Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 09:13 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 09:13

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Kudos
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1267
Own Kudos [?]: 5650 [105]
Given Kudos: 416
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42104 [32]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 5330
Own Kudos [?]: 35490 [12]
Given Kudos: 9464
Send PM
General Discussion
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 32 [5]
Given Kudos: 9
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
4
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Question:
The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was normal.
Meaning:
The herbicide was produced even in 1979 which was 3 years after the wives of workers who produce the chemical in Rensselaer were found to have had miscarriages and to have borne children with Heart defects. Also, none of the pregnancies was normal.

Error Analysis:
A) to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages- This does not clearly imply that the wives were found to have miscarriages. Instead it creates an ambiguity by incorrectly implying that the wives borne children with heart defects or borne children with miscarriages. -Eliminate
B) similar error as in (A). It incorrectly implies that children were born with heart defects or children were born with miscarriages. - Eliminate
C) *Either.. or parallelism is not maintained.
* none of the pregnancies is more precise than without any of their pregnancies
*incorrect use of being
D)*Correct use of either.. or.. parallelism
*Correctly connects 2 independent clauses that are closely related in terms of subject matter using a semicolon. -- Correct
E)Same errors as in option (C)

IMO: OPTION D
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 5330
Own Kudos [?]: 35490 [5]
Given Kudos: 9464
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
4
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
AdityaHongunti wrote:
aragonn wrote:
AdityaHongunti wrote:
aragonn daagh shouldnt it be "none of the pregnancies WERE.... " ?? None is one of the SANAM. and hence depends on the main subject (pregnancies)


Rule - None is another exception. It can take either singular or plural. Ex - None of the ties fit this shirt. (Ties is plural, so the verb is plural.) But when none refers to a singular, uncountable noun, the verb is singular: None of the pizza has been eaten.

My take is that 'pregnancies' is uncountable over here. I mean everyone has one pregnancy ? pronouncing it one/two is not making much sense. Better phrase should be pregnancy of two people. I think It should be singular. Though I will take daagh sir's opinion too.

I do not think that pregnancies here is uncountable :
"wives of workers.... " the subject is wives ( plural of wife) , which makes sense because wives OF WORKERS makes sense. Now if "pregnancies" were uncountable, Wives would have to be too. Wives = multiple woman. Countable. They will have their own pregnancies . SO the author is saying pregnancies(individual pregnancy of each ) of those wives of workers.....

GMATNinja VeritasPrepBrian DmitryFarber GMATNinjaTwo chetan2u

aragonn and AdityaHongunti

I'm sure if the guys above want to add something they will.

Pregnancy in English is both a countable and uncountable noun.

Dictionary definitions might help:
Cambridge Dictionary online is HERE and
Longman's is HERE

Uncountable: Teen pregnancy is a growing problem.
Countable: Her first pregnancy coincided with the writing of her PhD dissertation.

Because the pregnancies in this question are endured and possessed by real women,
the pregnancies are countable.
"Their" pregnancies -- and the number of heart defects in the babies who developed during
those women's pregnancies -- are countable.

GMAT generally treats NONE as singular.
Linguists debate hotly about whether NONE can be plural.
GMAC tends to stay away from heated linguistic debates.

Both egmat HERE, and
and RonPurewal HERE assert that GMAC does not test the issue. (None is singular.)

GMAC? NONE = singular.
A non-issue.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2101
Own Kudos [?]: 8809 [3]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was normal.

(A) to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was - Illogical meaning - children did not have miscarriages
(B) to have had children born with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of the pregnancies was - Illogical meaning - children did not have miscarriages
(C) either to have had children with heart defects or miscarriages, without any of their pregnancies being - parallelism issue - either to have had children with heart defects or miscarriages ; Illogical meaning - children did not have miscarriages
(D) either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects; none of the pregnancies was - Correct
(E) either to have had miscarriages or children born with heart defects, without any of their pregnancies being - parallelism issue - either to have had miscarriages or children born with heart defects

Answer D

none of the pregnancies was normal -- I thought none of the pregnancies should take plural verb were (Though did not face an issue since that wasn't a decision point in this question)

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , MagooshExpert , GMATGuruNY , VeritasKarishma , DmitryFarber , ChiranjeevSingh , VeritasPrepBrian , MartyMurray , other experts - please enlighten
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 5330
Own Kudos [?]: 35490 [2]
Given Kudos: 9464
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
soapbolt wrote:
generis
The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979 - Independent Clause
three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found - Independent Clause

Both the IC are joined by just a Comma. I am finding it hard to digest. As we know two IC should be joined by Comma + FANBOYS.

Can you please help me with the understanding. What i am missing here?

soapbolt , this construction is hard.
The time sequence is clear but not linear.

Time sequence:
1976 -> a study finds that women and children suffer because they were exposed to Oryzalin, which is toxic.
1979, three years later -> Oryzalin is still being produced.

The correct answer, D, results in this sentence:

The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects; none of the pregnancies was normal.

Let's take the second part on the left hand side of the semicolon. I am going to insert a comma that is not in the original and remove a comma that was:
[T]hree years after, the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer New York were found either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects. :(

Simplify it. This prepositional phrase can be omitted: of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York,
Thus:
Three years after, the wives were found to have [had X or borne Y]. :(

That second part, then, only appears to be a complete sentence. It is not.
After often is a preposition. After can also be a subordinating conjunction. Before and since can behave this way, too.

In this case after creates a subordinate clause, although it is hard to spot "after" as a subordinate conjunction because "three years" precedes "after" and the em dash complicates what gets capitalized.

Maybe this annotation will help clear the matter:

[T]hree years after [three years after what? what event? what time period?] the wives of workers producing the chemical . . . were found either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects.

Your radar is keen. This construction is difficult.
If you still have questions, please ask. I am happy to try to assist.

I hope that analysis helps. :)
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3512
Own Kudos [?]: 6859 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
shanks2020 wrote:
generis wrote:
soapbolt wrote:
generis
The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979 - Independent Clause
three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found - Independent Clause

Both the IC are joined by just a Comma. I am finding it hard to digest. As we know two IC should be joined by Comma + FANBOYS.

Can you please help me with the understanding. What i am missing here?

soapbolt , this construction is hard.
The time sequence is clear but not linear.

Time sequence:
1976 -> a study finds that women and children suffer because they were exposed to Oryzalin, which is toxic.
1979, three years later -> Oryzalin is still being produced.

The correct answer, D, results in this sentence:

The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects; none of the pregnancies was normal.

Let's take the second part on the left hand side of the semicolon. I am going to insert a comma that is not in the original and remove a comma that was:
[T]hree years after, the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer New York were found either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects. :(

Simplify it. This prepositional phrase can be omitted: of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York,
Thus:
Three years after, the wives were found to have [had X or borne Y]. :(

That second part, then, only appears to be a complete sentence. It is not.
After often is a preposition. After can also be a subordinating conjunction. Before and since can behave this way, too.

In this case after creates a subordinate clause, although it is hard to spot "after" as a subordinate conjunction because "three years" precedes "after" and the em dash complicates what gets capitalized.

Maybe this annotation will help clear the matter:

[T]hree years after [three years after what? what event? what time period?] the wives of workers producing the chemical . . . were found either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects.

Your radar is keen. This construction is difficult.
If you still have questions, please ask. I am happy to try to assist.

I hope that analysis helps. :)


Hi AndrewN

Do you have a better explanation, as to why the non underlined portion does not lead to 2 IC clause?
The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979 - Independent Clause
three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found - Independent Clause

Hello, shanks2020. I am not sure about better. When I read explanations by generis, I am often astounded by the depth of knowledge on display, and the one above proves no different. Simpler, though? Now that I can do (because that is how I think—in less technical terms—and also how I enjoy approaching SC topics). If you strip down the correct sentence to its barebones, you get a clear subordinate clause in the latter part in question. First, the full sentence:

(D) The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects; none of the pregnancies was normal.

Now, with the second part stripped down, without everything that follows the semicolon:

(D) The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years after [people] were found either to [X] or to [Y].

Ask yourself, can this "sentence" stand alone? Three years after [people] were found either to [X] or to [Y]? No, of course not: the after subordinates the clause that follows.

That is my shorthand version of why (D) does not present two independent clauses prior to the semicolon. (All bets are off after that.) I appreciate the shoutout, and I hope that my explanation satisfies your curiosity.

- Andrew
Director
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 560
Own Kudos [?]: 933 [1]
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GPA: 3.6
WE:Operations (Consumer Products)
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
1
Kudos
aragonn daagh shouldnt it be "none of the pregnancies WERE.... " ?? None is one of the SANAM. and hence depends on the main subject (pregnancies)
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1267
Own Kudos [?]: 5650 [1]
Given Kudos: 416
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
1
Kudos
AdityaHongunti wrote:
aragonn daagh shouldnt it be "none of the pregnancies WERE.... " ?? None is one of the SANAM. and hence depends on the main subject (pregnancies)


Rule - None is another exception. It can take either singular or plural. Ex - None of the ties fit this shirt. (Ties is plural, so the verb is plural.) But when none refers to a singular, uncountable noun, the verb is singular: None of the pizza has been eaten.

My take is that 'pregnancies' is uncountable over here. I mean everyone has one pregnancy ? pronouncing it one/two is not making much sense. Better phrase should be pregnancy of two people. I think It should be singular. Though I will take daagh sir's opinion too.
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 5330
Own Kudos [?]: 35490 [1]
Given Kudos: 9464
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
AdityaHongunti wrote:
So to conclude ignore none and look for another error...
Cool?

• Yes, ignore none, except in one case, see below.
"None" standing alone is not a decision point.

daagh and sowmiyav gave the best answers.

Correlative conjunctions and parallelism
One answer uses the term "correlative," which may not be familiar to some people.
Correlative conjunctions work together, join one sentence element to another, come in pairs, and must be used in particular ways.

A few examples of correlative conjunctions include either/or, not only/but also, as/as, and as many/as.

• Correlative conjunctions that involve prepositions such as with must be checked for parallelism.

The first word in the correlative conjunction determines where the parallelism begins.
In option E the setup of the correlative conjunction either/or plus to is incorrect.

(E) either to have had miscarriages or children born with heart defects
-- We need either X and or Y to be parallel.

In E the either X/or Y phrases are not parallel. In (E) we have either to have had X or Y (the "to have had" should also come before Y and does not)

What is the rule about where the preposition belongs? We have two choices.

1) we can make two parallel prepositional phrases.
We use to twice AFTER the "start" word of the pair.
Correct, parallel prepositional phrases: either to X or to Y
(E), corrected: [either] to have had miscarriages [or] to have had children born with defects

2) we can use one preposition followed by two parallel coordinate conjunction phrases
We use to just one time, BEFORE the "start" word of the pair: to either X or Y
(E), corrected: to have had [either miscarriages or children born with heart defects]

Incorrect constructions
Incorrect because the TO phrase is used only one time after either, such that only either is modified:
either to have had miscarriages or children born with heart defects :x
either to X or Y :x

Also incorrect (not shown) because the TO phrase is used one time before the start word either and one time after
to have had either miscarriages or to have had children born with defects :x
to either X or to Y :x

The subject of prepositional parallelism with coordinate conjunctions is difficult.
THIS POST by Mike McGarry discusses "once outside, twice inside" in the
context of "correlative" conjunctions such as either/or.

Final note about NONE
Although the phrase none of the pregnancies was
has no errors, uses simple and clear construction [NONE of the] + Subject + Verb . . .
I would not use the phrase as a first decision point (compared to "without any . . .").

At the same time, the phrase, without any of their pregnancies being normal is MUCH worse than the none phrase.
So I would use the "none" phrase if I were down to two answers,
say, D and E.
I would pick none of over without any of and eliminate answer E
in order to avoid the lengthier thought process about the first parts of D and E.
Just a thought on strategy.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Posts: 4946
Own Kudos [?]: 7626 [1]
Given Kudos: 215
Location: India
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Top Contributor
aragonn wrote:
The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was normal.

(A) to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was
(B) to have had children born with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of the pregnancies was
(C) either to have had children with heart defects or miscarriages, without any of their pregnancies being
(D) either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects; none of the pregnancies was
(E) either to have had miscarriages or children born with heart defects, without any of their pregnancies being


This question is based on Pronoun Usage and Construction.

The placement of the phrase “with heart defects or miscarriages” causes a meaning and pronoun reference error in Option A. For one thing, it is not the children who had miscarriages. For another, the placement of the pronoun ‘their’ after the phrase “children with heart defects or miscarriages” conveys the meaning that it was the children who were pregnant. So, Option A can be eliminated.

Option B is not much better, though there are a few changes in this option. However, this option also conveys the meaning that children were born with miscarriages, a phrase that is illogical. So, Option B can also be eliminated.

Option C repeats the error of meaning in Options A and B. In this option again, the pronoun ‘their’ is ambiguous. So, Option C can also be eliminated.

In Option E, the pronoun ‘their’ is ambiguous, as it is not clear whose pregnancies are referred to. So, Option E can also be eliminated.

Option D is slightly longer than the other options, but the meaning is clear. This option also avoids the pronoun error. Therefore, D is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2014
Posts: 24
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Schools: IMD '21 (S)
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
Error is meaning wives has children with heart defect or miscarriage , it looks like children have miscarriage

A have same error with ....were found ... And none of their ...another errot
B same as A
C either x or y error and being make things pasisve
D perfect
E either x or y

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Posts: 14
Own Kudos [?]: 43 [0]
Given Kudos: 93
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
aragonn wrote:

Project SC Butler: Day 8: Sentence Correction (SC2)


For SC butler Questions Click Here


The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was normal.

(A) to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was
(B) to have had children born with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of the pregnancies was
(C) either to have had children with heart defects or miscarriages, without any of their pregnancies being
(D) either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects; none of the pregnancies was
(E) either to have had miscarriages or children born with heart defects, without any of their pregnancies being

The best/excellent answers get kudos, which will be awarded after the answer is revealed.
There may be no best/excellent answers, or a there may be a few excellent answers!


IMO B

A) ambiguous antecedent for "their" --- Incorrect
B)Concise and in accordance with the original sentence--- Correct
C) Same as A ---- Incorrect
D) Wordy- unnecessary use of either..or...-- Incorrect
E) Same as A-- Incorrect
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2016
Posts: 97
Own Kudos [?]: 221 [0]
Given Kudos: 106
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
GMAT 1: 480 Q34 V22
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was normal.

(A) to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was
(B) to have had children born with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of the pregnancies was
(C) either to have had children with heart defects or miscarriages, without any of their pregnancies being
(D) either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects; none of the pregnancies was
(E) either to have had miscarriages or children born with heart defects, without any of their pregnancies being

The wives were found - 1) to have had children borne with heart defects
2) to have borne children with heart defects

a. Use of their is ambiguous
b. "or miscarriages" is not connected with to have, making the choice incorrect.
c and e. Not parallel.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 25 May 2018
Posts: 21
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 13
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
was conflicted between B and D. but seems like B has modifier error.
D is the best option.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1267
Own Kudos [?]: 5650 [0]
Given Kudos: 416
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
aragonn wrote:

Project SC Butler: Day 8: Sentence Correction (SC2)


For SC butler Questions Click Here


The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years after the wives of workers producing the chemical in Rensselaer, New York, were found to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was normal.

(A) to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was
(B) to have had children born with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of the pregnancies was
(C) either to have had children with heart defects or miscarriages, without any of their pregnancies being
(D) either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects; none of the pregnancies was
(E) either to have had miscarriages or children born with heart defects, without any of their pregnancies being

The best/excellent answers get kudos, which will be awarded after the answer is revealed.
There may be no best/excellent answers, or a there may be a few excellent answers!

Official Explanation:


Choices A and B are incorrect because with governs both heart defects and, miscarriages; in other words, choice A says that the children and not the women suffered the miscarriages. For the sentence to make sense, miscarriages must be the object of a verb that has wives as its subject. Also, their in choices A, C, and E is ambiguous because it is far from its referent, wives. Choices C and E lack parallel construction: a verb form like the one after either should appear after or. Choice D is the best answer.
VP
VP
Joined: 09 Mar 2016
Posts: 1160
Own Kudos [?]: 1017 [0]
Given Kudos: 3851
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
Surprisingly i chose D BUT i have a doubt in one verb :)

As far as i know there is difference between verbs Born Vs Borne

We use "born" in the phrase be born to indicate that a child has entered this crazy world :)

"Borne" is past participle of verb "bear" i.e. bear, bore, borne - means to tolerate something. I dont get how can this verb be used in the context below (in option D) :?


gmatbusters you could include "born" vs "borne" into your collection of confusable words :grin:

(A) to have borne children with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of their pregnancies was ( incorrect usage of verb Borne + pronoun "their" ambiguity)
(B) to have had children born with heart defects or miscarriages, and none of the pregnancies was ( "either" is missing )
(C) either to have had children with heart defects or miscarriages, without any of their pregnancies being ( pronoun "their" ambiguity )
(D) either to have had miscarriages or to have borne children with heart defects; none of the pregnancies was (CORRECT SV agreement + "either ... or" )
(E) either to have had miscarriages or children born with heart defects, without any of their pregnancies being ( INCORRECT pronoun "their" ambiguity and many other defects :) )



generis may be you can enlighten me ? :)
Director
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 560
Own Kudos [?]: 933 [0]
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GPA: 3.6
WE:Operations (Consumer Products)
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
aragonn wrote:
AdityaHongunti wrote:
aragonn daagh shouldnt it be "none of the pregnancies WERE.... " ?? None is one of the SANAM. and hence depends on the main subject (pregnancies)


Rule - None is another exception. It can take either singular or plural. Ex - None of the ties fit this shirt. (Ties is plural, so the verb is plural.) But when none refers to a singular, uncountable noun, the verb is singular: None of the pizza has been eaten.

My take is that 'pregnancies' is uncountable over here. I mean everyone has one pregnancy ? pronouncing it one/two is not making much sense. Better phrase should be pregnancy of two people. I think It should be singular. Though I will take daagh sir's opinion too.


I do not think that pregnancies here is uncountable :
"wives of workers.... " the subject is wives ( plural of wife) , which makes sense because wives OF WORKERS makes sense. Now if "pregnancies" were uncountable, Wives would have to be too. Wives = multiple woman. Countable. They will have their own pregnancies . SO the author is saying pregnancies(individual pregnancy of each ) of those wives of workers.....

GMATNinja VeritasPrepBrian DmitryFarber GMATNinjaTwo chetan2u
Director
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 560
Own Kudos [?]: 933 [0]
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GPA: 3.6
WE:Operations (Consumer Products)
Send PM
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
generis
So to conclude ignore none and look for another error...
Cool?
Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The herbicide Oryzalin was still being produced in 1979, three years [#permalink]
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne