Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
05 Aug 2019, 22:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
72% (01:27) correct
28%
(01:24)
wrong
based on 677
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Some people contend that the distinction between an extreme sport and a conventional one has as much to do with marketing as with the level of danger involved or how much adrenaline is generated.
A) with the level of danger involved or how much adrenaline is generated
B) with the level of danger that is involved or the adrenaline amount it generates
C) with the level of danger involved or the amount of adrenaline generated
D) to the danger level involved or the amount of adrenaline being generated
E) to the level of danger involved or the amount of adrenaline it generates
05 Aug 2019, 22:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
In this question, we deal with two types of parallelism at the same time.
I would start with the easier one, which is a 4-1 split.
• Split #1: ___ OR ____ must be parallel
For this type of parallelism in which we are focused on the last part of the sentence, it may be easier to strip the sentence.
The stripped sentence:
The distinction between ABC and DEF has as much to do with marketing as with the level of danger involved OR how much adrenaline is generated (?).
Whatever is on each side of OR must be parallel.
-- Option A: the level of danger involved or how much adrenaline is generated
Option A incorrectly has a noun on the left side of OR (level) and a pronoun on the right side (how).
The left side of OR is a noun phrase. The right side is a substantive clause,* which acts as a noun but is not identical to a simple noun phrase.
If you want to be conservative, hold this one and compare to C.
-- Option B is a hot mess: level of dangerthat is involved or the adrenaline amount it generates
Option B does contain two nouns, level of danger and adrenaline amount. They're not structured similarly.
The better phrase is amount of adrenaline.
Option B incorrectly pairs a past participle, involved, and a present tense verb, generates
Option B uses that is with one element and not with the other. That is is unnecessary and cumbersome. The other four answers are better without the phrase.
In option B, what is the antecedent for the pronoun IT? (There is none.)
-- Option D: danger level involved or the amount of adrenaline being generated
The phrase level of danger would be better.
Option D needlessly includes being.
Compare to (C): amount of adrenaline generated is better.
-- Option E: the level of danger involved or the amount of adrenaline it generates
Again, we have a case of The Missing Antecedent. The pronoun it cannot refer to one of the two sports.
The word IT refers to the amount of adrenaline that A sport generates, but we have two.
Eliminate B, D, and E. Compare A to C. (Compare any of the answers to C.) Option C wins.
The constructions on each side of OR are parallel.
(C): the level of danger involved or the amount of adrenaline generated
[noun + preposition + object + past participle adjective] OR [noun + preposition + object + past participle adjective]
The answer is C.
Split #2: Parallelism - WITH
-- As much as is a parallelism marker. In parallel structures, many words can be omitted from the second part.
Most of the time, though, prepositions are not omitted from parallel structures.
The word WITH needs to be repeated
Do not get distracted by the word TO, which is part of the infinitive to do.
The preposition to is different. I will compare with and to.
-- The prompt, stripped a little:
... the distinction ... has as much to do WITH marketing as WITH the level of danger involved or how much adrenaline is generated.
The distinction . . . has as much to do WITH X as [it has to do] WITH Y.
Now compare to D, which does not repeat WITH
. . . the distinction . . . has as much to do with marketing as TO the danger level involved or the amount of adrenaline being generated
The distinction . . . has as much to do with X as [it has to do] TO Y. Ouch.
We need to repeat with.
Eliminate options D and E.
Then analyze the constructions on each side of OR in options A, B, and C.
The parallelism in C is superior.
The answer is C.
COMMENTS
harsha3699 , welcome to SC Butler.
The preposition TO and the TO in the infinitive TO DO are not the same.
This issue can be really hard, but if you strip the sentence and put TO in, as I did above, using TO makes no sense.
I understand that this question is hard to explain.
The question is also important. GMAC, for example, typically does not omit the preposition in similar sentences.
On a different note, when you see the word to, notice what follows it.
If a direct object follows (he went TO the STORE), then you have a "regular" preposition.
If a verb follows the word to, then you have a TO that can be split and paired only with other bare infinitive verbs.
When in doubt, strip and condense the words as much as you can. Insert "to":
As much with X as TO Y?
To give people a way to separate these two kinds of the word "to,"
I call the first kind of to a preposition and the second kind of to an infinitive marker. (They are both prepositions. The second term is just to help distinguish between them.)
I couldn't decide what to do about kudos on this one. I've decided.
Correct answers with good explanations get kudos.
Correct answers with not clear explanations get a smiley face.
Incorrect answers get a smiley face.
For most of you: good effort.
**The whole clause, how much adrenaline is generated is a direct object of the preposition with.
For more on substantive clauses, see the post HERE.
generis
In this question, we deal with two types of parallelism at the same time.
I would start with the easier one, which is a 4-1 split.
• Split #1: ___ OR ____ must be parallel
For this type of parallelism in which we are focused on the last part of the sentence, it may be easier to strip the sentence.
The stripped sentence:
The distinction between ABC and DEF has as much to do with marketing as with the level of danger involved OR how much adrenaline is generated (?).
Whatever is on each side of OR must be parallel.
-- Option A: the level of danger involved or how much adrenaline is generated
Option A incorrectly has a noun on the left side of OR (level) and a pronoun on the right side (how).
The left side of OR is a noun phrase. The right side is a substantive clause,* which acts as a noun but is not identical to a simple noun phrase.
If you want to be conservative, hold this one and compare to C.
-- Option B is a hot mess: level of danger
Option B does contain two nouns, level of danger and adrenaline amount. They're not structured similarly.
The better phrase is amount of adrenaline.
Option B incorrectly pairs a past participle, involved, and a present tense verb, generates
Option B uses that is with one element and not with the other. That is is unnecessary and cumbersome. The other four answers are better without the phrase.
In option B, what is the antecedent for the pronoun IT? (There is none.)
-- Option D: danger level involved or the amount of adrenaline being generated
The phrase level of danger would be better.
Option D needlessly includes being.
Compare to (C): amount of adrenaline generated is better.
-- Option E: the level of danger involved or the amount of adrenaline it generates
Again, we have a case of The Missing Antecedent. The pronoun it cannot refer to one of the two sports.
The word IT refers to the amount of adrenaline that A sport generates, but we have two.
Eliminate B, D, and E. Compare A to C. (Compare any of the answers to C.) Option C wins.
The constructions on each side of OR are parallel.
(C): the level of danger involved or the amount of adrenaline generated
[noun + preposition + object + past participle adjective] OR [noun + preposition + object + past participle adjective]
The answer is C.
Split #2: Parallelism - WITH
-- As much as is a parallelism marker. In parallel structures, many words can be omitted from the second part.
Most of the time, though, prepositions are not omitted from parallel structures.
The word WITH needs to be repeated
Do not get distracted by the word TO, which is part of the infinitive to do.
The preposition to is different. I will compare with and to.
-- The prompt, stripped a little:
... the distinction ... has as much to do WITH marketing as WITH the level of danger involved or how much adrenaline is generated.
The distinction . . . has as much to do WITH X as [it has to do] WITH Y.
Now compare to D, which does not repeat WITH
. . . the distinction . . . has as much to do with marketing as TO the danger level involved or the amount of adrenaline being generated
The distinction . . . has as much to do with X as [it has to do] TO Y. Ouch.
We need to repeat with.
Eliminate options D and E.
Then analyze the constructions on each side of OR in options A, B, and C.
The parallelism in C is superior.
The answer is C.
COMMENTS
harsha3699 , welcome to SC Butler.
The preposition TO and the TO in the infinitive TO DO are not the same.
This issue can be really hard, but if you strip the sentence and put TO in, as I did above, using TO makes no sense.
I understand that this question is hard to explain.
The question is also important. GMAC, for example, typically does not omit the preposition in similar sentences.
On a different note, when you see the word to, notice what follows it.
If a direct object follows (he went TO the STORE), then you have a "regular" preposition.
If a verb follows the word to, then you have a TO that can be split and paired only with other bare infinitive verbs.
When in doubt, strip and condense the words as much as you can. Insert "to":
As much with X as TO Y?
To give people a way to separate these two kinds of the word "to,"
I call the first kind of to a preposition and the second kind of to an infinitive marker. (They are both prepositions. The second term is just to help distinguish between them.)
I couldn't decide what to do about kudos on this one. I've decided.
Correct answers with good explanations get kudos.
Correct answers with not clear explanations get a smiley face.
Incorrect answers get a smiley face.
For most of you: good effort.
**The whole clause, how much adrenaline is generated is a direct object of the preposition with.
For more on substantive clauses, see the post HERE.
06 Aug 2019, 00:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
Correct answer is E. To maintain parallelism and to illustrate the reasons of distinction between extreme sports and conventional sports, the sentence must be written as.. as much to do with marketing as TO...
Only option D and E qualify in that respect.
Option D distorts the end by saying being generated.
So, option E is the answer.
Posted from my mobile device
Only option D and E qualify in that respect.
Option D distorts the end by saying being generated.
So, option E is the answer.
Posted from my mobile device
