The philosophical doctrine of Incompatibility posits an inherent irrec

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION





• Split #1 - irreconcilability exists between two things, not among or in them.

Among is almost always used for more than two individual things.
To say that two things cannot be reconciled means that there is opposition between, not among or in them.

Eliminate options A and C

Split #2 - avoid absurd meaning

In almost any context, this one included, irreconcilability means that two things are
1) in stark contradiction or disagreement, and
2) not likely to change anytime soon.

Option E mischaracterizes determinism by using the words "may be."
Determinism is dogmatic and complete.

But in option E, a state of affairs may (implied: or might not) be determined by preexisting causes.
And if events might not be determined, then perhaps human free will caused the events.
There is no more irreconcilability.

Eliminate option E

• Split #3 - existence of free will vs. free will existing. Avoid babble.

The word "existence" in option D is a dedicated noun—the "regular" noun.
The word "existing" in option B is a gerund—a noun made out of a verb.
If at all possible, use the dedicated noun rather than the gerund.

Maintain parallelism.
The construction between X and Y requires that X and Y be parallel.
But in this case, option B incorrectly compares
X = the doctrine of determinism
and
Y = free will existing.
We know Y could be "the existence of free will," which fits better with "the doctrine of determinism."
The existence of free will is more parallel with "the doctrine of determinism."

This part of option B is ludicrous and a poor use of "as":
→ (B) holding each state of affairs as necessitated by the states
"holding . .. as" . .. necessitated by the states

Eliminate option B

The best answer is D

NOTES - OTHER ERRORS

• redundancy or crappy writing
Option C states, "the doctrine of Determinism, which holds the idea that each state"
This issue is not a dealbreaker, and it is very subtle.
We have already imbued the doctrine with more [human or conscious] agency than the doctrine contains.
The doctrine does not think.
Nonetheless it is standard to say that "a doctrine holds ABC."
We do not need "the idea." Compare to the other sentences.

• parallelism?
Because the dedicated noun "existence" is both preferred and exactly parallel to "doctrine" (both are abstract nouns), we choose "existence" over existing.

Existing is a verb-like noun called a gerund.
In the idiom Between X and Y, it's better not to have an X that is a regular abstract noun and another that is a gerund.


COMMENTS

varmashreekanth , welcome to SC Butler.

I am always glad to see both newcomers and veterans.

These answers are very good.

Once again, everyone: nice work.

Hi,
I have taken the following approach to solve this question. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Let us go through each option one by one.


In this option the usage of "among" is incorrect. Generally, "among" should be used for more than two items. For two items "between" should be used. So we can eliminate this option.


This option contains a parallelism marker "and", so we should first test for parallelism. Let us consider the term after "and" i.e "free will existing" and now let us consider the term before "and" i.e "the doctrine of Determinism". Both of them are nouns, so parallelism is correct.
But the usage "free will existing" is incorrect rather it should be "the existence of free will".
There is one more error in this option. The statement "holding each state of affairs as necessitated by the states of affairs that preceded it" is supposed to be the modifier of "the Doctrine of Determinism". But the way it is written in this option gives a feeling of 1st action leads to a 2nd action structure. A more clear way to use the modifier is with ", which" structure.
So we can eliminate this option.


Since this option drops the usage of "between" and "among" after the term "irreconcilability", it has distorted the entire meaning of the sentence. Generally, irreconcilability should always be between two things. So we can eliminate this option.


In this option, they have corrected the parallelism and also they have replaced the incorrect "free will existing" with "the existence of free will". As of now, we can keep this option.


This option contains a parallelism marker "and", so we should first test for parallelism. Let us consider the term after "and" i.e "free will existing" and now let us consider the term before "and" i.e "the doctrine of Determinism".
In this option, though the parallelism between "the doctrine of Determinism" and "free will existing" is correct, the usage of "free will existing " is incorrect. The better way is "the existence of free will". So we can eliminate this option.

So we are left with option D. So IMO option D is correct.

There are no 2 elements thus the usage of between is incorrect - B, D and E out

In C "in the doctrine of Determinism, which holds the idea" we need "that" after holds as doctrine of Determinism doesn't hold the idea by itself. It needs a definition of what it holds i.e. holds that blah blah blah..

Answer - A

D is the best answer.

Meaning: The doctrine posits an irreconcilability between: X: the doctrine of determinism and Y: the existence of free will.

Split #1: between and among
The sentence talks about irreconcilability between/among two thing, X: the doctrine of determinism and Y: the existence of free will. When reference is made to two things, between is appropriate and among is inappropriate. Based on this, A can be eliminated.

Split #2: Parallelism: the doctrine of Determinism and the existence of free will vs the doctrine of Determinism and free will existing
If my understanding of the structure is right, then in free will existing, the modifier is free will and the noun is existing, forming an appositive phrase. If strict parallelism rules are applied, then free will existing is not parallel to the doctrine of Determination. However, the doctrine and the existence are parallel. The noun form existence is superior to the gerund existing. In addition, the simple gerund can only be made parallel to another simple gerund. Based on this B and E can be eliminated.

Between C and D, C states that the doctrine of Determinism holds the idea that each state of affairs is necessitated by the states of affairs preceding. First of all, it is illogical for a doctrine to hold an idea. A person can hold an idea in a doctrine but it makes no sense to say a doctrine holds an idea. Second, the pronoun it is omitted in C after preceding, hence C creates a sense of an incomplete though in the which clause.

The philosophical doctrine of Incompatibility posits an inherent irreconcilability among the doctrine of Determinism, which holds that each state of affairs is necessitated by the states of affairs that preceded it, and the existence of free will.

A) among the doctrine of Determinism, which holds that each state of affairs is necessitated by the states of affairs that preceded it, and the existence of free will

B) between the doctrine of Determinism, holding each state of affairs as necessitated by the states of affairs that preceded it, and free will existing

C) in the doctrine of Determinism, which holds the idea that each state of affairs is necessitated by the states of affairs preceding [it], and the existence of free will

D) between the doctrine of Determinism, which holds that each state of affairs is necessitated by the states of affairs preceding it, and the existence of free will

E) between the doctrine of Determinism, which holds that each state of affairs may be necessitated by the states of affairs preceding it, and free will existing

among is used more than 2 items VS between is used 2 items, items that are the doctrine of Determinism and the existence of free will. So A is out. C is also out, taking preposition changes the meaning.
free will existing sounds awkward. mean noun is existing and free will is modifies the noun existing. existence of free will is better and correct. relationship between existence and free will is correctly stated. So B and E are out.
D corrects all of the above misses, hence D is right.

The official explanation is here.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-



A: This answer choice incorrectly uses the word "among" to compare two nouns, "doctrine" and "existence"; "among" is only used when comparing three or more elements. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

B: This answer choice is awkward, as it compares the dedicated noun "doctrine" with the gerund "existing". Additionally, B is redundant due to its use of the needlessly wordy phrase "holding each state of affairs as necessitated by the states of affairs that preceded it". Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

C: This answer choice fails to maintain the proper idiom construction "between...and" when comparing two elements. Additionally, C suffers from a subtle error in meaning because it uses the phrase "which holds the idea"; this phrasing implies that the doctrine has an idea, and is thus capable of conscious thought. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

D: This answer choice is concise, maintains proper comparison and idiom construction, and conveys the intended meaning of the sentence; namely, according to the philosophical doctrine of Incompatibility, the doctrine of Determinism and the existence of free will are irreconcilable. Thus, this answer choice is correct.

E: This answer choice changes the meaning of the sentence by using the phrase "may be", which conveys a sense of ambiguity. E also repeats the comparison error seen in Option B. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Between v/s Among on GMAT", you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

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.
_________________