GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 26 Sep 2018, 08:15

### 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

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

# The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 158
Schools: University of Dhaka - Class of 2010
GPA: 3.63
The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2013, 04:13
1
4
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

88% (01:05) correct 12% (01:15) wrong based on 543 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961, was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits the growth of marine borers that in most seas devour every exposed scrap of a sunken ship's wooden hull.
(A) was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits
(B) being preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because the low salinity there is able to inhibit
(C) and preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, the low salinity there inhibits
(D) having been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, whose low salinity inhibits
(E) had been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because of low salinity there inhibiting

_________________

Practice Makes a Man Perfect. Practice. Practice. Practice......Perfectly

Critical Reasoning: http://gmatclub.com/forum/best-critical-reasoning-shortcuts-notes-tips-91280.html

Collections of MGMAT CAT: http://gmatclub.com/forum/collections-of-mgmat-cat-math-152750.html

MGMAT SC SUMMARY: http://gmatclub.com/forum/mgmat-sc-summary-of-fourth-edition-152753.html

Sentence Correction: http://gmatclub.com/forum/sentence-correction-strategies-and-notes-91218.html

Arithmatic & Algebra: http://gmatclub.com/forum/arithmatic-algebra-93678.html

I hope these will help to understand the basic concepts & strategies. Please Click ON KUDOS Button.

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4664
The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2013, 16:30
1
monirjewel wrote:
The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961, was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits the growth of marine borers that in most seas devour every exposed scrap of a sunken ship's wooden hull.
(A) was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits
(B) being preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because the low salinity there is able to inhibit
(C) and preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, the low salinity there inhibits
(D) having been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, whose low salinity inhibits
(E) had been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because of low salinity there inhibiting

Dear monirjewel,
I'm happy to help with this.

In this sentence, we have a subject, "the Swedish warship Vasa", and then a noun-modifier in the form of two participles in parallel, "sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961", but at that point in the sentence, there's no verb. That noun needs a verb. See:
The Missing Verb Mistake

(A) provides a true verb
(C) makes the mistake of sticking in a conjunction, so we have [noun][participial phrase]"and"[participial phrase], so this is missing a true verb.
Choices (B) & (D) just add on more participial phrases, so in those version, there's no verb in the entire sentence --- the classic form of the "missing verb" mistake.
Choice (E) does provide a true verb, but unnecessarily in the past-perfect tense. Also, the change from a true subordinate clause to a prepositional phrase beginning with "because of" make this very wordy and awkward. This can't be correct.

That's why only (A) could be the answer.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Senior Manager
Status: Active
Affiliations: NA
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 290
GMAT 1: 590 Q50 V21
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 3: 730 Q51 V37
GPA: 3.5
Re: The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2017, 23:29
1
mikemcgarry wrote:
monirjewel wrote:
The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961, was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits the growth of marine borers that in most seas devour every exposed scrap of a sunken ship's wooden hull.
(A) was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits
(B) being preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because the low salinity there is able to inhibit
(C) and preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, the low salinity there inhibits
(D) having been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, whose low salinity inhibits
(E) had been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because of low salinity there inhibiting

Dear monirjewel,
I'm happy to help with this.

In this sentence, we have a subject, "the Swedish warship Vasa", and then a noun-modifier in the form of two participles in parallel, "sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961", but at that point in the sentence, there's no verb. That noun needs a verb. See:
http://gmat.magoosh.com/lessons/914-the ... rb-mistake

(A) provide a true verb
(C) make the mistake of sticking in a conjunction, so we have [noun][participial phrase]"and"[verb], a classic mistake structure on the GMAT.
Choices (B) & (D) & (E) all just add on more participial phrases, so in those version, there's no verb in the entire sentence --- the classic form of the "missing verb" mistake.
That's why only (A) could be the answer.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike,
I think there is typing mistake in your post as option E has verb whereas C doesn't have one.
_________________

#If you like my post , please encourage me by giving Kudos

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4664
Re: The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2017, 09:28
anje29 wrote:
Hi Mike,
I think there is typing mistake in your post as option E has verb whereas C doesn't have one.

Dear anje29,

You're correct. I modified my post. Thanks for pointing this out.

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

SVP
Joined: 26 Mar 2013
Posts: 1814
Re: The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2017, 16:19
mikemcgarry wrote:
monirjewel wrote:
The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961, was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits the growth of marine borers that in most seas devour every exposed scrap of a sunken ship's wooden hull.
(A) was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits
(B) being preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because the low salinity there is able to inhibit
(C) and preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, the low salinity there inhibits
(D) having been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, whose low salinity inhibits
(E) had been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because of low salinity there inhibiting

Dear monirjewel,
I'm happy to help with this.

In this sentence, we have a subject, "the Swedish warship Vasa", and then a noun-modifier in the form of two participles in parallel, "sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961", but at that point in the sentence, there's no verb. That noun needs a verb. See:
The Missing Verb Mistake

(A) provides a true verb
(C) makes the mistake of sticking in a conjunction, so we have [noun][participial phrase]"and"[participial phrase], so this is missing a true verb.
Choices (B) & (D) just add on more participial phrases, so in those version, there's no verb in the entire sentence --- the classic form of the "missing verb" mistake.
Choice (E) does provide a true verb, but unnecessarily in the past-perfect tense. Also, the change from a true subordinate clause to a prepositional phrase beginning with "because of" make this very wordy and awkward. This can't be correct.

That's why only (A) could be the answer.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Dear mikemcgarry

I hope you are well.

I have certain question of the construction "because of + noun + participle". Is this construction always wrong? Is there any exception? if yes, have you seen any OG SC question that used it correctly.

I need your help about one of your article about modification with 'with' and when it is correct or wrong. I remember that I read it once and you nailed the it but I can't locate even with using google.

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4664
Re: The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2017, 16:49
1
Mo2men wrote:

Dear mikemcgarry

I hope you are well.

I have certain question of the construction "because of + noun + participle". Is this construction always wrong? Is there any exception? if yes, have you seen any OG SC question that used it correctly.

I need your help about one of your article about modification with 'with' and when it is correct or wrong. I remember that I read it once and you nailed the it but I can't locate even with using google.

Dear Mo2men,

How are you my friend? I'm find and I'm happy to respond.

I wouldn't say that this structure is always wrong, categorically wrong. When it's right and wrong, though, is a tricky issue.

with + [noun] + [participle] on GMAT Sentence Correction

One way to say this is that the true object of a preposition is a noun. Of course, this noun can be garnished by any noun modifier, but logic of the preposition should be pointing at the noun itself and this logic should remain intact when we remove the noun modifier.

Consider this not-very-GMAT-like sentence.
The picnic was canceled because of rain coming out of nowhere.
With respect to the issue we are treating here, this sentence is 100% correct. It would work if we completely dropped the noun modifier.
The picnic was canceled because of rain.
The participle modifier provides extra detail, but it is not part of the causation described by the preposition "because of." The cause described by "because of" is clearly the "rain" itself.

Now, another not-very-GMAT-like sentence.
Because of the garbage truck screeching, the baby awoke.
This is not so hot. Here the preposition is, at it were, trying to reach through the noun to get to the action of the noun modifier. The true cause now is the action, and any prepositional phrase is not the right place to put an action. If we drop the the participle, we lose the true cause to which the preposition was trying to point. This is the mistake form. We have to swap out the prepositional phrase for a true subordinate clause:
Because the garbage truck screeched, the baby awoke.
A full clause, either independent or subordinate, is the only appropriate place to put the action of a full verb.

Now, think about (E) in this context:
The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961, had been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because of low salinity there inhibiting the growth of marine borers that in most seas devour every exposed scrap of a sunken ship's wooden hull.
The reason that this old wooden hull had been preserved is not simply "low salinity." Instead, it's the fact that "low salinity there inhibits the growth of marine borers." The action is the real reason, so a prepositional phrase is not the correct grammatical structure for identifying this action as the cause.

Off the top of my head, I don't know any official questions that use this structure, but I am sure the GMAT thinks in terms of this distinction.

Does all this make sense, my friend?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

SVP
Joined: 26 Mar 2013
Posts: 1814
Re: The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2017, 16:59
Dear mikemcgarry,

Thanks a lot for your prompt response and thoroughly explanation as always.
Director
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Posts: 756
Location: United States
Schools: Yale '18
GMAT 1: 650 Q43 V37
GRE 1: Q157 V158
GPA: 2.66
Re: The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2017, 19:34
monirjewel wrote:
The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961, was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits the growth of marine borers that in most seas devour every exposed scrap of a sunken ship's wooden hull.
(A) was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits
(B) being preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because the low salinity there is able to inhibit
(C) and preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, the low salinity there inhibits
(D) having been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, whose low salinity inhibits
(E) had been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because of low salinity there inhibiting

IMO the trick with sentences like these- with a ton going on- is to just read them quickly in one motion so as to capture the whole meaning of the sentence. Reading this kind of sentence slowly can cause you not only to fumble words but confuse yourself.

A
Intern
Joined: 04 Dec 2016
Posts: 26
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 4
Re: The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2017, 10:09
monirjewel wrote:
The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961, was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits the growth of marine borers that in most seas devour every exposed scrap of a sunken ship's wooden hull.
(A) was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits
(B) being preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because the low salinity there is able to inhibit
(C) and preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, the low salinity there inhibits
(D) having been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, whose low salinity inhibits
(E) had been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because of low salinity there inhibiting

Hi

I picked A based on meaning and sentence structure.
However I just wanted to ask what is the meaning if we use D. Specifically asking...how to interpret having been...in the sentence.
I rejected D because whose cannot refer to non living objects. is this correct?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4664
Re: The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2017, 11:38
1
shoumodip wrote:
monirjewel wrote:
The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961, was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits the growth of marine borers that in most seas devour every exposed scrap of a sunken ship's wooden hull.
(A) was preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, where low salinity inhibits
(B) being preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because the low salinity there is able to inhibit
(C) and preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, the low salinity there inhibits
(D) having been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, whose low salinity inhibits
(E) had been preserved in the cold water of Stockholm harbor, because of low salinity there inhibiting

Hi

I picked A based on meaning and sentence structure.
However I just wanted to ask what is the meaning if we use D. Specifically asking...how to interpret having been...in the sentence.
I rejected D because whose cannot refer to non living objects. is this correct?

Dear shoumodip,

I'm happy to respond.

The "having been" + [past participle] or "having" + [past participle] constructions are something called a perfect particle, and these have roughly the same role as the past perfect tense of a full verb. When a full verb is correctly in the past perfect tense, it is in this tense to indicate that it is a past action that proceeded another past action. See:
Past Perfect on GMAT Sentence Correction

Tense issues with participles are tricky. You see, the present participle takes on the tense of the main verb.
Discussing the other night's baseball game, Mike is walking into the office right now. = the "discussing" is a present action
Discussing the other night's baseball game, Mike is walked into the office yesterday. = the "discussing" is a past action
Suppose we want to use the participle to show that the action was previous to the action of the main sentence. For this, we would use the perfect participle.
Having discussed other night's baseball game, Mike walked into the office. = the "discussing" is an action that was completed before Mike walked into the office

The "having" + [past participle] construction is active, and the "having been" + [past participle] construction is passive.
Having defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, Wellington lived in high prestige in Britain for the rest of his life.
Having been defeated by Wellington at Waterloo, Napoleon was out of options and was exiled to St. Helena.

As for the "whose" relative pronoun--certainly this is correct in reference to a particular person. It can also be used for a collective group:
. . . the company, whose logo says . . .
. . . the Eastern Orthodox Church, whose doctrines say . . .
. . . Frances, whose national symbol is . . .

English sometimes does use the female pronoun for large vehicles, particularly for boats: this is a classical custom of referring to any large ship as "she." Theoretically, we could use "whose" for any item to which we were referring as "she," but this is somewhat quaint and outdated, and a quite unlikely topic for the GMAT. In this question, using "whose" for a harbor doesn't feel right. You are correct.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Intern
Joined: 04 Dec 2016
Posts: 26
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 4
Re: The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Oct 2017, 03:39
Hi Mike,

This is one of the best explanation of "...having..." usage.
Thanks

Regards
Shoum
Re: The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961 &nbs [#permalink] 19 Oct 2017, 03:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# The Swedish warship Vasa, sunk in 1628 and raised in 1961

## Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.