Last visit was: 24 Jul 2024, 05:49 It is currently 24 Jul 2024, 05:49
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 364
Own Kudos [?]: 80 [0]
Given Kudos: 832
Tutor
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 1328
Own Kudos [?]: 3234 [2]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 364
Own Kudos [?]: 80 [0]
Given Kudos: 832
Tutor
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 1328
Own Kudos [?]: 3234 [2]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
2
Kudos
varotkorn wrote:
Dear GMATGuruNY

Why can't "creating" in C. jump over "an individual" to modify "emotional reactions" as A. does?

As you explain, we know that "creating" cannot modify "an individual" anyway.
So "creating" must jump over the middle word to create logical meaning.

No "jumping" is required in the OA.
OA: Lying produces emotional reactions in an individual that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses.
Here, it is not possible for create (plural) to refer to an individual (singular).
Since create is PLURAL, it clearly refers to reactions (the nearest preceding PLURAL noun).
Conveyed meaning:
EMOTIONAL REACTIONS...that CREATE unconscious physiological responses.
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 364
Own Kudos [?]: 80 [0]
Given Kudos: 832
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
Dear GMATGuruNY

According to your post here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/?href=.html

Why is it illogical if I were to added COMMA + VERBing (before "creating") in C.?

IMO, the COMMA + VERBing could modify the preceding clause by showing the RESULT.
In other words, the production of emotional reactions (by lying) creates or leads to physiological responses.
After all, lying instigates this whole chain. So, I think it is not wrong to say lying creates physiological responses.

========================================
Side note: Mike said if comma were added, the sentence could be correct.
mikemcgarry wrote:
Here's (C1) as it, with the comma added.
The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual, creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses.
Here, it's clear that the participle does not apply to the noun "individual." That much is clear. Here, we could interpret the participle as a verb-modifier modifying the action of the preceding clause, or we could view it as a noun-modifier modifying the subject of the clause, "lying." In fact, there's not a sharp distinction in meaning between these two, so this distinction is not helpful. Overall, this could be a plausible correct answer, but the question doesn't give us this.
Tutor
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 1328
Own Kudos [?]: 3234 [3]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
3
Kudos
varotkorn wrote:
Dear GMATGuruNY

According to your post here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/?href=.html

Why is it illogical if I were to added COMMA + VERBing (before "creating") in C.?

IMO, the COMMA + VERBing could modify the preceding clause by showing the RESULT.
In other words, the production of emotional reactions (by lying) creates or leads to physiological responses.
After all, lying instigates this whole chain. So, I think it is not wrong to say lying creates physiological responses.

Generally, COMMA + VERBing refers to the agent of the nearest preceding verb or action.
SC30 in the OG12:
Animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, protecting warriors against enemy arrows and spears.
Here, COMMA + protecting refers to animal-hide shields -- the subject of the preceding verb in blue -- expressing that ANIMAL-HIDE SHIELDS were PROTECTING warriors.

Also:
If the original sentence conveys a logical meaning, the correct answer choice should retain that meaning.

Proposed revision of C:
Lying produces emotional reactions in an individual, creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses.
Here, COMMA + creating refers to lying -- the subject of the preceding verb in blue -- implying that LYING is CREATING unconscious responses.
The intended meaning of the original sentence is that EMOTIONAL REACTIONS create unconscious responses.
The proposed revision of C does not convey the intended meaning of the original sentence and thus is not viable.

Another issue:
Typically, the usage of in turn is appropriate in the following situation:
One entity performs an action upon a second entity.
In response, the second entity performs a similar action.
John tossed the ball to Maria, who IN TURN threw it to Amir.
Here, JOHN tossed to MARIA.
In response, MARIA performed a similar action: she THREW.

In the proposed revision of C, both actions -- produces and creating -- are attributed to the SAME ENTITY (lying).
As a result, the usage of in turn is inappropriate.

In the OA, in turn is used correctly.
OA: Lying produces emotional reactions in an individual that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses.
Here, LYING produces REACTIONS.
In response, the REACTIONS perform a similar action: they CREATE.
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1245
Own Kudos [?]: 208 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
I can see the reasons why the others are incorrect, but isn't the 'that' and its placement next to 'individual' problematic?

E properly exercises the idea that 'who' is used for people (although I can see why creates is wrong in E).
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6991
Own Kudos [?]: 64577 [4]
Given Kudos: 1824
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
CEdward wrote:
I can see the reasons why the others are incorrect, but isn't the 'that' and its placement next to 'individual' problematic?

E properly exercises the idea that 'who' is used for people (although I can see why creates is wrong in E).

Whenever you're evaluating the use of a modifier such as "that" or "which" -- relative pronouns, if you like the jargon -- the only question you want to ask yourself is whether the modifier is reasonably close to what it could logically describe. Also, if the "that" or "which" in question is the subject of a verb, that verb will offer a clue about whether the described noun should be singular or plural.

For example:

The box of records, which is missing two flaps and is riddled with toddler teeth marks, has seen better days.

In this example, "which" is the subject of the singular verb "is." This tells us that "which" should describe a singular noun. Here, the only singular noun that's reasonably close is "the box." And that works. The box is missing two flaps. What you wouldn't want to do here is to see that "which" is touching "records" and so conclude that "which" is incorrect, because records don't have flaps.

Put another way, there is no such thing as a touch rule. All we need is a viable interpretation based on context clues, and we have that here.

Take another look at (A), which has a similar construction:

Quote:
The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses.

Now "that" is the subject of the plural verb "create." The only reasonably close plural noun is "emotional reactions." That seems fine to me -- the emotional reactions create physiological responses. It's also okay that the "that" is touching "person" because, "person" is singular, and the plural verb "create" lets us know that the modifier can't refer to a singular entity, so there's no confusion or ambiguity.

Because we have our viable interpretation, we can keep (A) and try to find errors in the other options.

I hope that clears things up!
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 365
Own Kudos [?]: 43 [0]
Given Kudos: 529
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
Can "individual" take "that" as restrictive clause ? We don't use "that" and "which" in humans, and use "who" or "whom"?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6991
Own Kudos [?]: 64577 [1]
Given Kudos: 1824
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
1
Kudos
lakshya14 wrote:
Can "individual" take "that" as restrictive clause ? We don't use "that" and "which" in humans, and use "who" or "whom"?

While I can't recall having seen a correct answer to an SC question that used "that" to refer to a person, the usage isn't strictly forbidden.

And though you couldn't write, "Tim, which is a bad a husband, often forgets his wife's birthday," it would be fine to write, "Tim couldn't decide which of his kids to bring to the zoo." So I wouldn't say it's an absolute rule that "which" can never refer to a person either.

The takeaway: be careful about inventing rules! And anytime you're not sure about whether there is a rule, default to logic and context instead.

I hope that clears things up a bit!
Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2019
Posts: 154
Own Kudos [?]: 37 [2]
Given Kudos: 386
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V30
GPA: 3.03
WE:Marketing (Retail Banking)
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
2
Kudos
A. Emotional reactions (plural) - create - Right
B. Emotional reactions - creates - not correct
C. Creating - using Partciple phrase is not correct here
D. Lying - to create - the question is on cause and effect relationship. Responses that are unconscious is meaningless
E. Here , individual doesn’t create unconscious physiological responses; instead, emotional reactions create . So, E is out

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 03 Nov 2019
Posts: 27
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 87
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
Why can option C not be a possible answer choice ?

Everyone is saying that the modifier is touching the noun individuals.

In this question that "jumps" over individuals to modify emotional reactions. Similarly why can't "creating" modify emotional reactions ?
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5340
Own Kudos [?]: 4747 [2]
Given Kudos: 666
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
2
Kudos
PRNDL wrote:
Why can option C not be a possible answer choice ?

Everyone is saying that the modifier is touching the noun individuals.

In this question that "jumps" over individuals to modify emotional reactions. Similarly why can't "creating" modify emotional reactions ?

Hi PRNDL,

Option A makes it much easier for us to understand that the modifier is meant for reactions in an individual. This is the relevant portion of option A: "reactions in an individual that create". Reactions is plural, and so is create. On the other hand, individual is singular, so a reader is very unlikely to make a mistake here.

Creating doesn't carry any singular/plural signal, so a reader is more likely to think that it refers to individual.
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2020
Posts: 47
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 77
Location: United Kingdom
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
Do we agree that C would be right if there were a comma before creating ?

Thanks

MichaelS wrote:
The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses.

(A) that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses
(B) that creates unconscious physiological responses in turn
(C) creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses
(D) to create, in turn, physiological responses that are unconscious
(E) who creates unconscious physiological responses in turn

The easiest place to start is probably with the create/creates split. What "create(s)...responses"? The emotional reaction. (Strictly speaking the subject of the verb "create" is the pronoun "that." More on this issue later.) Since "emotional reactions" is plural, we want a plural verb, "create." That eliminates B and E. "Creating" in C is a present participle, and "to create" in D is an infinitive, so neither of these is either singular or plural.

Next we might consider which form of the verb "create" is appropriate, the verb "create," the present participle "creating," or the infinitive "to create." A verb-form split usually signals either an idiom problem or a problem with parallelism, but not in this case. Rather, neither C nor D captures the original meaning. Answer C: A present participle (-ing word) immediately preceded by a noun (no comma separating them) attributes action to that noun. So C means that "an individual" creates responses. Answer D: Here, "to create" suggests that the goal of producing emotional reactions is to create physiological responses.

That leaves A, the correct answer.

Addendum 1. I began by asking "What creates responses?" This common-sense question is usually adequate to match a verb to its subject. Sometimes you'll have a couple of reasonable answers, and you'll have to look more closely at the grammar. The verbs in relative clauses--noun-modifying clauses that start with "that" or one of the "wh-" words, "which," "who/m," "when," "where"--actually modify the relative pronouns that precede them, but those relative pronouns are themselves singular or plural depending on the nouns to which they refer. The long and short of it is that you're probably better off with the common-sense question than with the subtle grammatical question here.

Addendum 2. With few exceptions, relative clauses modify the nouns or noun phrases they touch. In this question, "that...create...responses" touches the noun "individual," but it also touches the noun phrase "emotional reactions in an individual," that is, the noun "reactions" plus the adjective "emotional" plus the prepositional phrase "in an individual." That whole phrase, or if you prefer the noun at its heart, is modified by the relative clause. Frankly, I think that it's a little clumsy here, and I might have had a bit of trouble had I started with the modifier issue.
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Posts: 5128
Own Kudos [?]: 4694 [2]
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Naptiste wrote:
Do we agree that C would be right if there were a comma before creating ?

Thanks

MichaelS wrote:
The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses.

(A) that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses
(B) that creates unconscious physiological responses in turn
(C) creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses
(D) to create, in turn, physiological responses that are unconscious
(E) who creates unconscious physiological responses in turn

The easiest place to start is probably with the create/creates split. What "create(s)...responses"? The emotional reaction. (Strictly speaking the subject of the verb "create" is the pronoun "that." More on this issue later.) Since "emotional reactions" is plural, we want a plural verb, "create." That eliminates B and E. "Creating" in C is a present participle, and "to create" in D is an infinitive, so neither of these is either singular or plural.

Next we might consider which form of the verb "create" is appropriate, the verb "create," the present participle "creating," or the infinitive "to create." A verb-form split usually signals either an idiom problem or a problem with parallelism, but not in this case. Rather, neither C nor D captures the original meaning. Answer C: A present participle (-ing word) immediately preceded by a noun (no comma separating them) attributes action to that noun. So C means that "an individual" creates responses. Answer D: Here, "to create" suggests that the goal of producing emotional reactions is to create physiological responses.

That leaves A, the correct answer.

Addendum 1. I began by asking "What creates responses?" This common-sense question is usually adequate to match a verb to its subject. Sometimes you'll have a couple of reasonable answers, and you'll have to look more closely at the grammar. The verbs in relative clauses--noun-modifying clauses that start with "that" or one of the "wh-" words, "which," "who/m," "when," "where"--actually modify the relative pronouns that precede them, but those relative pronouns are themselves singular or plural depending on the nouns to which they refer. The long and short of it is that you're probably better off with the common-sense question than with the subtle grammatical question here.

Addendum 2. With few exceptions, relative clauses modify the nouns or noun phrases they touch. In this question, "that...create...responses" touches the noun "individual," but it also touches the noun phrase "emotional reactions in an individual," that is, the noun "reactions" plus the adjective "emotional" plus the prepositional phrase "in an individual." That whole phrase, or if you prefer the noun at its heart, is modified by the relative clause. Frankly, I think that it's a little clumsy here, and I might have had a bit of trouble had I started with the modifier issue.

Hello Naptiste,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe that we can help resolve your doubt.

You are correct that the introduction of a comma before "creating" would produce a grammatically correct sentence that conveys the intended meaning, as the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" in this sentence)" construction typically conveys a cause-effect relationship. However, such a sentence would still lose out to Option A, due to redundancy. Option C includes the phrase "in turn", which also conveys a cause-effect relationship, making the use of the "comma + present participle" redundant here.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2021
Posts: 129
Own Kudos [?]: 49 [0]
Given Kudos: 1248
Location: Taiwan
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
Hi GMATNinja GMATGuruNY and other experts,

I would like to ask a question that no one asked in this thread before--do we accept consecutive adjectives in the GMAT world?
This was the main reason I eliminated (A) and chose (D), as I thought that the expression "unconscious physiological responses" in the option (A) was less ideal than the expression "physiological responses that are unconscious" in the option (D).

Can we ignore the issue of consecutive adjectives?

Besides, I considered (D) acceptable despite its use of an expression "to create." I knew that the use of infinitive implies "intent," which is not the case here, but, after practicing the Australian embryologists question (whose correct answer uses "to suggest" to modify evidence without implying any intent), I thought that maybe the use of infinitive could be more flexible and thus chose (D).

Thanks!

https://gmatclub.com/forum/australian-e ... 84981.html

Originally posted by GraceSCKao on 07 Jan 2022, 04:28.
Last edited by GraceSCKao on 17 Mar 2022, 23:40, edited 1 time in total.
Tutor
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 1328
Own Kudos [?]: 3234 [2]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
2
Kudos
GraceSCKao wrote:
do we accept two consecutive adjectives in the GMAT world?

Consecutive adjectives are quite common on the GMAT.
Examples can be found on virtually every page of the OG12:
sheer wet rocks
strong retail sales figures
a single fertilized spore
distant observable objects
enormous physical strength

Quote:
This is the main reason I eliminated (A) and chose (D), as I found the phrase "unconscious physiological responses" in (A) less ideal than "physiological responses that are unconscious" in (D).

The wording in A is preferable.
distant observable objects is better than observable objects that are distant.

Quote:
But, after practicing the Australian embryologists question (whose correct answer uses "to suggest" to modify evidence without implying any intent)I

Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal.
Here, it could be argued that to suggest reflects the intent of the embryologists.
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Posts: 5128
Own Kudos [?]: 4694 [2]
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
2
Kudos
GraceSCKao wrote:
Hi GMATNinja GMATGuruNY and other experts,

I am to ask a question that was not discussed before..... do we accept two consecutive adjectives in the GMAT world?
This is the main reason I eliminated (A) and chose (D), as I found the phrase "unconscious physiological responses" in (A) less ideal than "physiological responses that are unconscious" in (D).

Meanwhile, I considered (D) acceptable, despite its use of "to create." I know that the use of infinitive usually implies intent, which is not the case here. But, after practicing the Australian embryologists question (whose correct answer uses "to suggest" to modify evidence without implying any intent), I changed my mind and thought that maybe the use of infinitive was more flexible.

Can we ignore the issue of consecutive adjectives? Thanks!

https://gmatclub.com/forum/australian-e ... 84981.html

Hello GraceSCKao,

We hope this finds you well.

We hope this finds you well.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2021
Posts: 129
Own Kudos [?]: 49 [0]
Given Kudos: 1248
Location: Taiwan
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
Thank you ExpertsGlobal5 and GMATGuruNY!
Your responses cleared up my doubt and I will not worry about the consecutive adjectives again. Thanks!
Intern
Joined: 02 Feb 2022
Posts: 15
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 17
Location: Hong Kong
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
getmba wrote:
A it is. Emotional reactions in an individual that - here emotional reactions is followed by a prepositional phrase so that will not modify the noun in prepositional phrase but will modify whatever comes before prepositional phrase.

I understand A is a clear winner in terms of meaning.
I am just wondering isn't "in an individual" modifying "produces", instead of "emotional reactions"?
If that is the case, then we cannot say "emotional reactions in an individual" is one single noun phrase.

Can anyone comment on this? Big thanks!
Re: The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produce [#permalink]
1   2   3   4   5   6
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6991 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts