GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Oct 2019, 03:05

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

The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior PS Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2016
Posts: 3334
Location: India
GPA: 3.12
The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out  [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Mar 2019, 06:06
1
7
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

46% (01:03) correct 54% (01:10) wrong based on 205 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out discrepancies in her testimony that effectively contradicted her earlier statements.

A. that effectively contradicted her earlier statements
B. that, in effect, contradicted her earlier statements
C. that contradicted her earlier statements effectively
D. that was an effective contradiction of her earlier statements
E. that was, in effect, contradiction of her earlier statements

Source: Experts Global

_________________
You've got what it takes, but it will take everything you've got
LBS Moderator
Joined: 04 Jun 2018
Posts: 650
Location: Germany
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q47 V44
GPA: 3.4
WE: Analyst (Transportation)
Re: The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out  [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Mar 2019, 06:09
2
Option B.

D&E use the wrong time and A&C change the meaning
_________________
Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4777
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out  [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Mar 2019, 11:10
pushpitkc wrote:
The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out discrepancies in her testimony that effectively contradicted her earlier statements.

A. that effectively contradicted her earlier statements
B. that, in effect, contradicted her earlier statements
C. that contradicted her earlier statements effectively
D. that was an effective contradiction of her earlier statements
E. tha was, in effect, contradiction of her earlier statements

Source: Experts Global

+1 for (B)

The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out discrepancies in her testimony that, in effect, contradicted her earlier statements.
_________________
Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )
Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Posts: 40
Re: The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out  [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Mar 2019, 21:16

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2019
Posts: 1
Re: The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out  [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Mar 2019, 08:51
is a comma can come either after or before ' that'
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3573
The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out  [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Mar 2019, 00:05
1
pushpitkc wrote:
The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out discrepancies in her testimony that effectively contradicted her earlier statements.

A. that effectively contradicted her earlier statements
B. that, in effect, contradicted her earlier statements
C. that contradicted her earlier statements effectively
D. that was an effective contradiction of her earlier statements
E. that was, in effect, [a] contradiction of her earlier statements

Source: Experts Global

Split #1: subject-pronoun-verb agreement
Discrepancies are plural.

Options D and E incorrectly use a singular verb:

...discrepancies [in her testimony] that WAS . . .

Eliminate D and E

Split #2: ambiguity

Options A and C use identical words. They move the adverb around, but that move does not help. Option B is different.

Why?

A and C suffer from ambiguity. Each could be correct in two ways. Both could be correct in different ways. We have no way to choose.

A) probably implies that the discrepancies contradict earlier testimony "effectively" in the sense of efficiently:

Did the discrepancies capably or competently contradict the earlier statements?

OR

C) probably implies that the discrepancies contradict earlier testimony "effectively" in the sense of essentially[u] or in [u]actuality:

Did the discrepancies basically or essentially contradict the earlier statements?

Further, I could argue that A and C have two ambiguous meanings apiece.
(Put C's probable meaning in A and vice versa.)
I selected "probably" because
unless an author uses a different structure that changes emphasis,
most English sentences have emphasis at the end.
The issue of weighting is much too subtle; it is not tested directly on the GMAT.)

We don't know what to do with A and C.

Eliminate A and C.

"in effect" is an idiomatic phrase.

It has one general meaning: essentially, basically, or (another idiom) "for all practical purposes."

But in effect does not mean capably or efficiently. The phrase is not ambiguous:
The discrepancies, in effect,contradicted the earlier statements.

Similar: By endorsing candidate X who espoused white supremacist beliefs, leader Y, in effect, announced that at the least he had no problem with very public hateful beliefs and speech.

Similar: When the NFL banned peaceful protest and did so despite support for the protest from patriotic armed service members and veterans, the NFL agreed, in effect, with a political leader who criticized the peaceful protest and whose record on civil rights is abysmal.

Eliminate A and C

Experts Global writes incredibly subtle questions -- probably too subtle here.

But you can guess this one by figuring out that there's no way to choose between (A) and (C).

Possible Split #3

Alternatively, although I don't think this argument is as strong, I could argue that...

...discrepancies don't have any human agency. Discrepancies cannot themselves be efficient and capable on the one hand,
or have the effect of rendering earlier testimony useless, on the other.

That argument is strengthened by the passive and impersonal phrase "in effect" in option B.
The phrase "in effect" downplays the doer (the casual agent) and highlights the result or outcome.

By convention, in English, often when we want to stress results and to indicate that the "doer" is an inanimate thing whose result or effect requires human action in the background, we use some kind of passive voice or construction.

*******

Option B decides the issue for us. Its one phrase means one thing.
The sentence makes sense.

Option B is the correct answer.
_________________
SC Butler has resumed! Get two SC questions to practice, whose links you can find by date, here.

Instructions for living a life. Pay attention. Be astonished. Tell about it. -- Mary Oliver
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3573
The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out  [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Mar 2019, 00:14
Amromohsen wrote:
is a comma can come either after or before ' that'

Amromohsen , yes, a short phrase can intervene between a that-modifer and its noun. The phrase can't go anywhere else.
_________________
SC Butler has resumed! Get two SC questions to practice, whose links you can find by date, here.

Instructions for living a life. Pay attention. Be astonished. Tell about it. -- Mary Oliver
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2017
Posts: 59
Re: The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out  [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Mar 2019, 06:48
pushpitkc wrote:
The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out discrepancies in her testimony that effectively contradicted her earlier statements.

A. that effectively contradicted her earlier statements
B. that, in effect, contradicted her earlier statements
C. that contradicted her earlier statements effectively
D. that was an effective contradiction of her earlier statements
E. that was, in effect, contradiction of her earlier statements

Source: Experts Global

Please share OA . For me option B changes the meaning altogether.
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3573
The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out  [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Mar 2019, 09:43
Amromohsen wrote:
is a comma can come either after or before ' that'

Amromohsen , I remembered an official question in which that as a relative pronoun
was separated from the rest of the that-clause.

In the official question, as is the case in this question, that is separated by a short phrase
from the rest of the that-clause.
Stylistically, the short phrase cannot effectively be placed anywhere else in the sentence.

In addition, as a matter of convention, some short phrases are placed after that for emphasis.

No one needs to memorize which short phrases can intervene.
No one could do so. There are too many phrases.
Just know that if there are no other errors and the sentence makes sense,
the short interruption is okay.

You are correct. Usually that and its clause are not separated.
As noted, the best way to handle confusion is to focus on meaning.
Ask: "Does this sentence make sense?"

HERE is the official question in which the that-clause is interrupted by the short phrase "in turn."

Hope that helps.
_________________
SC Butler has resumed! Get two SC questions to practice, whose links you can find by date, here.

Instructions for living a life. Pay attention. Be astonished. Tell about it. -- Mary Oliver
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3573
The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out  [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Mar 2019, 22:05
pushpitkc wrote:
The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out discrepancies in her testimony that effectively contradicted her earlier statements.

A. that effectively contradicted her earlier statements
B. that, in effect, contradicted her earlier statements
C. that contradicted her earlier statements effectively
D. that was an effective contradiction of her earlier statements
E. that was, in effect, contradiction of her earlier statements

Source: Experts Global

Please share OA . For me option B changes the meaning altogether.

Mohammad Ali Khan , you can find the OA under the spoiler in the question.
Attachment:

where to find the OA screenshot.JPG [ 79.07 KiB | Viewed 739 times ]

"Changes the meaning entirely"?

I don't understand what you mean.
Are you suggesting that option A determines the intended meaning?

I can understand why you might believe that to be the case.
Some prep companies teach that option A determines the intended meaning.

Option A does not determine the intended meaning.

The most logical, grammatical, and rhetorically effective sentence presents the intended meaning.
If that answer changes the meaning of A, that fact is fine.

Please see this post, here in which I give three official examples (of many) to demonstrate that option A does not determine intended meaning.

For other posts about how Option A does not determine meaning,
see
GMATNinja , here
and
Ron Purewal, here

Hope that helps.
_________________
SC Butler has resumed! Get two SC questions to practice, whose links you can find by date, here.

Instructions for living a life. Pay attention. Be astonished. Tell about it. -- Mary Oliver
The defense attorney cross-examined the witness and pointed out   [#permalink] 25 Mar 2019, 22:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by