The first trenches that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar

Hi avigutman - i was stuck between (A) vs (E) - i am trying to use meaning / logic to choose between the two and not just idioms.

What is the author trying to convey ? I think there are 2 options regarding what the author wants to convey.



How would you ascertain (from a meaning perspective), which one of the 2 options is what trenches proove ?

I actually thought it made more sense to say -- trenches proove the existence of centrally administered complex societies, rather than proof that something happened

Hence i chose (A) based on "what makes more sense"

Can you try to rewrite the two options for what the author is trying to convey, jabhatta2, but this time include this part: independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia
_________________

Hi avigutman - written out the sentences as requested



In (1) -- the stuff in the brackets are modifiers to societies. The blue modifier is passable too. The modifier in blue gives us MORE info (like a FYI) about these complex societies

In (2) -- the verb 'arose' MAKES sense with the pink.

Let's dig in to that blue modifier now, jabhatta2. In order to decide whether it's passable, we have to consider meaning, not just grammar.
So, this FYI about these complex societies... In your view, does it make sense with this overarching goal:

_________________

avigutman - Does the blue makes sense with the overarching goal ?

That modifier is used when you want to distinguish between 2 groups. So the blue modifer implies there are 2 types of complex socieities.



These Trenches could very well, show proof of the existence of (type 1) complex societies

jabhatta2 part of our job in SC is to be a mind reader: which interpretation is the author more likely to be trying to convey? Here are analogous sentences for (A) and (E) in case that's helpful:

(A) The study has yielded strong evidence for democracy in America that was arising simultaneously with but independently of the more well known democracies of Europe [as opposed to democracy in America that wasn't arising simultaneously with but independently of the more well known democracies of Europe]

(E) The study has yielded strong evidence that democracy in America arose simultaneously with but independently of the more well known democracies of Europe.

Try to imagine this author writing the sentence as an announcement, perhaps to let people know that their prior assumptions were wrong. What could those prior assumptions have been? If the author is attempting to change the reader's mind, or educate the reader, what could the reader have been thinking prior to reading the sentence? Feel free to respond with your thoughts on the above.
_________________

Most of us simply concluded that the writer was referring to proof that something happened. But let us say that the other meaning is equally possible; perhaps the writer meant proof that something exists.

We now have two possible meanings. What to do? Should we choose an answer based on our best guess of what the author meant?

That could go wrong (as it did for you). In a case like this, look at other differences between A and E. After all, meaning is not the only thing that matters in SC.

The writers of this question cleverly made A and E different enough. The other differences between A and E give E an edge.

You don't want to rely on idioms, but you can look at verb tense, concision, crispness.
Our job in SC is to choose the best of the five answers, and E is better than A

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Please read this
https://www.mba.com/exams-and-exam-prep ... xpert-tips

The article says, "Once you have eliminated a few answer choices, make sure to carefully leverage every clue provided by the differences in the remaining answer choices".

It goes on to say, "Analyzing every little hint that is given by differences in the answers is the key on this GMAT Verbal question type, yet students rarely do that effectively."

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

jabhatta2


We can make a pretty strong case that meaning #1 is not intended. First, if the sentence wanted to talk about evidence for the existence of these societies, then it could add easily add that word for clarity. The fact that it didn't, and that several of the answer choices provide a different meaning, is evidence in itself. It's also not clear that "evidence for societies" really means anything. Evidence of societies would be clear, but evidence "for" something would usually be evidence to support a case, or a particular party in an argument ("evidence for my hypothesis," "evidence for the prosecution"). It isn't normally used when we're trying to see whether something exists at all. As we've just seen, there are other, clearer ways to do that.

However, the biggest problem of all with #1 is that it doesn't fit with the rest of the sentence. If we read (A) that way, the sentence is saying that we have "evidence for" these societies, but it's also saying that these societies "were arising,' etc. If we know for a fact when these societies arose, how could their existence still be a matter of debate? And if we don't know when they arose, then that's more reason to use meaning #2. We're not just trying to see if these societies existed at all; we're trying to figure out their chronology.
_________________

KarishmaB

I am a bit confused on the parallelism requirement mentioned above

"were arising simultaneously but independently of southern Mesopotamia --> NOT PARALLEL
were arising simultaneously with but independently of southern Mesopotamia --> PARALLEL"


What does the "with" mean in this case? Does it mean that the societies arose when southern Mesopotamia arose, but they were not connected to southern Mesopotamia?

This is what the 'that' clause is:

... societies ... arose simultaneously with but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia ...

It connects two ideas:

... societies ... arose simultaneously with the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia ...
... societies ... arose independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia ...

Using 'but' we have connected both these ideas together but if separated they both should make sense with the rest of the sentence.

If we remove 'with,' this is what we get:
... societies ... arose simultaneously but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia ...

which breaks into two like this:

... societies ... arose simultaneously of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia ... (doesn't make sense)
... societies ... arose independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia ... (acceptable)

Societies can rise simultaneously with city-states..., not simultaneously of city-states ...
Hence, we need the 'with' we have put after 'simultaneously.'
_________________

Hi experts,
So, can I say that ''strong evidence'' is the object of ''centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose''?
_________________

The first trenches THAT WERE cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose simultaneously with but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia, in what is now southern Iraq.

Hi RonTargetTestPrep, MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja
What is the difference between choice E and the above one?
This types of questions confused me a lot to make the decision!
_________________

Simultaneously with more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia

Option C, D are out

Use of “for” in option A changes the meaning (implies information for CACS instead of information regarding CACS). Option A is out

“Yields” with “Trenches” causes S-V disagreement. Option B is out

Hence, Option E

ReedArnoldMPREP AjiteshArun EducationAisle IanStewart

In (A) - why is "Evidence For" wrong ?

I understand idioms have to be memorized but If I was to make some SIMPLE sentences, something is awry.

Don't we say the following

-- Journalists from Africa have provided evidence for War Crimes

-- Scientists have provided evidence for climate change

-- The prosecution has provided sufficient evidence for the death penalty.

Similarly - i thought the first trenches provided evidence FOR centrally administered complex societies

-----------

Other than idiom - any better way to eliminate (A) ?

I at first wondered why you were asking, because we say "evidence for" all the time. Then I read the first few replies in this thread, where three experts all claim that the phrase "evidence for" is not idiomatic. Those posts are all wrong. The phrase "evidence for" has a slightly different meaning than the phrase "evidence of", and they can't be used interchangeably, but "evidence for" is certainly fine when it's used correctly. I'll suggest reading Dmitry Farber's post above if you want a good explanation of the subtle difference in meaning of those two phrases. I wouldn't say answer A is wrong on idiom grounds here; it just doesn't convey the meaning the sentence intends, and its choice of verb tenses is a bit incomprehensible.
_________________

HI IanStewart – one last q on (A)

Not sure why the verb “were arising” in (A) is wrong exactly.

“Were arising” is past continuous progressive

The past continuous progressive per my understanding is used for actions

- in the past
- Action that is ONGOING WITH another event

Please correct me if i am wrong.

If so, in this case -- isn't "Were arising" apt because "Were arising" was ongoing WITH ANOTHER EVENT ?

The OTHER EVENT is "simultaneously with the city-states of southern Mesopotamia"