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

It is currently 21 Jun 2018, 18:34

Close

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
Your Progress

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requ

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

4 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Posts: 52
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GPA: 3.73
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requ [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 04 Dec 2016, 01:27
4
10
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (01:29) correct 45% (01:33) wrong based on 481 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requiring serious scholarship often cite as an example Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth, deploying fifteen sticks of dynamite in the substratum containing relics of ancient Troy.

A) as an example Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth, deploying

B) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth when he deployed

C) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman, whose obsession for antiquity unwittingly destroyed to a great degree artifacts he hoped to unearth, deploying

D) Heinrich Schliemann as an example, a wealthy German businessman who had an obsession with antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth, and who deployed

E) Heinrich Schliemann, who as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity; he unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had hoped to unearth when he had been deploying

Kudos.. kudos.. kudos for putting up a difficult question :lol:

Originally posted by tia2112 on 17 May 2015, 10:37.
Last edited by Vyshak on 04 Dec 2016, 01:27, edited 2 times in total.
Underlined
2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Posts: 108
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requ [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 May 2015, 14:07
2
[quote="tia2112"]Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requiring serious scholarship often cite as an example Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth when deploying fifteen sticks of dynamite in the substratum containing relics of ancient Troy.



A) as an example Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth when deploying ------- had been hoping.. unnecessary use of past perfect continuous tense ----- Also, "cite" and "as an example" --- Redundancy

B) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth when he deployed
PERFECT :) CORRECT!

C) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman, whose obsession for antiquity unwittingly destroyed to a great degree artifacts he hoped to unearth, deploying
----- suggests that obsession destroyed the artifacts.. INCORRECT
D) Heinrich Schliemann as an example, a wealthy German businessman who had an obsession with antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth, and who deployed ------ who unwittingly destroyed...., and who deployed... destroyed and deployed are not logically parallel. Deployment tells how he destroyed...
Also, "cite" and "as an example" --- Redundancy
Thus, INCORRECT

E) Heinrich Schliemann, who as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity; he unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had hoped to unearth when he had been deploying ---- suggests that he had an obsession with antiquity because he was wealthy. Also "had been deploying .." is also not very appropriate (past perfect continuous) as per the meaning of the sentence.

Kudos kudos kudos... for answering a difficult question :lol:
_________________

Impossibility is a relative concept!!

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Jul 2017
Posts: 15
Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requ [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2017, 16:53
Questions about the choice E.

Since I see another version of this question, and choice E states like this...

E. Heinrich Schliemann, who as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity; he unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth when he deployed

......and it's still incorrect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another question is how are *cite* and *as an example* redundant? I feel it quite natural to read "cite XXX as an example".... :roll:

Can someone please shed some light? :(

Thanks thanks thanks .....
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
P
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 667
Location: India
Schools: Rotman '20 (S)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
Re: Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requ [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2017, 23:02
1
katelyntanglu wrote:
Questions about the choice E.

Since I see another version of this question, and choice E states like this...

E. Heinrich Schliemann, who as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity; he unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth when he deployed

......and it's still incorrect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another question is how are *cite* and *as an example* redundant? I feel it quite natural to read "cite XXX as an example".... :roll:

Can someone please shed some light? :(

Thanks thanks thanks .....


I think problem with ur version is :
Obsession with is not correct idiom ---obsession for is correct ..
It changes the meaning also "as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity" but original does not have relation between wealth and his obsession .
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Jul 2017
Posts: 15
Re: Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requ [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Sep 2017, 11:28
sobby wrote:
katelyntanglu wrote:
Questions about the choice E.

Since I see another version of this question, and choice E states like this...

E. Heinrich Schliemann, who as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity; he unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth when he deployed

......and it's still incorrect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another question is how are *cite* and *as an example* redundant? I feel it quite natural to read "cite XXX as an example".... :roll:

Can someone please shed some light? :(

Thanks thanks thanks .....


I think problem with ur version is :
Obsession with is not correct idiom ---obsession for is correct ..
It changes the meaning also "as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity" but original does not have relation between wealth and his obsession .



Got it! Thanks for your wonderful explanation! :thumbup:

Have a nice day!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 485
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requ [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Oct 2017, 09:39
Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requiring serious scholarship often cite as an example Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth, deploying fifteen sticks of dynamite in the substratum containing relics of ancient Troy.

A) as an example Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth, deploying - WRONG - cite , as an example - redundant

B) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth when he deployed - CORRECT

C) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman, whose obsession for antiquity unwittingly destroyed to a great degree artifacts he hoped to unearth, deploying - WRONG - change in meaning - as if obsession destroyed

D) Heinrich Schliemann as an example, a wealthy German businessman who had an obsession with antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth, and who deployed - WRONG - same error as A, - cite , as an example - redundant

E) Heinrich Schliemann, who as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity; he unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had hoped to unearth when he had been deploying - WRONG - missing verb in first independent clause, which is not even an sentence.
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 531
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requ [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 May 2018, 21:30

Official Explanation Magoosh :



After the underlined phrase we have "… and who yet inspired …," another "who" clause in parallel. We might expect at least one "who" clause to be in parallel with this. Technically, another kind of noun modifier might be in parallel with a "who" clause modifier. It will depend on the exact construction.

In the choice (A) version of the sentence, we have "who was … and who unwittingly destroyed … and who yet inspired …" This is the somewhat awkward parallel structure of "X and Y and Z," rather than the more natural "X, Y, and Z." Also, this has the very unusual tense of past perfect progressive "had been hoping"---there is no reason for this to be progressive. Choice (A) is incorrect.

Choice (B) provides no first "who" clause to be in parallel with the one after the underlined section. The absolute phrases noun modifiers parallel to the "who" clause noun modifier is technically correct but less than ideal. Also, it makes perfect sense to say that Schliemann "unwittingly destroyed" the artifacts, but it is awkward to say that he was "the unwitting destroyer" of the artifact. The "unwitting" aspect and the "destroying" pertain to one action, not to who the person was. Choice (B) is wrong.

Choice (C) is clear, with no grammar or logic errors. This is a promising choice.

Choice (D) begins with an redundancy: "cite as an example." The GMAT is never fond of redundancy. This create false parallelism, mechanically putting every single verb into parallel with no regard for the logical relationships. Choice (D) is wrong.

In Choice (E), the "when" + [participle] structure is questionable. The big problem is the semicolon break. A colon would work better, but a semicolon creates too much of a divide between the ideas in the first and second halves.

To explain further: the problem with the "when + participle" construction in this answer is not the construction itself, but the context that it occurs in. In Choice (E), "when deploying" occurs within an independent clause (after the semi-colon). This disconnects "when deploying" from the parallelism (the who that is doing the deploying).

Choice (C), however, does not have the "when + participle" construction in a separate clause. Thus, it forms an appropriate parallelism that makes clear, logical sense. In other words, "when deploying" is questionable after the semi-colon, as in Choice (E), but is perfectly clear and acceptable in Choice (C).

Thus, choice (C) is the best answer.
_________________

Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Best Gmat Resource:
GmatPrep CR|GmatPrep SC|GmatPrep RC

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 146
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requ [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 May 2018, 22:20
aragonn wrote:

Official Explanation Magoosh :



After the underlined phrase we have "… and who yet inspired …," another "who" clause in parallel. We might expect at least one "who" clause to be in parallel with this. Technically, another kind of noun modifier might be in parallel with a "who" clause modifier. It will depend on the exact construction.

In the choice (A) version of the sentence, we have "who was … and who unwittingly destroyed … and who yet inspired …" This is the somewhat awkward parallel structure of "X and Y and Z," rather than the more natural "X, Y, and Z." Also, this has the very unusual tense of past perfect progressive "had been hoping"---there is no reason for this to be progressive. Choice (A) is incorrect.

Choice (B) provides no first "who" clause to be in parallel with the one after the underlined section. The absolute phrases noun modifiers parallel to the "who" clause noun modifier is technically correct but less than ideal. Also, it makes perfect sense to say that Schliemann "unwittingly destroyed" the artifacts, but it is awkward to say that he was "the unwitting destroyer" of the artifact. The "unwitting" aspect and the "destroying" pertain to one action, not to who the person was. Choice (B) is wrong.

Choice (C) is clear, with no grammar or logic errors. This is a promising choice.

Choice (D) begins with an redundancy: "cite as an example." The GMAT is never fond of redundancy. This create false parallelism, mechanically putting every single verb into parallel with no regard for the logical relationships. Choice (D) is wrong.

In Choice (E), the "when" + [participle] structure is questionable. The big problem is the semicolon break. A colon would work better, but a semicolon creates too much of a divide between the ideas in the first and second halves.

To explain further: the problem with the "when + participle" construction in this answer is not the construction itself, but the context that it occurs in. In Choice (E), "when deploying" occurs within an independent clause (after the semi-colon). This disconnects "when deploying" from the parallelism (the who that is doing the deploying).

Choice (C), however, does not have the "when + participle" construction in a separate clause. Thus, it forms an appropriate parallelism that makes clear, logical sense. In other words, "when deploying" is questionable after the semi-colon, as in Choice (E), but is perfectly clear and acceptable in Choice (C).

Thus, choice (C) is the best answer.



In choice C , the subject is the obsession and it is doing the work of destroying. metaphorically this may sound right. But in this context is it right? how can obssession destroy the further mentioned?
Re: Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requ   [#permalink] 26 May 2018, 22:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requ

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.