Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 27 Sep 2026, 00:09 |
It is currently 27 Sep 2026, 00:09 |
|
|
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.
Sep 2701:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Sep 2807:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 28, 2026 - Oct. 16, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
Sep 2911:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
" Description: Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thur Sept. 29, 2026 - Dec. 3, 2026, 11:00am-1:00pm EST
Oct 0102:00 AM EDT
-03:00 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.
Oct 0107:00 AM BST
-08:00 AM GMT
Welcome to the GMAT Club's Free Interview Prep Event for Top MBA Programs! Buy tickets - Virtual series that’s all set to equip you to -excel in your MBA interviews.
Oct 0301:00 PM EDT
-04:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Saturdays Oct. 3, 2026 - Dec. 26, 2026, 1:00pm-4:00pm EST
21 Sep 2020, 19:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
zoezhuyan
It sounds like you might be trying to treat this as a not/but construction:
- "The behavior emerged not in a laboratory but in a real world setting." - Note the element of contrast here: (1) the behavior did NOT emerge in a laboratory, but (2) the behavior DID emerge in a real world setting.
That is completely different than what's going on in choice (C). Here we are simply listing two situations in which the behavior and thought process might NOT emerge:
- (1) behavior and thought processes that might not emerge in other procedures
- (2) behavior and thought processes that might not emerge in weeks of ordinary interviews
Imagine removing the "not" from (C):
- "behavior and thought processes that might emerge (1) in other procedures or (2) in weeks of ordinary interviews."
Notice that this is a plain old parallel list. Both prepositional phrases ("in other procedures" and "in weeks of ordinary interviews") can be tied back to "that might emerge _____." The "not" in choice (C) simply modifies the verb "emerge," giving us the opposite meaning. But the "not" doesn't affect the parallelism whatsoever.
FlyingWhale
zoezhuyan
We attempted to address the parallelism issue in this post.
- Both (A) and (B) have, "...in other procedures or weeks of ordinary..."). Yes, it makes perfect sense to assume that "other" only modifies "procedures" (and not "weeks"). However, you can interpret the parallelism another way.
- Does that make the parallelism wrong in (A) and (B)? No. But, repeating the "in" completely eliminates that ambiguity in choice (C). So there's one vote in favor of (C) over (B).
As for the "whose..." in choice (B)... as noted in the Manhattan guide, there is nothing inherently wrong with using "whose" to modify an inanimate object (a town, for example).
But let's zoom in on "behavior and thought processes whose emergence is unlikely...". By using the possessive "whose," it sounds as though the emergence is a quality or characteristic OF the behavior and thought processes... as if the behavior and thought processes have an emergence... and that emergence (which the behavior and thought processes have) IS unlikely in other procedures or weeks of ordinary interviews. In other words, we naturally want to treat it like this one:
- "The GMAT tutor whose singing voice is unlikely to attract the attention of record executives should probably not quit his day job." - The GMAT tutor HAS a signing voice, and that voice is UNLIKELY to do something.
Of course, it's easy enough to understand what (B) is trying to say... which is not that the behavior and thought processes HAVE an emergence that is UNLIKELY to do something. Instead, (B) is trying to say that the behavior and thought processes might not emerge in other procedures or in weeks of ordinary interviews - hmm, why does that wording sound familiar??
Is the "whose ___" wrong in choice (B)? No. But the intended meaning is more clear in (C), so there's another vote for (C) over (B).
I hope that helps!
Updated on: 07 Mar 2022, 11:31
Originally posted by GMATNinja on 21 Sep 2020, 19:22.
Last edited by GMATNinjaTwo on 07 Mar 2022, 11:31, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by GMATNinjaTwo on 07 Mar 2022, 11:31, edited 1 time in total.
fixed typo
Kudos
Bookmarks
deveshj21
One problem with (E) is that we aren't sure what "in other procedures" is parallel to. Logically, it should be parallel to "during weeks of ordinary interviewing." However, we could also interpret it as being parallel to just "of ordinary interviewing" ("... emerge during weeks (1) of ordinary interviewing or (2) in other procedures). Again, the parallelism in (C) is not open to interpretation, so this is a vote in favor of (C) over (E).
Also, notice the meaning difference between (E) "likely not to emerge..." and (C) "that might not emerge...". The wording in (E) suggests that the behavior and thought processes probably won't emerge, while the wording in (C) suggests that there is a still a good chance that the behavior and thought processes WILL emerge (maybe they will, maybe they won't).
Great, but which of those is better? Well, we know that the "Rorschach test is gaining new respect as a diagnostic tool." This does NOT suggest that the Rorschach test has completely (or largely) taken over because it's so much better than the other methods. Instead, it suggests that the Rorschach test is slowly gaining traction--users are apparently starting to see the benefits of this test and starting to give it some new respect (after, presumably, not giving it much respect).
If the Rorschach test only takes one hour to expose behavior and thought processes that PROBABLY will NOT emerge in the other methods, wouldn't we expect a stronger reaction from the users? Wouldn't we expect them to to start using the Rorschach quite frequently, instead of just giving it a little respect?
That's another vote for (C) over (E).
Lastly, we have to choose between "interviewing" and "interviews." I wouldn't say either is wrong... but "interviewing" puts the focus on the interviewer--the person who is doing the action of interviewing people. On the other hand, "interviews" puts the focus on the exchanges between the interviewer and the interviewees. I think the latter is more appropriate given the context (we are concerned with the interviews themselves, not the action of interviewing people). That's another vote in favor of (C) over (E).
Comparing each of the little differences based on meaning, we have three votes in favor of (C) over (E). That makes (C) our winner.
29 May 2021, 18:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi
GMATNinja AjiteshArun CrackVerbalGMAT EducationAisle
The Rorschach test is gaining new respect as a diagnostic tool because it takes only one hour to expose behavior and thought processes that may be unlikely to emerge in other procedures or weeks of ordinary interviewing.
(C) that might not emerge in other procedures or in weeks of ordinary interviews
(E) likely not to emerge during weeks of ordinary interviewing or in other procedures
Actually I chose E over C because that might not === likely not doesn't make much difference. I am not able to figure how this could be error in E.
--this doubt is cleared with GMATNinja 'spost
Secondly I chose because in weeks vs in other procedure ( seems both are same type of entity) . As weeks is time so during is better, is not it? during weeks /in procedures
>> please suggest about this one.
Thanks! GMATNinja AjiteshArun CrackVerbalGMAT EducationAisle
GMATNinja AjiteshArun CrackVerbalGMAT EducationAisle
The Rorschach test is gaining new respect as a diagnostic tool because it takes only one hour to expose behavior and thought processes that may be unlikely to emerge in other procedures or weeks of ordinary interviewing.
(C) that might not emerge in other procedures or in weeks of ordinary interviews
(E) likely not to emerge during weeks of ordinary interviewing or in other procedures
Actually I chose E over C because that might not === likely not doesn't make much difference. I am not able to figure how this could be error in E.
--this doubt is cleared with GMATNinja 'spost
Secondly I chose because in weeks vs in other procedure ( seems both are same type of entity) . As weeks is time so during is better, is not it? during weeks /in procedures
>> please suggest about this one.
Thanks! GMATNinja AjiteshArun CrackVerbalGMAT EducationAisle
30 May 2021, 20:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
mSKR
Hi mSKR,
"In weeks of" is very common, so (as far as I know) there is no way to say that during will always be better than in with weeks.
