Teratomas are unusual forms of cancer because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears.

A is incorrect because the logical meaning is that the cancer is composed of tooth and bone not normally found in... which indicates that the cancer could typically be composed of tooth and bone, but not the type of tooth and bone found in the Teratomas.

If we had commas -...., such as tooth and bone,.... then this would be a perfect sentence.

The Teratomas are unusual because their composition is composed of tissues not normally found in x.

Had to read extremely carefully to get this illogical change.

B and C are out because of the use of Like here. We use for example/ such as to give examples.
There are more illogical meaning issues with B
(B) because they are composed of tissues like tooth and bone that are
(C) because they are composed of tissues, like tooth and bone, tissues

D is illogical - its not the composition itself that isn't found in the cancer location it's what the composition is made up of - the types of tissues
(D) in that their composition, tissues such as tooth and bone, is

(E) in that they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone, tissues

E is structured as <independent clause> + [,] + <noun modifier>
_________________

Would (A) be correct if the examples were set off by commas? (i.e. because they are composed of tissues, such as tooth and bone, not normally ...) If so, would it still be more ambiguous than (E)?

Thanks

Good question, costcosized. Such as is a tricky head to a phrase, and many times, it can be used in either a restrictive (i.e. without commas) or non-restrictive sense. If you place commas around such as tooth and bone in choice (A), the sentence is conveying that teratomas are unusual forms of cancer because they are composed of tissues not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears. Both tooth and bone are used as examples of such tissues, and the meaning would be perfectly clear. You should not use a because/in that split as a basis for elimination, so if choice (E) were somehow altered to represent a clearly incorrect answer, then yes, the proposed (A) would win out.

Here is an article on the topic for further reading. Happy studies.

- Andrew
_________________

Hi GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

In option E, I couldn't identify ", tissues not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears" as a noun + noun modifier. Per my reading, I understood that the sentence is a passive construction and a complete independent sentence. This sentence is joined with the first sentence "Teratomas are unusual forms of cancer because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone" by a comma and hence the construction is not correct.

Please can you help me understand where I am going wrong?

Think about it - How do you make a passive construction?

I found him. - Active
He was found by me. - Passive

The tissues were found ... - Passive

In our original sentence, there is no helping verb was/were. Here, 'found' acts as a past participle modifying 'tissues'.
_________________

GMATNinja

Hi

but answer E is not a run-on? I mean are not 2 independent connected by a comma? why is it correct?

Many thanksssss

Hey, gastoneMIT, is not
in this case it is a clause that provides additional information about noun tissues, and thus plays role of "noun phrase".

BLTN is spot-on. Notice that "tissues not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears" (the part after the comma in E) is actually not an independent clause. In fact, it's not even a clause. "Found" is just a modifier that describes "tissues," and we don't have a verb for the noun "tissues."

The stuff after the comma is just some extra information describing "tissues such as tooth and bone," and we see this sort of thing all the time on the GMAT (the GMAT is pretty lenient when it comes to this sort of comma usage).

I hope that helps!
_________________

Even without commas why can't it be right as tooth and bone are used as examples so not normally found....... should modify tissues
Is this option rejected becoz it creates confusion of modifier modifying tooth,tisues or bone

Is "in that" here used as because

Has confusion on role of in that for what purpose it's used

Posted from my mobile device

I am still not sure what is wrong with D. isn't 'tissues such as tooth and bones' giving additional info about composition?

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

Such as is used for examples
Like is used for similarity

In this case tooth and bone are examples of tissues, hence we need Such as. So Eliminate answer choices B and C

Further, what is not normally found ? Tissues not normally found, So Eliminate answer choices A and D.

Therefore E is the correct answer choice.
_________________

It took me 1:52 mins (E)
The reason I chose E is because I knew that "such" is the right word to display sameness than "like" which displays similarity. The other reason to chose E is the mention of tissues to be no normally found rather than the bone and tooth.

We've selected E over A because in A it is not clear if they are composed of tissues such as bone or they are composed of tissues such as bone [which is] not normally found....
Is my understanding correct or we've any other reason for choosing E and eliminating A?

Difference b/w 'as' and 'like'. Please tell a way so that i could avoid this mistake

(A) because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone
Eleminated this for the sole reason that tissues at the end felt more appropriate

(B) because they are composed of tissues like tooth and bone that are
like doesn't feel appropriate such as felt much better in the comparison

(C) because they are composed of tissues, like tooth and bone, tissues
These are joining depended clauses with comma which distorts the meaning

(D) in that their composition, tissues such as tooth and bone, is
Similar reasoning as C and 'is' isn't the appropriate word

(E) in that they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone, tissues
This presents the right meaning and tense

Therefore IMO E

Can someone help me understand how to tell based on the meaning of the sentence when to use "like" vs "such as". I know "like" is used in scenarios when you are comparing two different things, and "such as" is used when you are listing examples. However, in this sentence, it seems more logical to me that the "tooth and bone" are being compared to the tissues of the teratomas, meaning that the tissues of the teratomas are similar to tooth and bone. It also seems less logical that tooth and bone are examples of tissues found in the composition of a form of cancer. Since cancer doesn't have teeth or bones.

Any help would be great! Thanks

"It also seems less logical that tooth and bone are examples of tissues found in the composition of a form of cancer. Since cancer doesn't have teeth or bones."

That's why the sentence starts with "Teratomas are unusual forms of cancer because..." What follows should be something that explains why teratomas are unusual forms of cancer -- the fact that they are composed of tissues NOT normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears is what makes teratomas unusual:

• Let's say there's a tumor in the ovaries. If it's a normal form of cancer, that tumor will likely be composed of tissues that ARE normally found in the ovaries. But if it's a teratoma, the tumor will be composed of tissues that are NOT normally found in the ovaries -- such as bone tissue or tooth tissue.
• Yes, it is unusual for a cancerous tumor to have bone tissue or tooth tissue. But since we are expecting something unusual given the context, this seemingly "less logical" meaning actually makes a lot of sense. (Btw, according to the internet, "'Teratoma' is Greek for 'monstrous tumor'; these tumors were so named because they sometimes contain hair, teeth, bone, neurons, and even eyes...")
• If we go with "like" (or "similar to"), then we are left wondering, "How are these cancerous tissues LIKE tooth and bone? Is it because the tumors are white in color and hard to the touch? And what exactly makes teratomas unique? Is it the tooth and bone part? Being composed of tissues not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears? Both of those features combined?"

The meaning is actually LESS clear if we go with like/similar to (as in choice B). Given the context, "such as" is more appropriate.

I hope that helps!
_________________

I am a bit confused. Please help.

Isn't option E repetitive:
Teratomas are unusual forms of cancer in that they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone, tissues not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears.

Why do you need the additional 'tissues' again?

I chose option D: the T's are unusual because of their composition . . . .

In (E), "tissues not normally found" is a modifier, giving us more information about the "tissues" mentioned earlier. (If you like jargon, a modifier that repeats the name of what it's describing is called a resumptive modifier.)

In this case, repeating "tissues" is useful. If the author had used a more generic modifier, such as "which," it wouldn't be clear whether we were talking about tissues, or "tooth and bone," or even "forms of cancer."

Anything that clarifies a sentence's meaning is good! So this usage is perfectly acceptable.

(D) is wrong because it's illogical. It makes it sound as though "the composition" isn't found in the organs where the tumors appear. We can describe an entity's composition, just as we could describe its color or texture. But we wouldn't find these descriptive attributes in an organ. It makes far more sense to write that it's the "tissues" that are not normally found in the organs.

Because (E) is more logical than (D), it's a better answer.

I hope that clears things up!
_________________