and have therefore concluded that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as
(D) eras and they have concluded, therefore, that its crust harbors up to three times as much water, or more, than
(E) eras and concluded, therefore, that the planet's crust is harboring up to three times more water as was

SPOILER:

Explain for me the "as well as previously thought" I don't get this.
Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2010
Posts: 192
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Other)
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2011, 03:25
gautrang wrote:
Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical makeup of the surface of Mars in recent eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was previously thought.

(A) eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was
(B) eras, therefore concluding that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water or more as was
(C) eras and have therefore concluded that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as
(D) eras and they have concluded, therefore, that its crust harbors up to three times as much water, or more, than
(E) eras and concluded, therefore, that the planet's crust is harboring up to three times more water as was

SPOILER:

Explain for me the "as well as previously thought" I don't get this.

It may sound rude but does it take too much to underline the incorrect part? to me a senetence with out underline looks like a gibrish all over
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 43
WE 1: Deloitte 3 yrs
WE 2: Prok going on
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2011, 03:22
gautrang wrote:
Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical makeup of the surface of Mars in recent eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was previously thought.

(A) eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was
(B) eras, therefore concluding that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water or more as was
(C) eras and have therefore concluded that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as
(D) eras and they have concluded, therefore, that its crust harbors up to three times as much water, or more, than
(E) eras and concluded, therefore, that the planet's crust is harboring up to three times more water as was

SPOILER:

Explain for me the "as well as previously thought" I don't get this.

A) Lack of parallelism
Scientists have found signs......eras, therefore concluding that .....
B) Out for same reason.
C) Seems good..keep it on hold.
D) Wrong: as much water, or more, than
E) Wrong: times more water as was

So it is C.
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 126
Concentration: Technology, Other
Schools: Berkeley Haas
GMAT Date: 01-14-2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2015, 06:50
A , B are wrong because we have IC connected to another IC by a comma .

the idiom is as much as or more than
In D 'as much , more than' is incorrect
In E 'more as' is incorrect

That keeps us with C which is the correct answer
Intern
Joined: 08 Feb 2016
Posts: 36
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2016, 09:53
Scientists (parallel elements)
- have found
- concluding

(A) eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was
- continuous tense is unnecessary. As X as construct missing. “Was” is redundant as “thought” is in past tense already
(B) eras, therefore concluding that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water or more as was
- continuous tense is unnecessary. “Was” is redundant as “thought” is in past tense already
(C) eras and have therefore concluded that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as
- correct
(D) eras and they have concluded, therefore, that its crust harbors up to three times as much water, or more, than
– "as a result of missing" with "therefore" as a modifier. More X than Y construct missing and As X as construct not correct.
(E) eras and concluded, therefore, that the planet's crust is harboring up to three times more water as was
– as a result of missing with therefore as a modifier. More X than Y construct missing. Continuous tense is unnecessary. “Was” is redundant as “thought” is in past tense already

Thanks
_________________
Once you know the answer, it is easy to justify.
Manager
Joined: 03 Aug 2016
Posts: 95
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GPA: 4
WE: Design (Transportation)
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2016, 03:13
Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical makeup of the surface of Mars in recent eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was previously thought.

(A) eras, therefore concluding that its crust is harboring up to three times as much water than was
(B) eras, therefore concluding that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water or more as was
(C) eras and have therefore concluded that the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as
(D) eras and they have concluded, therefore, that its crust harbors up to three times as much water, or more, than
(E) eras and concluded, therefore, that the planet's crust is harboring up to three times more water as was

D is wrong because of AS MUCH AS. But is the construction eras and they have correct? 2 independent clause so there must be a COMMA before AND.
Is it correct?
What about placement of therefore in C, D, & E ?
Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2015
Posts: 200
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V26
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 May 2017, 07:39
daagh wrote:
A problem of using the correct comparative idiom

A. As much water than - wrong
B. as much water or more as water – wrong; should be at least as much water as or more water than to mean a sensible comparison
C. up to three times as much water as – correct idiom
D. as much water, or more, than - wrong. The completing as is missing and a comma is unduly intruding after more
E. more water as was - wrong; more water than is required.

daagh Sir,

Apart from the as...as and more.... than split,I have a question on this perticular problem.Is "concluding" wrong because it is not an instantaneous action?
Retired Moderator
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5463
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 May 2017, 10:36
Top Contributor
techie

How did you deduce that concluding was not instant and must have happened long after? For all that, the scientists may have concluded the same moment they saw the evidence
_________________
One-to-one video private sessions on SC +91 98845 44509, <newnaren@gmail.com>
Manager
Joined: 28 May 2018
Posts: 150
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 640 Q45 V35
GMAT 2: 670 Q45 V37
GMAT 3: 730 Q50 V40
Re: Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2018, 21:13

I had previously marked C. I had completely missed the application of "more than" concept here .
"3 times as much as.. or more than " is correct.

Besides, I also thought that the "concluding" is a result of finding signs. So i went with C. But now I see that B is a better choice because of IDIOM error.
Intern
Joined: 24 Apr 2018
Posts: 26
Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 30 Apr 2019, 05:50
Hi Expert
In OA (option C)
there is a comparison between Water now Vs Water that was previously thought.
so if we see the construction without ellipsis .we will see this
the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as water that was previously thought.
Since in this sentence we have shift of tense from present to past , we have to keep verb in second part of comparison (during ellipses ) to convey proper tense of second part , otherwise the second part will conform the present tense of first part .
As per my understanding the proper sentence after ellipses would be look like this

.....the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as was previously thought.

Since i know the OA is absolutely correct . Please let me know where my reasoning is flawed?

Edit: it was a typo , mistakenly i put that in place of as, Now it is correct.

Originally posted by cool16 on 29 Apr 2019, 15:26.
Last edited by cool16 on 30 Apr 2019, 05:50, edited 4 times in total.
Scientists have found signs that moving water changed the chemical   [#permalink] 29 Apr 2019, 15:26

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by