To understand why some people are incapable

Question

To understand why some people are incapable  to learn from their mistakes, the neuroscientists of Albuquerque in New Mexico scanned the brains of 96 convicts.

A. to learn from their mistakes, the neuroscientists of Albuquerque in New Mexico scanned the brains of 96 convicts.
B. to learn from their mistakes, the brains of 96 convicts were scanned by neuroscientists in Albuquerque of New Mexico.
C. of learning to avoid mistakes, the brains of 96 convicts were scanned by neuroscientists in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
D. of learning to avoid their mistakes, neuroscientists in Albuquerque of New Mexico, scanned the brains of 96 convicts.
E. of learning from their mistakes, neuroscientists in Albuquerque, New Mexico, scanned the brains of 96 convicts.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear 800orDie , I'm happy to respond. :-)

With all due respect, this is a extremely easy question. It has an perfectly clear OA, (E) , and the other four answers can be eliminated almost immediately. Just scanning down the list of choices and looking at everything before the first comma is enough to eliminate four answers and isolate one --- the second half of the underlined section is almost irrelevant. You see, my friend, it is exceptionally hard to write a GMAT-like SC question. This question follows the basic format, and it has one clearly right answer and four clearly wrong answers, but there is nothing particularly challenging about it, at least for native speakers. The idiom mistakes are a bit heavy-handed: again, in a way, this would be a good practice question for non-native speakers studying idioms, but it's not really the sort of thing that would appear on the GMAT itself. There are a number of extremely subtle points about a good SC question: by contrast, this question is "obvious" at many levels. Another very subtle issue is how someone might take offense at a question. Suppose some test taker had a family member who was a convict. This sentence blithely equates convicts to those who are " incapable of learning from their mistake ." That could be deeply offensive to someone who knows someone in prison. As unimaginable as this may be to you, this is precisely the sort of thing that GMAC monitors in writing questions. They are scrupulous about making sure that the question only tests grammar and usage and that no one, because of some emotional triggering, is put at a disadvantage. One must be mindful of several levels at once in constructing questions. The difference between writing a high quality GMAT SC question and writing just a simple question that follows the general SC format is analogous to the difference between making wine or making lemonade: the latter is a straightforward recipe that anyone can follow, but the former is a profoundly complex craft that is as much an art as a science. Does this distinction make sense? You have written a question that is definitely good, but not superb, not GMAT-like in its difficulty or tone. You could really develop your GMAT SC mastery if you can learn to appreciate the subtle qualities that the official questions have that your question lacks. Here is a high quality GMAT practice question. https://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/3604 Notice this doesn't merely flop-flop individual elements (e.g. active vs. passive structure). Instead, the choices completely rearrange the order of ideas in the sentence. This is quite characteristic of the more challenging sentences on the GMAT. I hope all this feedback helps. Mike

800orDie · Answer

Appreciate the sugar-coated, harsh criticism. Kudos for the time spent, sir. What do you think of this other question? against-a-backdrop-of-turbulent-markets-206295.html

sidoknowia · Answer

Hi Mike,

Can you please explain difference between (as in when to use what) following two points?

1. to learn from their mistakes and of learning from their mistakes 
2. neuroscientists of Albuquerque & neuroscientists in Albuquerque

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear sidoknowia , I'm happy to respond. :-)

In #1, the division of " to learn " vs. " of learning " depends entirely on the idiom of the preceding word. Some words, such as " incapable ," idiomatically take " of ," whereas others, such as " able " and " ability ," idiomatically take the infinitive. Either could be correct or incorrect, depending on the idiom of the preceding word. See these GMAT Idiom Flashcards for more details. In this problem, the word " incapable " comes immediately before the underlined part, and the word " incapable " idiomatically takes the construction "of" + . The split in #2 is interesting. If we say " neuroscientists in Albuquerque ," then we are talking about neuroscientists who just happen to be working at some university or institute in Albuquerque: we are simply providing some extra detail about location to distinguish them from other neuroscientists. By contrast, the phrase " the neuroscientists of Albuquerque " almost seems to imply that the city of Albuquerque for some reason has hired neuroscientists to work for the city's own purposes, as if it were normal for a city to have its own staff of neuroscientists. Of course, that's absurd: cities typically do not hire neuroscientists to work for municipal purposes. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

sidoknowia · Answer

Hi Mike , I understood the second difference. The explanation couldn't be any better.

(Self Note : Must always remember to keep check of such subtleties

) I still fail to grasp 1st point. Why incapable takes "of", while able takes infinitive ? Isn't 'incapable' also having its roots in word 'able' ? Thanks for your help

AbdurRakib · Answer

To understand why some people are incapable  to learn from their mistakes, the neuroscientists of Albuquerque in New Mexico scanned the brains of 96 convicts.

A.  to  learn from their mistakes, the neuroscientists of Albuquerque in New Mexico scanned the brains of 96 convicts.  .......>Incorrect.here "to=in order to" ,which distorted the intended meaning of the sentence 
B.  to  learn from their mistakes, the brains of 96 convicts were scanned by neuroscientists in Albuquerque of New Mexico.  ........>Incorrect for the same reason of Answer Choice A 
C. of learning  to avoid  mistakes, the brains of 96 convicts were scanned by neuroscientists in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  ........>Incorrect for the same reason of Answer Choice A 
D. of learning  to avoid  their mistakes, neuroscientists in Albuquerque of New Mexico, scanned the brains of 96 convicts.  .......>Incorrect for the same reason of Answer Choice A 
E. of learning from their mistakes, neuroscientists in Albuquerque, New Mexico, scanned the brains of 96 convicts. .......  Correct

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear sidoknowia , I'm happy to respond. :-)

The "- able " (and "- ible ") suffixes are common in English, but they are not directly from the word " able ." Yes, if we go far enough down the rabbit hole of etymology, we find common roots in antiquity, but in terms of our modern language, the word " capable " is not "built from" the word " able ;" by contrast, the fact that both " cap " and " able " are words we can see in " capable " are equally coincidental. The word " able " has its own idiom. Do not assume that any other word has the same idiom just because it happens to have the "- able " or "- ible " suffix. I know for a non-native speaker, idioms are a big challenge, because all those relationships are arbitrary and there's almost no rhyme or reason to them. That's precisely why I recommend the GMAT Idiom Flashcards : only by constant review is it possible to master idioms. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

sidoknowia · Answer

Yes that helps. Thank you. I'm indeed a user Flashcard app, and it helps to gain familiarity with a lot of idioms. One small doubt, related to your earlier answer. when we say 'of Alburqueque', don't we mean belonging to that place? For example : The president of countryA asked for idiom rules improvement plan.

or The ancient tribes of Africa were fearsome.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear sidoknowia , I'm happy to respond. :-)

Yes, it's absolutely true that the preposition " of " denotes, among other things, possessions. Of course, " the president of a country " or " the tribes of Africa " or " the baseball teams of New York City " are all examples. When we start to talk about of , there are some subtle connotations that might not be obvious to folks who are not native speakers of English. It's perfectly fine to talk about the " people of Berkeley ." I live and work in Berkeley , so it would be perfectly fine to say that I am " a citizen of Berkeley " or " a resident of Berkeley ." When we start to identify people by their professional titles, saying the people are " of " a certain place has the connotation that they are municipal employees. It would be perfectly natural to talk about " the mayor of Berkeley ," the " policemen of Berkeley ," etc. But if a doctor has a practice in Berkeley, it would sound odd to say that she was a " doctor of Berkeley "---that sounds as if she is employee by the city or treats the health of the city as a whole, rather than individual patients. If we spoke about a " lawyer of Berkeley ," that sounds odd, and it would seem to indicate a lawyer that works specifically for the city, not one who simply has a private practice in the city. There's a major laboratory in Berkeley, so there are many scientists here, but it awkward to talk about " the scientists of Berkeley ." This is a very funny thing about capitalist society. A municipal employee has a job that "belongs" to the city, to the government, but a private employee does not have a job that "belongs" to the place where she works: such an employee is " in the city " without being " of the city ." It's precisely the same for those neuroscientists working in the lovely city of Albuquerque . Yes, those neuroscientists do their research in Albuquerque, but they are not employees of that city in any way. Other than general taxes, the city has absolutely no interest in what the neuroscientists are doing, and the city certainly does not play any role in directing their research. The phrase " neuroscientists of Albuquerque " suggests this very strange world in which a city hires neuroscientists and pays them to something nefarious, say, develop projects by which the city can manipulate its citizens. It's very disturbing and a 100% inaccurate picture of the very cool town of Albuquerque. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

sidoknowia · Answer

Got it.

Thank you, that was an awesome explanation!

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

To understand why some people are incapable

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

To understand why some people are incapable

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards