Isotopes in the recently excavated bones of a 14-year-old girl from th

Question

Isotopes in the recently excavated bones of a 14-year-old girl from the Jamestown archaeological site indicate  that she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant .

(A) that she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant

(B) that she ate a high protein diet, so probably had been the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant

(C) that she had eaten a high protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant’s

(D) she ate a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and had not been a maidservant

(E) she had eaten a high-protein diet, thereby had probably been the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant’s

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/science/evidence-of-cannibalism-found-at-jamestown-site.html

The girl’s remains were discovered last summer in a refuse dump containing horse and dog bones. From the state of her molars, she is judged to have been 14 years old. Isotopes in her bones  indicate that  she had eaten a high-protein diet, so she was probably not a maidservant but the daughter of a gentleman.

The easiest way to eliminate several possibilities in this problem is to focus on the overall structure at the end. The logical meaning is: she had eaten a high protein diet, so was probably was this type of person, not this type person.

It is illogical to say that she was this type of person, AND not this type of person (as if she was both – a person and not a person?). For instance you say: John bought a VW, not a Toyota.

You would not say: John bought a VW, and not a Toyota (which means he bought a VW and bought “not a Toyota”

While there are other errors to consider in (B), (C) they are both wrong for this reason.

(D) delivers an illogical timeline and tacks on the random “she had not been a maidservant” at the end, which means she did something before she was a daughter.

(E) also has illogical past perfect after thereby and incorrectly uses the possessive at the end, creating a structure that is not parallel.

Only (A) correctly conveys the logical meaning and uses the proper structures required by the sentence.

Gian · Accepted Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Solution: A

Explanation: The easiest way to eliminate several possibilities in this problem is to focus on the overall structure at the end. The logical meaning is: she had eaten a high protein diet, so was probably was this type of person, not this type person. It is illogical to say that she was this type of person, AND not this type of person (as if she was both - a person and not a person?). For instance you say: John bought a VW, not a Toyota. You would not say: John bought a VW, and not a Toyota (which means he bought a VW and bought “not a Toyota” While there are other errors to consider in (B), (C) they are both wrong for this reason. (D) delivers an illogical timeline and tacks on the random “she had not been a maidservant” at the end, which means she did something before she was a daughter. (E) also has illogical past perfect after thereby and incorrectly uses the possessive at the end, creating a structure that is not parallel. Only (A) correctly conveys the logical meaning and uses the proper structures required by the sentence.

KarishmaB · Answer

This is what the sentence tells us:

Isotopes in the bones indicate:
1. She ate a high protein diet when she was alive
2. She was the daughter of a gentleman; she was not a maidservant.

The use of "maidservant" is a hint that we are talking about her, not her parents. Else, we might have said "she was not the daughter of a servant". In those times, the father's occupation used to decide the children's fortune. In any case, you don't have to know this. The available options clarify what is meant.

(A) that she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant

(B) that she ate a high protein diet, so probably had been the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant

(C) that she had eaten a high protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant’s

(D) she ate a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and had not been a maidservant

(E) she had eaten a high-protein diet, thereby had probably been the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant’s

The logical structure here would be: She was A, not B
e.g. She was intelligent, not stupid.

This does not make a lot of sense here: She was A, and not B.
e.g. She was intelligent, and not stupid. - Incorrect
'and' implies two qualities. But we are talking about one quality only - intelligence. 'Not stupid' implies 'intelligent'.

It would be alright to say: She was intelligent and not lazy. 
Here we are talking about two of her qualities: intelligent & not lazy (which implies hard working to whatever extent)

So we should write: ... she was the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant

Also, use of past perfect in "she had eaten a high-protein diet" is fine. There is a point in time in the past when the action stopped (when she died). 
But use of past perfect in "she had been the daughter of a gentleman" is not correct. She was the daughter of a gentleman and will always be. That state does not change. Just like we say "A invented B". We do not say "A had invented B" because the state is still the same.

If she were alive today, we would say: She is the daughter of a gentleman.
Since she is not alive today, we say: She was the daughter of a gentleman. 
It is a state that does not change. There is no point in time in the past that changes this state. So use of past perfect is not correct.

So (B), (C), (D) and (E) all are eliminated.

Only (A) remains in which we are given " ... she was the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant"
If the sentence wanted to tell us that she was the daughter of a gentleman, not the daughter of a maidservant, then to be parallel, (A) would have been: "... she was the daughter of a gentleman, not of a maidservant"

"..... she was the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant's" 
is not good parallelism.

Answer (A)

crackgmat13 · Answer

after reporting verb 'that' is required. So not sure whether the answer makes sense..

pqhai · Answer

Hi crackgmat13
Welcome to Gmatclub!

You're right, after reporting verb, that is required. But, "indicate" is not reporting verb. You may think "indicate that" is correct, because you see this idiom more often. However, after verbs such as    say, tell, think, believe, indicate, etc...   "that" is  OPTIONAL .

For example: the high fever   indicates   a serious problem.

Hope it helps.

daagh · Answer

Isotopes in the recently excavated bones of a 14-year-old girl from the Jamestown archaeological site indicate

A) She had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant.
B) that she ate a high protein diet, so probably had been the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant.
C) that she had eaten a high protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant’s.
D) she ate a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and had not been a maidservant.
E) she had eaten a high-protein diet, thereby had probably been the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant’s

This question raises many an eyebrow.

First: the original text looks more like a fused sentence rather than a formal one. 
To wit:
IC 1. Isotopes in the recently excavated bones of a 14-year-old girl from the Jamestown archaeological site indicate 
IC 2. She had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a man, not a maidservant.

The all-important conjunction 'that' in the text is missing. This may be okay in a conversation but not in the rigid GMAT SC. 
Second: Whenever you compare two identities, you must compare two, structurally and more importantly, logically parallel ones. The comparison between a fourteen-year-old daughter of a man and a maidservant is not convincing. (Did they allow 14 -year olds as a maidservant in those days?)
The rational comparison should have been between the well-fed daughter of a man and a poorly- fed daughter of a maidservant.

Third: Gentlemanliness may be attributive to courteous behavior, but is it also correlated to rich diet?

kungfupanda1306 · Answer

1. "she had eaten a high-protein diet" - doesn't it convey meaning that she might have eaten high protein food once and she might not be regular consumer of high protein diet.

2. Whereas "she ate a high protein diet" implies that she used to eat high protein diet habitually.

then How is A correct answer?

PgRaul · Answer

Isotopes in her bones indicate that she had eaten a high-protein diet, so she was probably not a maidservant but the daughter of a gentleman.
nytimes article : https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/scie ... -site.html

Rasalghul853 · Answer

Can somebody explain why B is incorrect?

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

Unclear why this question dropped the 'not x but y' structure of the original sentence in the NYT article. I'm just not sure about this one. Some of the tense issues are strange.

"She had eaten a high-protein diet" implies there was a point in the past where this stopped, but that doesn't seem to be the story here. Similarly, she 'had been' the daughter of a gentleman... When did she stop that? But then--the original sentence uses this tense. It still doesn't sit quite right with me though.

(Agree that 'and not a maidservant' is wrong for conjunction purposes).

Kushchokhani · Answer

To build on, I think "that" is required for the above quoted verbs if the same follows another complete clause as in the original question.

In the quoted example, "a serious problem" is not a complete clause and so "that" is not required after "indicates".

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.

Isotopes in the recently excavated bones of a 14-year-old girl from th

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

Isotopes in the recently excavated bones of a 14-year-old girl from th

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