That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer

Hi, can an expert clear my doubt regarding the joining of two ICs.
I always thought that either FANBOYS or ";" could be used to join two ICs. However, here in option D two ICs are being joined by ":". Is that also acceptable on the GMAT?

Hello sv2023,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the colon - ":" - can be used to join two independent clauses, when the second explains or illustrates the first.

We hope this finds you well.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Hello experts, AndrewN

I don't know how to approach this question.
I couldn't connect how the sentence after colon connects with the main clause.
couldn't find the main issue, which the question is testing here.

whats the main issue here?
how to eliminate each option?
need a full expert analysis on this question.

The point of a colon is to emphasize what came before with clarification or examples of some kind. So what comes after the colon here somehow emphasizes why we can't blame educators for not anticipating the importance of microcomputer technology. Why not? Because even Alvin Toffler didn't predict it.

But truth is, that really didn't help me in this sentence. I looked at the splits in the answer choices and first noticed that the word 'that' was moving around a lot.

'A' and 'B' put 'that' as the first word of the sentence. This is an unusual construction--not typically done in casual speech. When you see it on the GMAT, you can almost always turn it into '[The fact] that' to make the meaning clearer.

So 'That educators have not anticipated...' becomes 'The fact that educators have not anticipated...'

If we use this to examine the 'core' of A and B:

A: "[The fact] that educators have not anticipated the impact... can hardly be said that it is their fault."

The fact can hardly be said that it is their fault.

This structure makes no sense.

B: "The fact that educators have not anticipated the impact... can hardly be said to be at fault."

Again, that doesn't make sense. The *educators* aren't at fault, but it makes no sense to say the fact ITSELF is not at fault.

E actually brings in 'The fact,' but it's core is: "The fact... can hardly be said." But it can be said... any fact can be *said*. What 'E' means is 'this 'fact' isn't actually a fact,' but what E says is 'this fact *can't be said*.' Very different meanings.

So that takes us to C and D, which move the 'that' to after 'It can hardly be said.'

So what comes after the 'that' is what can 'hardly be said' (and this, idiomatically, does tell me that what comes after 'that' is not going to be accurate.).

C's core is: "It can hardly be said that it is the fault of educators who..."

The thing after 'who' describes the educators, but what is fault (or not the fault) of these educators? "It?" What is the second 'it' in that sentence? The one that cannot be said to be the fault of the educators? I know what it's supposed to be: the fact that they didn't predict the impact of microcomputers. But structurally, that is not the antecedent of that pronoun. All that stuff is in the 'who' modifier.

This leaves D.

"It can hardly be said that educators are at fault for not anticipating yada yada.."

This is great. This correctly captures the intended meaning in the structure. "We can't really say educators are at fault for not anticipating [this thing]."

If I wanted to start the sentence with 'that,' it would look something like:

"That educators did not anticipate the impact of microcomputing can hardly be said to be their fault."

Hello dcoolguy,

We hope this finds you well.

To get a better understanding of this question, you may want to take a look at our full explanation for the same, here.

Further, to clarify one point not covered in the explanation, the clause after the colon is used to provide support for the clause before the colon.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Thank you for such a detailed explanation. ReedArnoldMPREP
It was an indeed new concept for me to learn.
with keeping all that in mind, I do agree that overall the fault is that educators didn't pridict.
I'm still having issues with C,

Isn't C is also expressing the same idea, I know that "it" can't refer to an action (not anticipating) but it can act as a placeholder and can still convey the intended meaning.

No?

You can do that for sentences like "It is raining." "It is hard to get a 790 on the GMAT."

But not for "it is the fault of [these people]."

You could maybe say, "It is the fault [of these people] THAT [something]." So, in this sentence, "It can hardly be said that it is the fault of educators THAT they didn't predict yada yada yada."

But you can't just say 'it is the fault of these people' without having the it *be* something.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal how will you approach this question

EMPOWERgmatVerbal can you please share your analysis of this question

Hey Rickooreo,

Although your question is not for me, I am sharing the link to the video I created to show how we solve this question: https://www.loom.com/share/277742f8585e46b39d1724b0eb4a299d

Please let us know if you have any specific doubts regarding this official question.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hi egmat - Shraddha

I am unable to solve meaning-based SC and so I am unable to understand whether the construction is awkward / wordy or not eg. the way you solved option A. I have my exam on Sunday, can you please suggest me some kind of approach

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.