The Rorschzch test is gaining new respect as a diagnostic tool because

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.
_________________

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

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.
_________________

My approach to this question:


"... that may be unlikely to emerge" makes no sense. Eliminate
MAY BE unlikely means it may not be unlikely. What is the author trying to say here? Is it or is it not unlikely? Btw, "... that ARE unlikely to emerge" would be fine.


"In other procedures or weeks" has a type of parallelism problem. Procedures and weeks are both nouns, but the meanings are not comparable.
Also, the phrasing does not make it clear whether the modifiers "other" and "in weeks of ordinary interviewing" apply to both procedures and weeks.

The above may not be serious problems that warrant immediate elimination, but B can be eliminated if we find a better choice. And C is a better choice.


No Problems here. Option C corrects the problems in Option B
- "in other procedures" is parallel to "in weeks"
- "other" applies only to procedures, not to weeks
- "of ordinary interviews" applies only to weeks, not to procedures
Also, "that might not emerge" is preferred to "whose emergence is unlikely". (Compare "X will emerge at 5" with "X's emergence will be at 5".)


It is not standard usage to say "under other procedures" and "under weeks". Eliminate.


"... behaviour and processes likely not to emerge..." is not well phrased (!). A good writer would say "unlikely to emerge" rather than "likely not to emerge". When the word " unlikely" is available, why use "not likely'?
Answer choice C does not have any such issues. We need to find the best of the answer choices, and C is better than E (which really sounds wrong).
_________________

GMATIntensive
How is emerge during an activity different from emerge in an activity?

GMATNinja AjiteshArun
The use of the preposition 'in' before the two parallel elements confuses me. I feel like the sentence is literally saying that the behaviour and thought processes will emerge in weeks of ordinary interviews itself rather the sentence should say something along the lines of 'processes that will emerge after weeks of ordinary interviews.
I would appreciate some help on this.

Hi singd,

After is possible, but it would lead to a different meaning.

1. ... that might not emerge in other procedures or in weeks of ordinary interviews...

2. ... that might not emerge in other procedures or after weeks of ordinary interviews...

After hints at the completion of the process or time interval (weeks of ordinary interviews). In just means ~ "at some point during" that process/time interval.
_________________

(A) that may be unlikely to emerge in other procedures or weeks of ordinary interviewing
may be unlikely isn't conveying the right meaning therefore out

(B) whose emergence is unlikely in other procedures or weeks of ordinary interviews
whose is ambigious since we are not refering to any particular person therefore out

(C) that might not emerge in other procedures or in weeks of ordinary interviews
The meaning and that has the right reference therefore in

(D) that may not emerge under other procedures or weeks of ordinary interviews
may not rules out the possibility of an outcome which is not the case therefore out

(E) likely not to emerge during weeks of ordinary interviewing or in other procedures
The meaning isn't perfect therefore out

Therefore IMO C

It is not parallel during weeks of interviewing or in other procedures

o (A) that may be unlikely to emerge in other procedures or weeks of ordinary interviewing may be + unlikely = redundant
o (B) whose emergence is unlikely in other procedures or weeks of ordinary interviews ok, but C is better as it clearly ensure the parallelism of in weeks; but I must say both B and D are correct to me, it falls into the camp of a more correct answer
o (C) that might not emerge in other procedures or in weeks of ordinary interviews
o (D) that may not emerge under other procedures or weeks of ordinary interviews ditto
o (E) likely not to emerge during weeks of ordinary interviewing or in other procedures during…in… non-parallel

GMATNinja

is that a general rule for the use of "may not" and "might not" or its a special case for that specific example?

I thought that the difference between may and might is a tense difference: May is used for the present tense and might is used for the past tense

There are a couple of different uses of "may" and "might," including the tense issue that you've identified. However, that's not always the distinction between the two -- you can use both "may" and "might" in the present, or to speculate about the future.

The issue here is that we've got the word "not" involved. If you say, "I MIGHT not go to the ball," that means that you're not sure whether you'll go. If you say "I MAY not go to the ball," that is more likely to mean that you're not permitted to go to the ball. We're looking for that first meaning in this sentence, so "might not" is clearer than "may not."

Bigger picture: this is a really old question that tests a very small nuance of language. It's really not worth it to try to memorize any rules about this particular quirk, because it's highly unlikely to show up on your GMAT exam.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Can we cross A on basis of redundancy. Maybe and unlikely, they both represent probability. Some experts please guide me here.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello AbhishekDhanraJ72,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, in this case, "may" and "unlikely" do not form a redundancy, as the two adverbs refer to different actions.

"unlikely" refers to "emerge" - the action of certain "behavior and thought processes" emerging in other procedures or weeks of ordinary interviewing.

"may" refers to "be" - the action of certain "behavior and thought processes" being unlikely to emerge in other procedures or weeks of ordinary interviewing.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

Hi!
Can you please shed some light on the difference between 'in weeks of interviews' and 'during weeks of interviewing'?
And is 'likely not to emerge...' a valid modifier of 'behavior and thought processes'?

I got the qs right but still have these doubts

Those basically mean the same thing, so that's not really much of a decision point when comparing (C) and (E).

Check out this post, which explains why (C) is better than (E): https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-rorschzc ... l#p2625510.
_________________