Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 22:40 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 22:40
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   5 
655-705 Level|   Meaning/Logical Predication|   Modifiers|   Parallelism|   Pronouns|   Verb Tense/Form|   Verb Tense/Form|                           
User avatar
AWasey
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jan 2019
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 174
Own Kudos:
37
Given Kudos: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: Booth '26 (S) CBS '26 Duke '26 Haas '26 (S) HBS '26 (S) INSEAD Jan '27 Kellogg '26 LBS '26 Sloan '26 Stanford '26 (S) Wharton  '26 (S) Yale '26
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36
GMAT 2: 730 Q51 V38
GMAT 3: 770 Q51 V45
GPA: 4
WE:Project Management (Technology)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Booth '26 (S) CBS '26 Duke '26 Haas '26 (S) HBS '26 (S) INSEAD Jan '27 Kellogg '26 LBS '26 Sloan '26 Stanford '26 (S) Wharton  '26 (S) Yale '26
GMAT 3: 770 Q51 V45
Posts: 174
Kudos: 37
Starfish, with anywhere from five to eight arms, have a strong regener 14 Oct 2023, 01:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Issue i see here is that:

'If' has past tense verb, hence then must have either past tense or 'would'.
In 'Then' clause we can have present tense only when we have Present in 'If'. Please clarify why this rule doesn't apply here?

GMATNinja
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.

And in this case? In the non-underlined portion, we have the phrase “Starfish… have a strong regenerative capacity…” So “starfish” is definitely plural, at least in the beginning of the sentence. (And yes, this explanation has been edited to correct my original error. File under: even ninjas write dumb things in the wee hours of the morning.)

Quote:
(A) one arm is lost it quickly replaces it, sometimes by the animal overcompensating and
Hopefully, the word “it” leaps off the page at you immediately – both of them. Logically, we know that the first “it” needs to refer back to “starfish”, and the second “it” refers back to “arm.” But in its current form, it’s awfully confusing: “it” appears twice in close succession, but the two pronouns refer back to different things? That’s not cool.

And more importantly, “it” can’t refer back to “starfish” anyway, since the beginning of the sentence indicates that “starfish” is plural.

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.

Either way, we can do better than (A).

Quote:
(B) one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating and
OK, this “it” looks much better. The word “arm” is the closest potential referent to “it”, so we’re OK here: “… if one arm is lost [the arm] is quickly replaced…” Cool.

I don’t love the use of “with” here, but I can’t see why it’s wrong, exactly. And the meaning makes sense: sometimes, the animal overcompensates and grows an extra arm. That’s kind of creepy from a biological standpoint, but perfectly OK grammatically. “Overcompensating” and “growing” are two parallel actions that are sometimes taken by the animal – and I see no reason why the two actions can’t be parallel.

Let’s keep (B).

Quote:
(C) they lose one arm they quickly replace it, sometimes by the animal overcompensating,
The pronouns aren’t horrible here: “it” clearly refers to the arm and “they” presumably refers to starfish. But I think you could make a case that there MIGHT be a pronoun ambiguity issue with “they”, since “arms” is actually the plural noun that’s closest to the pronoun “they.” This isn’t an automatic elimination, since pronoun ambiguity isn’t an absolute rule on the GMAT, but it’s something you should always notice. (More on pronoun ambiguity in this YouTube video.)

But here’s the really important part: the use of “by the animal overcompensating” still doesn’t make any sense (see answer choice A above). The starfish doesn’t replace the arm by overcompensating; it just happens to overcompensate sometimes and grow an extra arm.

Because of the meaning issue, (C) can be eliminated.

Quote:
(D) they lose one arm they are quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating,
Again, we could argue that the first “they” isn’t automatically wrong, even though it’s potentially ambiguous – “they” could again refer to “arms” or “starfish.” But the second “they” is absolute nonsense, since “arm” is a singular noun in this particular chunk of the sentence. So (D) is gone, too.

Quote:
(E) they lose one arm it is quickly replaced, sometimes with the animal overcompensating,
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).
Show more
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
Starfish, with anywhere from five to eight arms, have a strong regener 19 Oct 2023, 10:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AWasey
Issue i see here is that:

'If' has past tense verb, hence then must have either past tense or 'would'.

In 'Then' clause we can have present tense only when we have Present in 'If'. Please clarify why this rule doesn't apply here?
Show more
In choice (B) we have: "if one arm IS lost [then] it [IS] quickly replaced..." Both verbs are present tense, so that fits with the "rule" you cited. Just be a bit careful with this sort of thing: grammar "rules" are often subjective and unreliable when it comes to GMAT SC, so try not to rely on them too much.

I hope that helps a bit!
User avatar
mcepeci
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2018
Last visit: 30 Jun 2025
Posts: 20
Posts: 20
Kudos: 0
Starfish, with anywhere from five to eight arms, have a strong regener 07 May 2025, 15:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
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.

And in this case? In the non-underlined portion, we have the phrase “Starfish... have a strong regenerative capacity...” So “starfish” is definitely plural, at least in the beginning of the sentence. (And yes, this explanation has been edited to correct my original error. File under: even ninjas write dumb things in the wee hours of the morning.)

Quote:
(A) one arm is lost it quickly replaces it, sometimes by the animal overcompensating and
Hopefully, the word “it” leaps off the page at you immediately – both of them. Logically, we know that the first “it” needs to refer back to “starfish”, and the second “it” refers back to “arm.” But in its current form, it’s awfully confusing: “it” appears twice in close succession, but the two pronouns refer back to different things? That’s not cool.

And more importantly, “it” can’t refer back to “starfish” anyway, since the beginning of the sentence indicates that “starfish” is plural.

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.

Either way, we can do better than (A).

Quote:
(B) one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating and
OK, this “it” looks much better. The word “arm” is the closest potential referent to “it”, so we’re OK here: “... if one arm is lost [the arm] is quickly replaced...” Cool.

I don’t love the use of “with” here, but I can’t see why it’s wrong, exactly. And the meaning makes sense: sometimes, the animal overcompensates and grows an extra arm. That’s kind of creepy from a biological standpoint, but perfectly OK grammatically. “Overcompensating” and “growing” are two parallel actions that are sometimes taken by the animal – and I see no reason why the two actions can’t be parallel.

Let’s keep (B).

Quote:
(C) they lose one arm they quickly replace it, sometimes by the animal overcompensating,
The pronouns aren’t horrible here: “it” clearly refers to the arm and “they” presumably refers to starfish. But I think you could make a case that there MIGHT be a pronoun ambiguity issue with “they”, since “arms” is actually the plural noun that’s closest to the pronoun “they.” This isn’t an automatic elimination, since pronoun ambiguity isn’t an absolute rule on the GMAT, but it’s something you should always notice. (More on pronoun ambiguity in this YouTube video.)

But here’s the really important part: the use of “by the animal overcompensating” still doesn’t make any sense (see answer choice A above). The starfish doesn’t replace the arm by overcompensating; it just happens to overcompensate sometimes and grow an extra arm.

Because of the meaning issue, (C) can be eliminated.

Quote:
(D) they lose one arm they are quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating,
Again, we could argue that the first “they” isn’t automatically wrong, even though it’s potentially ambiguous – “they” could again refer to “arms” or “starfish.” But the second “they” is absolute nonsense, since “arm” is a singular noun in this particular chunk of the sentence. So (D) is gone, too.

Quote:
(E) they lose one arm it is quickly replaced, sometimes with the animal overcompensating,
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).
Show more
How could growing and overcompensating be two distinct parallel actions? Growing an extra arm is explaining how the starfish is overcompensating. Aren't they the same action?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
 [1]
Starfish, with anywhere from five to eight arms, have a strong regener 09 May 2025, 08:34
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mcepeci
How could growing and overcompensating be two distinct parallel actions? Growing an extra arm is explaining how the starfish is overcompensating. Aren't they the same action?
Show more
(Note: this refers to this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/starfish-wit ... l#p1957736.)

We didn't use the word "distinct" because, yes, they are technically the same action. It's a lot like this:


"Tim was overwhelmed by the number of beer options at Delirium Cafe, so he panicked and ordered a water."

Yes, both verbs technically refer to the same action, but they are still two parallel things done by Tim. Tim could have ordered a water without panicking. Or he could have panicked without ordering a water. Instead, he did both.

In short, two parallel verbs do not necessarily need to represent two completely distinct actions.

I hope that helps!
   1   2   3   4   5 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts