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

 It is currently 08 Apr 2020, 21:37

### 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

# Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Status: Appearing for GMAT
Joined: 23 May 2011
Posts: 78
Location: United States (NJ)
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.5
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2011, 10:42
19
45
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

41% (02:02) correct 59% (02:08) wrong based on 1397 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing of eight war ships as “fireships,” vessels filled with pitch, brimstone, gunpowder, and tar and sent downwind toward the closely-anchored Spanish fleet.

A.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

B.The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

C.The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing

D.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrifice

E.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice
Senior Manager
Status: Making every effort to create original content for you!!
Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 464
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 08:47
17
1
ranjeet75 wrote:
Why C is wrong?

Hi ranjeet75,

C.The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing

The problem with (C) is the incorrect modification by the relative pronoun "which".

"stymied" means to prevent or hinder the progress. The logical meaning of the sentence should be that "the defeat" hindered the progress of Armada's plans (or as the sentence says "stymied the Armada's plans").

The relative clause starting with "which" is incorrectly modifying "the Spanish Armada", logically it should modify "the defeat". Note that "which" modifies the noun closest to it. Another error is the use of "sacrificing"; the word "sacrifice" can act as a noun here, so, we do not need to change it to the -ing form and make it stand as a noun

If we reword (C) as under then it will be correct:

C'. The Spanish Armada's defeat, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrifice

In the corrected version above the relative clause starting with "which" is correctly modifying "the defeat". The second correction is in the use of the noun "the sacrifice" in place of gerund "sacrificing"

Hope this helps,

Vercules
_________________
##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 48
Schools: IIM
Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Apr 2012, 15:56
_________________________
Why C is wrong?
Retired Moderator
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5478
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 09:22
3
1
A. Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing -- not only due to --- but also--- wrong //ism

B. the defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing --- not only due to but also the sacrificing – wrong //ism

C tha defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing ---correlative //ism is ok but, but has relative pronoun touch rule problem

D.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrifice ---- modification problem ‘ What stymied was not the reason, but the defeat;

E.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice--- speckless
_________________
One-to-one video private sessions on SC +91 98845 44509, <newnaren@gmail.com>
Manager
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 179
Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GMAT Date: 07-25-2013
GPA: 3.83
WE: Architecture (Computer Hardware)
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Mar 2013, 07:56
can someone clarify me the touch rule, i have seen in few OG questions also that if noun+prepostional phrase,which ---if this format is used then i have seen in few sentences that which jumps and modifies the noun instead of the prepostional phrase which is closest to it .can someone explain this rule with some examples
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2983
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Mar 2013, 06:16
1
skamal7 wrote:
can someone clarify me the touch rule, i have seen in few OG questions also that if noun+prepostional phrase,which ---if this format is used then i have seen in few sentences that which jumps and modifies the noun instead of the prepostional phrase which is closest to it .can someone explain this rule with some examples

Hi skamal7,

You can read the following article to understand when a noun modifier can jump over a prepositional phrase to modify the noun before that phrase:
noun-modifiers-can-modify-slightly-far-away-noun-135868.html

This thread also contians a few official sentences and their explanation.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
_________________
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2983
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Mar 2013, 06:48
13
1
Hi all,

This is the sentence with choice C:

Choice C: The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing of eight war ships as “fireships,” vessels filled with pitch, brimstone, gunpowder, and tar and sent downwind toward the closely-anchored Spanish fleet.

There is no problem with the modification of “which” in this choice. It does not make sense for “which” to modify the immediate preceding noun “the Spanish Armada”. Also notice that this noun cannot be placed anywhere else in the sentence without violating the meaning of the sentence. So “which” can very well jump over “of the Spanish Armada” and can correctly modify “The defeat”.

The link posted in my above post contains a deatil article on the same topic. It deals with when “which” or any other noun modifier can jump over entities to make logical modification and when it cannot. Solve this question from GMAT Prep for the similar use of the logical modification by a noun modifier:

From studies of the bony house of the brain, which is the cranium, located in the back of the skull, come what scientists know about dinosaur brains.

(A) From studies of the bony house of the brain, which is the cranium, located in the back of the skull, come what scientists know about dinosaur brains.
(B) The knowledge that scientists know about dinosaur brains comes from studies of the bony house of the brain, located in the back of the skull, that is, the cranium.
(C) The knowledge of dinosaur brains that scientists have come from studies of the bony house of the brain, which is located in the back of the skull and is called the cranium.
(D) What scientists know about dinosaur brains comes from studies of the cranium, the bony house of the brain located in the back of the skull.
(E) Located in the back of the skull is the cranium, the bony house of the brain, and it is from studies of this that scientists know what they know about dinosaur brains.

Now let’s get back to this question. The issue with Choice C is the use of “sacrificing” is not correct. We need an entity that must be parallel to “gale winds”, a noun entity. Now “sacrificing” is also a nou in that it is a gerund. However, when a sentence requires the usage of the noun form of a word, we must use the main noun form of the word and not the “ing” noun form. Hence, we need to use “the sacrifice” here instead of “the sacrificing”.

Hope this helps.
Thnaks.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 223
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2013, 16:45
I can't seem to get a certain part of parallelism in my head.

For example, in choice A - " not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing " From what i've been reading - the whole phrase - "not only due to" needs to be in // to sacrificing? Why is that? Why can't it just be "due to gale winds" to "sacrificing" in which case, wouldn't it be parallel? Can't I assume that the "due to" carries over to "sacrificing" and "gale winds"?

In option C - "not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing " = How is this considered //? Due to gale winds(past) vs. due to sacrificing which is an ing -- present?

My issue is always with the "amount of words" I consider to be parallel. If someone could clarify this issue, which is present in a lot of 700 level questions, I will be eternally grateful.

Thanks!
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2983
Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2013, 10:25
russ9 wrote:
I can't seem to get a certain part of parallelism in my head, any advice will be appreciated.

For example, in choice A - " not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing " From what i've been reading - the whole phrase - "not only due to" needs to be in // to "sacrificing"? Why is that? Why can't it just be "due to gale winds" // to "sacrificing" in which case, wouldn't this represent the correct // structure? Can't I assume that the "due to" carries over to "sacrificing" and "gale winds"?

In option C - "not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing " = How is this considered //? Due to gale winds(past) vs. due to sacrificing which is an ing -- present?

My issue is always with the "amount of words" I consider to be parallel. If someone could clarify this issue, which is present in a lot of 700 level questions, I will be eternally grateful.

Thanks!

Hi russ9,

The parallel list always contains a marker. Markers are the words that join the entities in the parallel list. The markers can be divided into two categories: a. Single-word Markers and b. Double-word Markers.

You can read the following article for more detail on this topic:
http://gmatclub.com/forum/markers-in-pa ... 39076.html

This sentence also employs a parallelism marker. That marker is "not only... but also...". It is evident that it is a Double-word Marker. And the rule to apply these markers is that they must be followed by "grammatically as well logically identical entities".

So basically, not only X but also Y where X must be parallel to Y.

Now in Choice A: X = due to gale winds...
Y = the sacrificing...

These entities are not parallel. We must repeat "due to" after :but also" as well to make both the entities "identical". This is the reason why Choice A is incorrect.

Now let's analyze if Choice C is correct on parallelism: X = gale winds...
Y = the sacrificing...

As I have already mentioned in my previous post, these two entities APPEAR to be parallel because both are Noun Entities, but these entities are NOT parallel. The reason is that "gale winds" is a "proper noun entity" but "the sacrificing" is not a "proper noun entity". It is a verb-ing noun ( a gerund) that actually denotes an action. So an action word CANNOT be parallel to a noun word. So Choice C also fails in parallelism.

Now let's analyze the correct answer Choice E for parallelism: X = gale winds...
Y = the sacrifice...
Here both the entities are "identically parallel entities". They both are perfect noun entities.

So, whenever we have a Double-word Marker, we must make sure that they both are followed by he "identical entities".

One more thing I would like to talk about is that "the sacrificing" is a noun. A noun does not have tense. Only verbs have tense. Even if "sacrificing" end with "-ing", it does not show any tense. So there is no question of "sacrificing" being in present tense.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
_________________
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4478
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2014, 11:29
1
rphardu wrote:
Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing of eight war ships as “fireships,” vessels filled with pitch, brimstone, gunpowder, and tar and sent downwind toward the closely-anchored Spanish fleet.

A.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

B.The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

C.The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing

D.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrifice

E.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice

JusTLucK04 wrote:
Hello Mike,
Here the sacrifice vs Sacrificing: Proper Noun Usage Vs Action noun usage(Gerund) is the reason for later being wrong..I dont get it..Please post your expert comments or kindly share the magoosh link which guides us on such a usage
Thank You

Dear JusTLucK04,
I'm happy to respond.

This is hard, because there isn't any universal "rule" for this. The construction of "the sacrifice of" sounds 100% perfectly natural, and "the sacrificing of" sounds unutterably awkward and incorrect. As a very vague rule, I would say --- if the gerund makes the word longer, then there's less of a reason to use it. With many nouns, say "identification," the noun form is a much longer word than the gerund, "identifying," so the gerund might make the sentence more concise and direct. This is just a vague general guideline. It very much depends on the individual words --- I have never heard "the sacrificing of" used in a correct English sentence.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 223
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2014, 16:15
mikemcgarry wrote:
rphardu wrote:
Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing of eight war ships as “fireships,” vessels filled with pitch, brimstone, gunpowder, and tar and sent downwind toward the closely-anchored Spanish fleet.

A.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

B.The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

C.The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing

D.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrifice

E.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice

JusTLucK04 wrote:
Hello Mike,
Here the sacrifice vs Sacrificing: Proper Noun Usage Vs Action noun usage(Gerund) is the reason for later being wrong..I dont get it..Please post your expert comments or kindly share the magoosh link which guides us on such a usage
Thank You

Dear JusTLucK04,
I'm happy to respond.

This is hard, because there isn't any universal "rule" for this. The construction of "the sacrifice of" sounds 100% perfectly natural, and "the sacrificing of" sounds unutterably awkward and incorrect. As a very vague rule, I would say --- if the gerund makes the word longer, then there's less of a reason to use it. With many nouns, say "identification," the noun form is a much longer word than the gerund, "identifying," so the gerund might make the sentence more concise and direct. This is just a vague general guideline. It very much depends on the individual words --- I have never heard "the sacrificing of" used in a correct English sentence.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike,

To add to "C" -- isn't "the sacrificing of" considered a complex gerund? Aren't complex gerunds parallel to action nouns, which in this case, is "gale winds"?

Thanks!
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4478
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2014, 09:57
1
russ9 wrote:
Hi Mike,

To add to "C" -- isn't "the sacrificing of" considered a complex gerund? Aren't complex gerunds parallel to action nouns, which in this case, is "gale winds"?

Thanks!

Dear Russ9,
I'm happy to respond.

Remember that GMAT SC is always operating at a few different levels: grammatical, logical, and rhetorical. What works perfectly fine on one level might not work at all at another level.

At the level of grammar, yes, it's 100% true that a complex gerund can be parallel to an action noun. Is "gall winds" an action noun? I would say not. It does not represent an action that anyone performs. It's a thing in the world --- a particularly high-energy thing, but a thing nonetheless. I doubt whether we can call it an action noun.

Nevertheless, suppose we had another action noun, "quick decision" or "careful deliberation" or something of that sort. Then, at the level of grammar, it would be 100% correct to put it in parallel with "the sacrificing of."

That was the level of grammar. At the level of rhetoric, the construction "the sacrificing of" is an complete abomination that should be taken out back and shot. It has absolutely no place at all in a correct sentence for any reason under the sun.

The GMAT loves to trap people who are stuck at the level of grammatical analysis, who fall into the trap of thinking --- well, if something is grammatically correct, then it must be perfectly fine in every way. It's very important to appreciate that the GMAT SC section is full of 100% grammatically correct answer choices that are absolutely wrong, for logical and/or rhetorical reasons.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 223
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2014, 17:18
mikemcgarry wrote:
russ9 wrote:
Hi Mike,

To add to "C" -- isn't "the sacrificing of" considered a complex gerund? Aren't complex gerunds parallel to action nouns, which in this case, is "gale winds"?

Thanks!

Dear Russ9,
I'm happy to respond.

Remember that GMAT SC is always operating at a few different levels: grammatical, logical, and rhetorical. What works perfectly fine on one level might not work at all at another level.

At the level of grammar, yes, it's 100% true that a complex gerund can be parallel to an action noun. Is "gall winds" an action noun? I would say not. It does not represent an action that anyone performs. It's a thing in the world --- a particularly high-energy thing, but a thing nonetheless. I doubt whether we can call it an action noun.

Nevertheless, suppose we had another action noun, "quick decision" or "careful deliberation" or something of that sort. Then, at the level of grammar, it would be 100% correct to put it in parallel with "the sacrificing of."

That was the level of grammar. At the level of rhetoric, the construction "the sacrificing of" is an complete abomination that should be taken out back and shot. It has absolutely no place at all in a correct sentence for any reason under the sun.

The GMAT loves to trap people who are stuck at the level of grammatical analysis, who fall into the trap of thinking --- well, if something is grammatically correct, then it must be perfectly fine in every way. It's very important to appreciate that the GMAT SC section is full of 100% grammatically correct answer choices that are absolutely wrong, for logical and/or rhetorical reasons.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks for the clarification.

P.S: SC has taken over -- would it make more sense for me to say "Thanks for clarifying" vs. "thanks for the clarification". I would say that it's clarifying since the latter is a fragment.
P.P.S: I'm going nuts.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4478
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 May 2014, 09:24
russ9 wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.

P.S: SC has taken over -- would it make more sense for me to say "Thanks for clarifying" vs. "thanks for the clarification". I would say that it's clarifying since the latter is a fragment.
P.P.S: I'm going nuts.

Dear russ9,
In this context, either "thanks for clarifying" or "thanks for the clarification" is correct --- both sound perfectly natural. Yes, the first is a little more concise, but that's not really a concern for a short sentence fragment.

My friend, studying GMAT SC in isolation can drive you crazy. You need to READ. Over and above any GMAT preparations, you need to read at least an hour a day. You need to read hard, challenging material in English. If you want to go to business school, you already should be reading the Wall Street Journal every day and the Economist magazine from cover to cover every week. Here are some more recommendations on what to read:
None of these rules about grammar & rhetoric really make sense until you are comfortable reading real English about real world events, written by native speakers. That's precisely where you can develop the intuition for what sounds natural. If you try to learn everything about GMAT SC and skip the habit of reading, your understanding will always be more superficial, and to some extent, you will never eliminate the feeling of confusion. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to read.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Intern
Joined: 31 May 2015
Posts: 4
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 May 2015, 18:25
1
Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing of eight war ships as “fireships,” vessels filled with pitch, brimstone, gunpowder, and tar and sent downwind toward the closely-anchored Spanish fleet.

A.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing
---> Reason & due to cant come together in much the same way as Reason and Because cant come together

B.The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

C.The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing
-----> Same issue as in B, Relative Pronoun "Which" incorrectly modifies Spanish armada instead of the defeat.

D.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrifice
----> Verb + ing (Stymieing) modifies the 'The reason' instead of "the Defeat"

E.Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice
----> Correctly choice..
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Apr 2015
Posts: 349
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2015, 01:51
mikemcgarry wrote:
russ9 wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.

P.S: SC has taken over -- would it make more sense for me to say "Thanks for clarifying" vs. "thanks for the clarification". I would say that it's clarifying since the latter is a fragment.
P.P.S: I'm going nuts.

Dear russ9,
In this context, either "thanks for clarifying" or "thanks for the clarification" is correct --- both sound perfectly natural. Yes, the first is a little more concise, but that's not really a concern for a short sentence fragment.

My friend, studying GMAT SC in isolation can drive you crazy. You need to READ. Over and above any GMAT preparations, you need to read at least an hour a day. You need to read hard, challenging material in English. If you want to go to business school, you already should be reading the Wall Street Journal every day and the Economist magazine from cover to cover every week. Here are some more recommendations on what to read:
None of these rules about grammar & rhetoric really make sense until you are comfortable reading real English about real world events, written by native speakers. That's precisely where you can develop the intuition for what sounds natural. If you try to learn everything about GMAT SC and skip the habit of reading, your understanding will always be more superficial, and to some extent, you will never eliminate the feeling of confusion. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to read.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike,

I rejected E just because I saw " the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds".

Can you please guide as to which all phrases can be separated this way though it is uncommon in normal usage.

The other example which I have noticed is " such..XX..as"..

Regards,
Dom.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4478
Re: Stymieing the Armadas plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2015, 09:43
2
dominicraj wrote:
Hi Mike,

I rejected E just because I saw " the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds".

Can you please guide as to which all phrases can be separated this way though it is uncommon in normal usage.

The other example which I have noticed is " such..XX..as"..

Regards,
Dom.

Dear Dom,
I'm happy to respond.

What you ask is an unusual question. First, I can talk about "due to." The word "due" is an adjective, and it idiomatically takes the preposition "to." When any word idiomatically takes a preposition or even an infinitive or a "that"-clause, there is nothing sacred and inseparable about that relationship. These words certainly could be interrupted by any correlative parallelism markers ("not ... but," "both ... and," "either ... or," "not only ... but also," etc.)
able not to do X but to do Y
prevent the students either from doing X or from doing Y
commanded not only that A be J but also that K be T
The OA in this questions separates the "due" and the "to" in a similar fashion, and this is perfectly fine.

All of the clauses of cause & consequence markers are similar:
so . . . that
such a . . . that
so . . . as to

see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idiom ... nsequence/

My friend, do you know how you build intuition and familiarity with all these structures? Read. It's the very simple advice that no one wants to hear. The very best way to improve one's "ear" for English grammar is to develop a daily habit of reading. See:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/how-to-imp ... bal-score/

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4429
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
#Top150 SC: Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2015, 05:54
10
Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing of eight war ships as “fireships,” vessels filled with pitch, brimstone, gunpowder, and tar and sent downwind toward the closely-anchored Spanish fleet.

A. Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

B. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

C. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing

D. Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrifice

E. Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice
_________________
Retired Moderator
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5478
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: #Top150 SC: Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2015, 07:17
1
1
A. Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing --- unparallel correlative

B. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing ---- same as in A.

C. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing --- the sacrificing of is unidiomatic

D. Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrifice --- modification problem. Stymieing the Armada’s plans was not the reason, but was the defeat of the Armada

E. Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice ---- correct choice
_________________
One-to-one video private sessions on SC +91 98845 44509, <newnaren@gmail.com>
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1088
Location: India
Re: #Top150 SC: Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2015, 02:24
1
The defeat of Spanish Armada stymied the plans not its reason.

Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing of eight war ships as “fireships,” vessels filled with pitch, brimstone, gunpowder, and tar and sent downwind toward the closely-anchored Spanish fleet.

A. Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

B. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

C. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing

D. Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrifice........modifier error in A repeats here.

E. Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma’s army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice..............awkward but nevertheless correct.
Re: #Top150 SC: Stymieing the Armada’s plans to meet up with the Duke of   [#permalink] 30 Dec 2015, 02:24

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 26 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by