Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
21 Nov 2019, 03:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (02:08) correct
55%
(02:22)
wrong
based on 694
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The first progress in combating infection was made in 1847 by the Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis, who, despite ridicule and opposition, introduced compulsory handwashing for everyone entering the maternal wards, and he was rewarded with a plunge in maternal and fetal deaths, however the Royal Society dismissed his advice.
A) who, despite ridicule and opposition, introduced compulsory handwashing for everyone entering the maternal wards, and he was rewarded with a plunge in maternal and fetal deaths, however the Royal Society dismissed his advice.
B) who reduced maternal and fetal deaths by introducing compulsory handwashing for everyone entering the maternal wards and was ridiculed, opposed, and dismissed by the Royal Society
C) who reduced maternal and fetal deaths by introducing compulsory handwashing for everyone entering the maternal wards despite ridicule, opposition, and dismissal by the Royal Society
D) who was ridiculed, opposed, and dismissed by the Royal Society, even though he introduced compulsory handwashing for everyone entering the maternal wards and was rewarded with a plunge in maternal and fetal deaths
E) who introduced compulsory handwashing for everyone entering the maternal wards and was rewarded with a plunge in maternal and fetal deaths, despite ridicule, opposition, and dismissal by the Royal Society
21 Nov 2019, 03:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
• HIGHLIGHTS
This sentence tests parallelism, verb logic, and concision.
Option A is hard to parse.
Meaning is somewhat clear, but other than logically ordered verbs, whatever is being tested is not clear.
In such situations, I usually look for an option that looks straightforward.
I read option B, which has fewer commas. That strategy worked.
THE PROMPT
The first progress in combating infection was made by Dr. S, who, despite ridicule and opposition, introduced compulsory handwashing for everyone entering the maternal wards, and he was rewarded with a plunge in maternal and fetal deaths, however the Royal Society dismissed his advice.
THE OPTIONS
• ridicule and opposition from whom? Does it matter? (Not sure.)
• If Dr. S did two things (or three), then we have a compound predicate (discussed after POE)
-- we should not place a comma between the subject, who, and the second verb, was rewarded
-- almost always, we do not repeat the subject at all before the second verb
-- always, we do not repeat the subject WHO by using the pronoun he
-- in fact, IF we were allowed to repeat the subject, we would use WHO two times, not who and he
This error may be hard to see but it is fatal.
Wrong: One of the best essayists of the 20th century was James Balwin, who wrote incandescent prose and he deployed words with both brutal honesty and genuine tenderness.
Corrected: One of the best essayists of the 20th century was James Balwin, who wrote incandescent prose and [who] deployed words with both brutal honesty and genuine tenderness.
• however cannot be used as a conjunction to join two independent clauses.
(The word however can be used when two sentences are joined by a semicolon. However follows the semicolon. Comma? No.)
-- We could use comma + but: "... he was rewarded by a decline in deaths, but the Royal Society dismissed his advice."
-- However could be used in a separate sentence: ". .. he was rewarded by a decline in deaths. The Royal Society, however, dismissed his advice."
• Meaning? Very rough.
-- Dr. S was the first person to make progress in combating infection.
-- he required handwashing of everyone entering the maternity ward
-- He was rewarded for his efforts* (rewarded is okay): maternal and fetal deaths plummeted
-- He faced opposition and ridicule (from whom and when?)
-- Despite the doctor's success, the Royal Society dismissed his advice
• what is being tested? Hard to tell.
-- sentence structure (verbs should be placed logically; we may or may not need commas; we need a less choppy sentence)
Eliminate A
• "and [was]" is wrong.
-- "and" implies no contrast. The absence of contrast is fatally illogical.
-- we should say, "Something great was achieved by Dr. S, who did XYZ, but he was ridiculed, opposed, and dismissed by the Royal Society."
-- active voice switches to passive voice. ... who reduced . . . and [who] was ridiculed (may not be avoidable)
Eliminate B (If you are not sure, keep B and compare it to the other options)
• I see no errors
• we are dealing with a very long relative clause (the who-clause). Although it is long, the relative clause is efficient and grammatical.
-- the verbs and verbals describe how Dr. S made progress in combating infection.
Progress was made by Dr. S, who reduced deaths by introducing ABC for everyone
-- then the word despite, a preposition, adds the necessary contrast
• the words ridicule, opposition, and dismissal are nouns, not present tense verbs.
-- ridicule is tricky! Google the definition. It can be both a noun and a present tense verb.
-- but look closely: there is no such verb as "to opposition." There is no such verb as "to dismissal."
The verbs for those words are oppose and dismiss.
The word despite is a preposition that must be followed by nouns.
-- Despite is correctly followed by parallel nouns in (C): ridicule, opposition, and dismissal
KEEP. (And without doubt, eliminate A. Option C is grammatical, logical, and concise.)
• possibly grammatical but a rhetorical disaster
• illogical
-- In the relative (who) clause, the order of information is illogical and should be reversed.
The intro sentence describes combating infection.
The next thing we should read about is how Dr. S combated infection, not what the Royal Society did.
• not concise. Option C says exactly the same thing in a more logical way using fewer words.
Now we know, for example, that "was rewarded with a plunge in" can be written as "reduced"
Eliminate D
• Although more logical than (D), option E does not fix option D's lack of concision.
The words was rewarded with a plunge in [deaths], for example, can be shortened to "reduced deaths."
Eliminate E
The best answer is C
• NOTES
Compound predicate
-- the predicate of a sentence is the verb and verb phrase
-- when one subject does two things, we have a compound predicate
Stephanie returned phone calls and doodled on paper.
-- almost always, when we deal with a compound predicate, we do not put a comma between the second verb and the subject
-- almost always, we do not repeat the subject or use a pronoun to repeat the subject
Correct: Stephanie returned phone calls and doodled on paper.
Wrong 99% of the time: Stephanie returned phone calls, and doodled on paper.
Usually wrong: Stephanie returned phone calls, and she doodled on paper.
In option A, the subject who did two things:
(1) introduced mandatory handwashing and
(2) was rewarded with a decline in deaths.
A comma should not separate the second verb, was rewarded, from the subject, who
The subject, who, should not be repeated. (And the subject certainly should not be repeated with the wrong pronoun.)
• using another option
-- if moving forward from option A before you understand the meaning makes you nervous, do not use my suggestion that you look at another option
-- if your nerves can stand doing so, the next time you encounter a convoluted option A in which neither meaning nor issues are clear, try a different option.
Option B clarified meaning and revealed much more about what was being tested.
COMMENTS
rohitchayal , you asked
I think you are asking about option A and whether the use of he is allowed when the subject is who.
I answered above, but once again: no.
Doer01 , it's okay that you changed your mind even though you had the correct answer the first time.
You were the only one to choose C. Good instincts. Trust them.
This question is hard, but I am wondering whether laser focus exacerbated the difficulty.
Whatever was the case, I am very glad to see that brave people posted answers.
Everyone gets kudos for doing so.
**
The word rewarded is not wrong.
Rewarded can mean "to receive a benefit as a result of doing something."
Correct: Her hard work was rewarded by admission to a top business school.
See here and here
Project SC Butler: Day 194: Sentence Correction (SC1)
• HIGHLIGHTS
This sentence tests parallelism, verb logic, and concision.
Option A is hard to parse.
Meaning is somewhat clear, but other than logically ordered verbs, whatever is being tested is not clear.
In such situations, I usually look for an option that looks straightforward.
I read option B, which has fewer commas. That strategy worked.
THE PROMPT
Quote:
Shortened a little:
The first progress in combating infection was made by Dr. S, who, despite ridicule and opposition, introduced compulsory handwashing for everyone entering the maternal wards, and he was rewarded with a plunge in maternal and fetal deaths, however the Royal Society dismissed his advice.
THE OPTIONS
Quote:
• the relative clause: the who-clause that describes Dr. S is very choppy
• ridicule and opposition from whom? Does it matter? (Not sure.)
• If Dr. S did two things (or three), then we have a compound predicate (discussed after POE)
-- we should not place a comma between the subject, who, and the second verb, was rewarded
-- almost always, we do not repeat the subject at all before the second verb
-- always, we do not repeat the subject WHO by using the pronoun he
-- in fact, IF we were allowed to repeat the subject, we would use WHO two times, not who and he
This error may be hard to see but it is fatal.
Wrong: One of the best essayists of the 20th century was James Balwin, who wrote incandescent prose and he deployed words with both brutal honesty and genuine tenderness.
Corrected: One of the best essayists of the 20th century was James Balwin, who wrote incandescent prose and [who] deployed words with both brutal honesty and genuine tenderness.
• however cannot be used as a conjunction to join two independent clauses.
(The word however can be used when two sentences are joined by a semicolon. However follows the semicolon. Comma? No.)
-- We could use comma + but: "... he was rewarded by a decline in deaths, but the Royal Society dismissed his advice."
-- However could be used in a separate sentence: ". .. he was rewarded by a decline in deaths. The Royal Society, however, dismissed his advice."
• Meaning? Very rough.
-- Dr. S was the first person to make progress in combating infection.
-- he required handwashing of everyone entering the maternity ward
-- He was rewarded for his efforts* (rewarded is okay): maternal and fetal deaths plummeted
-- He faced opposition and ridicule (from whom and when?)
-- Despite the doctor's success, the Royal Society dismissed his advice
• what is being tested? Hard to tell.
-- sentence structure (verbs should be placed logically; we may or may not need commas; we need a less choppy sentence)
Eliminate A
Quote:
• option (B) tells me what else is being tested: parallelism (ridiculed, opposed, and dismissed)
• "and [was]" is wrong.
-- "and" implies no contrast. The absence of contrast is fatally illogical.
-- we should say, "Something great was achieved by Dr. S, who did XYZ, but he was ridiculed, opposed, and dismissed by the Royal Society."
-- active voice switches to passive voice. ... who reduced . . . and [who] was ridiculed (may not be avoidable)
Eliminate B (If you are not sure, keep B and compare it to the other options)
Quote:
• This option cures every problem present in options A and B
• I see no errors
• we are dealing with a very long relative clause (the who-clause). Although it is long, the relative clause is efficient and grammatical.
-- the verbs and verbals describe how Dr. S made progress in combating infection.
Progress was made by Dr. S, who reduced deaths by introducing ABC for everyone
-- then the word despite, a preposition, adds the necessary contrast
• the words ridicule, opposition, and dismissal are nouns, not present tense verbs.
-- ridicule is tricky! Google the definition. It can be both a noun and a present tense verb.
-- but look closely: there is no such verb as "to opposition." There is no such verb as "to dismissal."
The verbs for those words are oppose and dismiss.
The word despite is a preposition that must be followed by nouns.
-- Despite is correctly followed by parallel nouns in (C): ridicule, opposition, and dismissal
KEEP. (And without doubt, eliminate A. Option C is grammatical, logical, and concise.)
Quote:
• option (C) is much better. (Stop. Move on. Options C and D are not even close; option C is far superior.)
• possibly grammatical but a rhetorical disaster
• illogical
-- In the relative (who) clause, the order of information is illogical and should be reversed.
The intro sentence describes combating infection.
The next thing we should read about is how Dr. S combated infection, not what the Royal Society did.
• not concise. Option C says exactly the same thing in a more logical way using fewer words.
Now we know, for example, that "was rewarded with a plunge in" can be written as "reduced"
Eliminate D
Quote:
• Option C is better.
• Although more logical than (D), option E does not fix option D's lack of concision.
The words was rewarded with a plunge in [deaths], for example, can be shortened to "reduced deaths."
Eliminate E
The best answer is C
• NOTES
Compound predicate
-- the predicate of a sentence is the verb and verb phrase
-- when one subject does two things, we have a compound predicate
Stephanie returned phone calls and doodled on paper.
-- almost always, when we deal with a compound predicate, we do not put a comma between the second verb and the subject
-- almost always, we do not repeat the subject or use a pronoun to repeat the subject
Correct: Stephanie returned phone calls and doodled on paper.
Wrong 99% of the time: Stephanie returned phone calls, and doodled on paper.
Usually wrong: Stephanie returned phone calls, and she doodled on paper.
In option A, the subject who did two things:
(1) introduced mandatory handwashing and
(2) was rewarded with a decline in deaths.
A comma should not separate the second verb, was rewarded, from the subject, who
The subject, who, should not be repeated. (And the subject certainly should not be repeated with the wrong pronoun.)
• using another option
-- if moving forward from option A before you understand the meaning makes you nervous, do not use my suggestion that you look at another option
-- if your nerves can stand doing so, the next time you encounter a convoluted option A in which neither meaning nor issues are clear, try a different option.
Option B clarified meaning and revealed much more about what was being tested.
COMMENTS
rohitchayal , you asked
Quote:
[/quote]
I think you are asking about option A and whether the use of he is allowed when the subject is who.
I answered above, but once again: no.
Doer01 , it's okay that you changed your mind even though you had the correct answer the first time.
You were the only one to choose C. Good instincts. Trust them.
This question is hard, but I am wondering whether laser focus exacerbated the difficulty.
Whatever was the case, I am very glad to see that brave people posted answers.
Everyone gets kudos for doing so.
**
The word rewarded is not wrong.
Rewarded can mean "to receive a benefit as a result of doing something."
Correct: Her hard work was rewarded by admission to a top business school.
See here and here
General Discussion
21 Nov 2019, 05:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
Hi,
I took 5 minutes to narrow it down to C. I'll try my best to justify my answer. I hope I am right.
Meaning: Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian doctor who initiated a practice of washing hands before entering maternal wards. As a result, the death rates plunged. Royal society, despite the plunge, dismissed his advice.
Quote:
Meaning error. reward is something that is personal such as dismissal.
Quote:
I do not think this one has any grammatical errors. reduced is parallel to was ridiculed, opposed, and dismissed. This choice just misses the contrast. Keep it for now.
Quote:
This, according to me, presents contrast that is missed in B. Despite ridicule, opposition and dismissal by the Royal society, he introduced.....Keep it too.
Quote:
Same meaning error as A.
Quote:
This should have been choice A. Same as A, reward is personal. One could be rewarded with something for doing a good deed. A plunge is not a reward, its a result of an action.
At this point, I was very very confused between B and C, but keeping contrast factor in mind, I chose C.
generis , Choice A and E seem to be swapped.
Edit: I'd like to change my answer to B.
Why?
Well, If we use C, sentence would mean that despite ridicule, opposition, and dismissal by the Royal Society, he reduced...... This is not the intended meaning.
B is better, even though there is no contrast. But do we need one?
The first progress in combating infection was made in 1847 by the Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis,
who A:reduced maternal and fetal deaths by introducing compulsory handwashing for everyone entering the maternal wards
and
B:was ridiculed, opposed, and dismissed by the Royal Society.
