Starfish, with anywhere from five to eight arms, have a strong regener

Dear JusTLucK04,
I am happy to respond to your p.m.

I realize this is an official question, but I would call this problem one of GMAC's clunkers. It has a clear answer, but it falls short of the standards that the GMAT normally has on SC. In particular, the "with" + [noun] + [participial phrase] structure, as a substitute for a clause, is often something GMAC has considered wrong in other, better written questions, but here it is simply unavoidable. To umeshpatil, I would say: in the active voice, neither "with" nor "by" is ideal; for a new action, ideally we should have a whole new clause.

First of all, the first part is more elegant in (B):
(B) one arm is lost it is quickly replaced = concise and elegant
(E) they lose one arm it is quickly replaced = awkward
The former focuses exclusively on one subject, "one arm;" it has rhetorical focus. The latter jumps back and forth between two subjects --- the "starfish" and the "one arm." If (E) were entirely active, "if they lose one arm, they replace it," then there would be a consistent subject and consistent active voice. As it stands, (E) juxtaposes two subjects and also juxtaposes active vs. passive voice, all in a tiny clause. It's very awkward.

One crucial split in this sentence is the placement of the word "sometimes" --- exactly what should this word modify? We are already talking about the event in which the starfish loses an arm. Obviously, if the arm is replace, the animal is always the one who replaces it. The "sometimes" refers to the events in which multiple arms replace a single arm --- that sometimes happens. The placement in (E),
(E) ... sometimes with the animal overcompensating ...
suggests that sometimes the animal's action replaces the arm, and sometimes is something other than the animal replacing the arm. That's nonsensical. By contrast, (B) has:
(B) ... with the animal sometimes overcompensating and ...
Yes. It's the overcompensating that happens only sometimes, but it is always the action of the animal.

Finally, for the split at the end: this is one respect in which (B) is not ideal. I think it is awkward to put those two participles in parallel, "overcompensating and growing ..." Really, those are not two separate actions. Instead, the latter is an explanation of the former: what do we mean that starfish "overcompensates"? We mean that the starfish sometimes grows extra arms. It is an explanation of the same action, not a new action. Therefore, I think putting the two participles in parallel is less than ideal. It would be much better to give them the relationship that (E) has: "overcompensating, [that is to say] growing ..."

So (B) is the best answer, but it is not ideal. In fact, the entire question is not ideal, and it's no surprise that the GMAT got rid of it in its current material.

Let me know if anyone has any further questions.
Mike

So there’s an interesting thing in this question: “starfish” could, in theory, be either singular or plural. (Much like the word “media” or “data” or “deer” or diabetes.) The GMAT has a very consistent habit in these cases: the sentence will always give you some other indication of whether the word is singular or plural.


This is awfully tempting, and I don’t think that there are any DEFINITE reasons to prefer (E) over (B). But there are a bunch of things that make (B) very, very slightly better.

Let’s line this one up with (B) to make it easier to compare them:

(B) one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating and
(E) they lose one arm it is quickly replaced, sometimes with the animal overcompensating,

So we have three meaningful differences here, and none of them are smoking guns, but all of them seem to point in the same direction.

In that first chunk of the sentence, the big difference is that (E) uses the pronoun “they”, which is potentially ambiguous, since it could refer back to “starfish” or “arms” – and since “arms” is the most recent plural, you could argue that “they” is a legit problem here. Honestly, I’m not completely convinced by this – there are plenty of official SC questions with similar ambiguities in the correct answers. But in this case, the pronoun issue gives me a very slight preference for (B).

Second, we have some funny business with the placement of the word “sometimes.” The thing that “sometimes” happens is “overcompensating”, so it makes sense to have “sometimes” right next to that word. Is it totally wrong to say “sometimes with the animal overcompensating”? Nope. But again, I’d have a very slight preference for (B) based on the placement of “sometimes.”

And the third thing? In (B), “overcompensating” and “growing” are two parallel actions. In other words, the animal sometimes does two things: it overcompensates and grows an extra arm or two. That makes enough sense. In (E), “growing” has been turned into a modifier (“sometimes with the animal overcompensating, growing an extra arm or two”), and I’m not sure that it’s wrong, but it seems a little bit odd to me: when do you ever see an "-ing" participle modifying another "-ing" participle? Meaning-wise, I suppose you could argue that “growing” tells us extra information about when happens when the animal is “overcompensating”, but I think it makes more sense to keep the two actions (“growing” and “overcompensating”) parallel.

Honestly, I don’t think that any of these three issues are crystal-clear, slam-dunk reasons to eliminate (E). If I were seeing this question on an actual exam for the very first time, I’d say a quick prayer to the GMAT gods before picking (B) and moving on -- but at least I'd be comforted by the notion that all three of those little issues point in half-assed unison toward (B).

Okay so I understood all the explanations for why B is the correct answer. But when I first solved this question I eliminated B as it says "one arm is lost it is quickly replaced" and to me it sounds like someone else is doing the replacing and not the starfish.

For eg:- When a F1 cars are racing, and if one tire bursts it is quickly replaced.

Plus, the meaning of the last part of the underlined portion is funky: the phrase “by the animal overcompensating” suggests that the overcompensation is how the starfish replaces its arm. And that doesn’t actually make sense.

AndrewN

Hi,

could you please clarify minor doubts with your comments!

1. In this post it says that- option B, the right choice is active, and is preferred because of meaning implications. Any comments?

2. list of modifiers at the end - overcompensating and growing should necessarily be joined with 'AND'? Is it a rule?

[modifier 1, modifier 2, modified entity + verb +object ] Do I need a AND here as well?

3. Moreover, in this question we did not really separate out dependent and independent clause with a comma i.e

[........... , and if they loose one arm they quickly replace it ]

I am assuming '' , and'' started a independent clause
''if'' started a dependent clause + comma+ independent clause -- should have been a full independent clause containing nested sub clauses.

happy holidays. I did select the OA but i did have 2 quick questions

------------------------------------

Q1) Is 'starfish' a collective noun ? It is.

Per my understanding -- collective nouns are singular if we are stressing the 'uniformity' or 'togetherness' of the group

Aren't we doing just that ? we are stressing the 'uniformity' of the starfish (i.e. -- all starfish do this)

Hence I thought, the intended goal was to stress 'uniformity' / 'common characteristic'

Hence i was confused about the plural "have"

"Have" is non-underlined so its not really an issue but theoritically, there is something wrong in my theory.

Q2) The placement of word "sometimes" in (B) vs (E).

I see that there are other issues in (B) vs (E) but the placement of word "sometimes" is apparently a genuine split.

I am not able to 'enunciate' why the placement of "sometimes" changes the meaning in (C) vs (E).

Could you think of a simple analogy, with the usage of the word 'sometimes', to perhaps explain how the placement of the adverb "Sometimes" is muddling the meaning.in (E)

Thank you !

Q1) Is 'starfish' a collective noun ? It is.

Per my understanding -- collective nouns are singular if we are stressing the 'uniformity' or 'togetherness' of the group

Aren't we doing just that ? we are stressing the 'uniformity' of the starfish (i.e. -- all starfish do this)

Hence I thought, the intended goal was to stress 'uniformity' / 'common characteristic'

Hence i was confused about the plural "have"

"Have" is non-underlined so its not really an issue but theoritically, there is something wrong in my theory.

Q2) The placement of word "sometimes" in (B) vs (E).

I see that there are other issues in (B) vs (E) but the placement of word "sometimes" is apparently a genuine split.

I am not able to 'enunciate' why the placement of "sometimes" changes the meaning in (C) vs (E).

Could you think of a simple analogy, with the usage of the word 'sometimes', to perhaps explain how the placement of the adverb "Sometimes" is muddling the meaning.in (E)

(1) I drink soup, sometimes with a large spoon
vs
(2) I drink soup, with a spoon sometimes large

** large is analagous to overcompensating

Dear JusTLucK04,
I am happy to respond to your p.m.

I realize this is an official question, but I would call this problem one of GMAC's clunkers. It has a clear answer, but it falls short of the standards that the GMAT normally has on SC. In particular, the "with" + [noun] + [participial phrase] structure, as a substitute for a clause, is often something GMAC has considered wrong in other, better written questions, but here it is simply unavoidable. To umeshpatil, I would say: in the active voice, neither "with" nor "by" is ideal; for a new action, ideally we should have a whole new clause.

First of all, the first part is more elegant in (B):
(B) one arm is lost it is quickly replaced = concise and elegant
(E) they lose one arm it is quickly replaced = awkward
The former focuses exclusively on one subject, "one arm;" it has rhetorical focus. The latter jumps back and forth between two subjects --- the "starfish" and the "one arm." If (E) were entirely active, "if they lose one arm, they replace it," then there would be a consistent subject and consistent active voice. As it stands, (E) juxtaposes two subjects and also juxtaposes active vs. passive voice, all in a tiny clause. It's very awkward.

One crucial split in this sentence is the placement of the word "sometimes" --- exactly what should this word modify? We are already talking about the event in which the starfish loses an arm. Obviously, if the arm is replace, the animal is always the one who replaces it. The "sometimes" refers to the events in which multiple arms replace a single arm --- that sometimes happens. The placement in (E),
(E) ... sometimes with the animal overcompensating ...
suggests that sometimes the animal's action replaces the arm, and sometimes is something other than the animal replacing the arm. That's nonsensical. By contrast, (B) has:
(B) ... with the animal sometimes overcompensating and ...
Yes. It's the overcompensating that happens only sometimes, but it is always the action of the animal.

Finally, for the split at the end: this is one respect in which (B) is not ideal. I think it is awkward to put those two participles in parallel, "overcompensating and growing ..." Really, those are not two separate actions. Instead, the latter is an explanation of the former: what do we mean that starfish "overcompensates"? We mean that the starfish sometimes grows extra arms. It is an explanation of the same action, not a new action. Therefore, I think putting the two participles in parallel is less than ideal. It would be much better to give them the relationship that (E) has: "overcompensating, [that is to say] growing ..."

So (B) is the best answer, but it is not ideal. In fact, the entire question is not ideal, and it's no surprise that the GMAT got rid of it in its current material.

Let me know if anyone has any further questions.
Mike