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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Want to score 90 percentile or higher on GMAT CR? Attend this free webinar to learn how to pre-think assumptions and solve the most challenging questions in less than 2 minutes.
Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 15 Oct 2018, 05:46
3
28
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
45% (medium)
Question Stats:
60% (01:24) correct 40% (01:32) wrong based on 1034 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century, many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood.
(A) many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
(B) many scientists believed that phlogiston was an imaginary substance released by combustion and its properties were not fully understood
(C) phlogiston was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood and which many scientists had believed was released by combustion
(D) phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood, was believed by scientists to be released by combustion
(E) many scientists had believed that phlogiston was released by combustion and was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
MGMAT suggests "if the two actions are sequenced properly in the sentence, it is not necessary to use past perfect tense".. in the sentence Until X proved, scientists had believed. Clearly suggests that " scientists believing was the first action" & Antoine proving is the action that followed it"
So do we really need "Had" in the Correct Answer Or is the answer still stands grammatically correct even after removing "had from it"
Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 15 Oct 2018, 05:50
3
6
Official Explanation:
The past perfect "had believed" is correct because it is the earlier of two past actions (the later action is "proved," which is in the simple past tense). The main clause is correctly written in active voice. The clause "an imaginary substance whose..." correctly modifies "phlogiston."
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The simple past "believed" is incorrect because it is the earlier of two past actions and should be in the past perfect tense instead: "had believed." Moreover, "was an imaginary substance released by combustion" is unnecessarily in passive voice. Finally, the construction "and its properties were not fully understood" is incorrectly parallel with "phlogiston was released by combustion" rather than subordinate to it, as in the original sentence; this also creates ambiguity around the pronoun "its" which could refer to either combustion or phlogiston. Here parallelism is not needed.
(C) The placement of "phlogiston" immediately after the opening clause incorrectly implies that phlogiston had been imaginary until Lavoisier proved otherwise. Moreover, the sentence is unnecessarily in the passive voice.
(D) This sentence is unnecessarily in the passive voice. Moreover, "was believed" is incorrectly in the simple past tense. It should instead be in the past perfect tense ("had been believed"), because it is the earlier of two past actions.
(E) This sentence correctly uses the past perfect "had believed" but its construction incorrectly implies that scientists had believed that phlogiston was imaginary.
_________________
Re: Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Aug 2013, 10:58
4
RaviChandra wrote:
Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century, many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood.
a) many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood b) many scientists believed that phlogiston was an imaginary substance released by combustion and its properties were not fully understood c) phlogiston was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood and which many scientists had believed was released by combustion d) phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood, was believed by scientists to be released by combustion e) many scientists had believed that phlogiston was released by combustion and was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
MGMAT suggests "if the two actions are clearly sequenced in the sentence it is not necessary to use past perfect tense"..
in the sentence Until X proved, scientists had believed. Clearly suggests that " scientists believing was the first action" & Antoine proving is the action that followed it"
So do we really need "Had" in this question .
use of HAD is not wrong since all other options has gramatical errors.
if you have to choose between 2 options having the same intended meaning..but one uses HAD and one without HAD...then you van choose the one which dont have HAD.
TAKEAWAY: Use of HAD is not gramatically incorrect even if two actions are clearly sequenced.
a) many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood CORRECT.
b) many scientists believed that phlogiston was an imaginary substance released by combustion and its properties were not fully understood WRONG. ==incorrect parallelism.....we need ...THAT PHLOGISTON..........AND THAT its.....(THAT ismissing)
c) phlogiston was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood and which many scientists had believed was released by combustion WRONG. ==> WHOSE clause and WHICH clause cannot be parallel... ==>WHICH normally refers to closest noun and followed by a comma or preposition(as per official question trend)
d) phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood, was believed by scientists to be released by combustion WRONG. ==>PASSIVE CONSTRUCTION....
e) many scientists had believed that phlogiston was released by combustion and was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood WRONG. ==>MEANING CHANGED: scientist BELIEVED.......1) P was released by combustion..+++ they also believed 2) was an imaginary substance. scientist dint believed that it was an imaginary substance RATHER it was an imaginary substance....
Hope it helps.
_________________
When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....
GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...
GMAT RCs VOCABULARY LIST: http://gmatclub.com/forum/vocabulary-list-for-gmat-reading-comprehension-155228.html learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APt9ITygGss
Re: Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Aug 2013, 11:37
2
RaviChandra wrote:
Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century, many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood.
a) many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood b) many scientists believed that phlogiston was an imaginary substance released by combustion and its properties were not fully understood c) phlogiston was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood and which many scientists had believed was released by combustion d) phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood, was believed by scientists to be released by combustion e) many scientists had believed that phlogiston was released by combustion and was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
MGMAT suggests "if the two actions are sequenced properly in the sentence, it is not necessary to use past perfect tense"..
in the sentence Until X proved, scientists had believed. Clearly suggests that " scientists believing was the first action" & Antoine proving is the action that followed it"
So do we really need "Had" in the Correct Answer Or is the answer still stands grammatically correct even after removing "had from it"
My suggestion for your question. Simple past vs Past perfect. We use Simple Past if we give past events in the order in which they occured. However, when we look back from a certain time in the past to tell what had happened before, we use Past Perfect.
In this question, clearly we do not talk about sequence of events. However, we use the point - Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise - which happened in the past to look back other action (in the past) happened before it. Clearly, past perfect is correct.
ANALYZE THE QUESTION:
Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century, many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood.
a) many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood Correct. Past perfect + active voice --> good grammar.
b) many scientists believed that phlogiston was an imaginary substance released by combustion and its properties were not fully understood Wrong. "its" refers to "combustion" or "substance" --> ambiguous.
c) phlogiston was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood and which many scientists had believed was released by combustion Wrong. Passive voice "was released..." is not necessary.
d) phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood, was believed by scientists to be released by combustion Wrong. "believed by X to be Y" --> not preferable in GMAT. (refer idiom chapter in MGMAT - sentence correction - page 150).
e) many scientists had believed that phlogiston was released by combustion and was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood Wrong. Between A and E, A is better by using active voice. E, however, uses passive voice.
Hope it helps.
_________________
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.
"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."
Re: Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Aug 2016, 05:53
3
Top Contributor
I think that this question brings into open too much of hair-splitting about the use of past perfect when even clear time references are in place. I feel that use of past perfect to describe deeper past of the two past events is neither correct nor incorrect; it is optional when the pastness of the two events happens to be a recent event. For example, look at this sentence.
Vietnam had never won a single gold medal in the Olympics, until Hoang Xuan broke the jinx on Saturday, the 6th of August 2016 by winning the men's 10-metre air pistol event and securing his country’s first award
This above sentence is much game as is the following.
Vietnam never won a single gold medal in the Olympics, until Hoang Xuan broke the jinx on Saturday, the August 6, 2016 by winning the men's 10-metre air pistol event and securing his country’s first award.
I feel the distinction between the two is more notional and optional than real.
However, as we travel deeper back, it becomes somewhat more hazy and maybe we need the past perfect, in spite of the time liners. Look at this
India had been under a savage British Rule until a half-naked fakir, M.K Gandhi with his toothless smile won a decisive freedom for his country on midnight of August 15, 1947.
Now with the passage of time, we feel it is better to put the past perfect in place, in order to make clear the sequence, despite the presence of the time liner ‘until’.
Quote:
Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century, many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood.
A. many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
B. many scientists believed that phlogiston was an imaginary substance released by combustion and its properties were not fully understood
C. phlogiston was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood and which many scientists had believed was released by combustion
D. phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood, was believed by scientists to be released by combustion
E. many scientists had believed that phlogiston was released by combustion and was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
Coming to the present question, my choice will be for A, not necessarily because it uses the past perfect but because it is more active and dynamic, while B and E, the nearest contenders may take backstage for simply being passive and missing on the ‘that’ parallelism.
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't make out how to pole-vault over the 630-barrier, you can do so with my one-to-one lessons. (+919884544509)
Re: Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 May 2018, 22:15
1
Timesline - prior scientists used to belive something else. later UA proved something. first one should have past perfect later one should have simple past. only A and E are following that and both are grammatically correct. but E has wrong meaning.
A. many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
E. many scientists had believed that phlogiston was released by combustion and was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood --- Cause of and both clauses are in parallel. cause of this, following part has changed the meaiong of whole thing.
Quote:
Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century, many scientists had believed that phlogiston was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
_________________
Thanks! Do give some kudos.
Simple strategy: “Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
WE: Information Technology (Internet and New Media)
Re: Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
31 May 2018, 23:50
For option A - Passive voice ( 'whose properties were not fully understood ' ) has been used like option E. So why has E been chosen as priority over A for POE ? Thanks in advance.
Re: Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Jun 2018, 08:34
2
Top Contributor
E is wrong not because of passive voice. E changes the meaning vastly. That phlogiston is an imaginary substance is a description of the author. E says that the scientists themselves believed it to be an imaginary stuff. One might see the difference in meaning between A and E.
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't make out how to pole-vault over the 630-barrier, you can do so with my one-to-one lessons. (+919884544509)
Re: Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Jun 2018, 11:57
RaviChandra wrote:
Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century, many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood.
A) many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood B) many scientists believed that phlogiston was an imaginary substance released by combustion and its properties were not fully understood C) phlogiston was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood and which many scientists had believed was released by combustion D) phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood, was believed by scientists to be released by combustion E) many scientists had believed that phlogiston was released by combustion and was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
soumya170293 wrote:
For option A - Passive voice ( 'whose properties were not fully understood ' ) has been used like option E. So why has E been chosen as priority over A for POE ? Thanks in advance.
soumya170293 , as daagh notes, passive voice is not the issue. Meaning distinguishes A from E. daagh wrote
Quote:
E says that the scientists themselves believed it to be an imaginary stuff.
The choice between options A and E is not a close call, although the difference might be hard to see.
A) many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
Many S had believed that C released P, [description of P] . . .
In A, phlogiston is followed by an appositive phrase [description of P] that clarifies "phlogiston." This clarification makes sense. "Phlogiston" is a strange word.
The appositive does not suggest that the scientists believed phlogiston to be imaginary.
E) many scientists had believed that phlogiston was released by combustion and was an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
If the red typeface does not help much, try inserting words that are implied by the sentence.
Many S had believed that P was released by C and [BELIEVED THAT P] was an imaginary substance . . . .
Did the scientists believe that phlogiston was an imaginary substance?
On the one hand, if scientists believed that combustion was actually releasing phlogiston, then they did not believe that phlogiston was "an imaginary substance."
On the other hand, if scientists believed that phlogiston WAS an imaginary substance, then those scientists did not believe that combustion produced phlogiston. (How does a real phenomenon produce an imaginary something?)
Option E, in other words, is logically inconsistent. Eliminate it. The correct answer is A. Hope that helps.
_________________
SC Butler has resumed! Get two SC questions to practice, whose links you can find by date, here.
Instructions for living a life. Pay attention. Be astonished. Tell about it. -- Mary Oliver
Re: Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
26 Mar 2019, 21:30
The sentence written is grammatically correct.
Option A : The use of Past Perfect Tense (Had + Verb) is correct since it's the earlier of the two past events Event 1. Scientists "had believed" that combustion released phlogiston (Past Perfect) Later of the two event: It was "proved" , written in Simple Past.
Furthermore, phlogiston, is correctly modified by : - "an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood".
Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Sep 2019, 11:02
I am a little confused, what "Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century" should modify to? Shouldn't it modify the phlogiston rather than many scientists? Not sure on the modification part of this sentence. However, the options with phlogiston are incorrect due to several other reasons, but is the placement of the first sentence modifying scientist correct? daagh
Re: Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Sep 2019, 11:36
Top Contributor
porwal
Until Antoine Lavoisier proved otherwise in the eighteenth century --This is not a modifier. This is a dependent clause followed by the main clause after the comma. The whole structure is a complex sentence. The modifier part comes at the end of the main clause, wherein phlogiston is described by the appositive modifier "an imaginary substance". Hope things are clear.
In addition, by bringing the phlogiston to the fore as the subject of the main clause, we have to go through a passive voice structure as done in C and D. Would it be so preferable?
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't make out how to pole-vault over the 630-barrier, you can do so with my one-to-one lessons. (+919884544509)
close
60% (01:24) correct 
