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

It is currently 22 Sep 2018, 04:13

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

Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Sep 2013
Posts: 68
Re: Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Dec 2017, 13:23
saarthak299 wrote:
can anyone explain why B is wrong ? it because of placement of *IT* after and makes the sentence confusing? otherwise please give reason.

Hey Saarthak

See; scientists belief was before Howard proved. So, instead of Scientists believed, it should be "scientists had believed" because this actually occurred earlier than Howard proved. That's the main reason of dropping B.

As far as the placement of "its" is concerned, I dont see it is referring anything other than Phlogiston. It's fine there from its usage perspective.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1789
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Dec 2017, 22:38
alokgupta1009 wrote:
saarthak299 wrote:
can anyone explain why B is wrong ? it because of placement of *IT* after and makes the sentence confusing? otherwise please give reason.

Hey Saarthak

See; scientists belief was before Howard proved. So, instead of Scientists believed, it should be "scientists had believed" because this actually occurred earlier than Howard proved. That's the main reason of dropping B.

As far as the placement of "its" is concerned, I dont see it is referring anything other than Phlogiston. It's fine there from its usage perspective.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app


"it" can actually refers to "a substance". B has many flaws; this is common in gmat.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 11 Sep 2017
Posts: 49
GMAT 1: 600 Q42 V31
Reviews Badge
Re: Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Dec 2017, 05:35
Option A - Correct --> Proper contrast is established between Tammy H and many scientists, past perfect (had) clearly confirms the action prior to the 18th century and phlogiston is clearly described after a comma.
Option B - Incorrect --> Original sentence does not call for any parallel structure as presented in option B (X and Y)
Option C - Incorrect --> Awkward wording + unclear meaning.
Option D - Incorrect --> Improper comparision of phlogiston with TH.
Option E - Incorrect --> Change of meaning from original intended meaning.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 217
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GPA: 4
CAT Tests
Re: Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2018, 10:01
AjiteshArun , MagooshExpert

Shouldn't the main clause start with "phlogiston" as the subordinate clause "Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century" should modify "phlogiston" instead of "many scientists"??

That was the reason why I eliminated A,B, and E on;y to arrive at the wrong choice?
Retired Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4542
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2018, 11:38
Top Contributor
Sarath wrote

Quote:
can anyone explain why B is wrong ? it because of placement of *IT* after and makes the sentence confusing? otherwise please give reason.


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

B changes the meaning. The scientists' belief was about the release of phlogiston by combustion and not about phlogiston being an imaginary substance.
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Posts: 153
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V32
GPA: 4
Re: Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2018, 11:53
Between A and E. A takes the cake because in E.... Believe that... Was... And was an imaginary substance. Many scientists did not believe that it was an imaginary substance and this belief did not change in the 18th century. This changes the intended meaning. So they should not be in parallel. Thats why A is correct.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Regards,

Vaibhav



Sky is the limit. 800 is the limit.

~GMAC

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 170
Re: Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2018, 15:41
1
Prateek176 wrote:
AjiteshArun , MagooshExpert

Shouldn't the main clause start with "phlogiston" as the subordinate clause "Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century" should modify "phlogiston" instead of "many scientists"??

That was the reason why I eliminated A,B, and E on;y to arrive at the wrong choice?

Hi Prateek176!

There's no reason that the main clause should start with "phlogiston". The idea here is that scientists held a particular belief until Tammy Howard proved that belief wrong. The main clause should be talking about what the scientists believed, and so the subject should be "many scientists". There is no action associated with "phlogiston" here, so it should not be the subject of the clause.

Hope that helps! :-)
-Carolyn
_________________

Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 418
Re: Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Aug 2018, 09:39
this is wrong question.
until+point of time in the past
must go with simple past, not had done.

there are many og questions which test this point.
if i am wrong, pls email me. my email is thanghnvn@gmail.com
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 217
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GPA: 4
CAT Tests
Re: Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2018, 08:59
MagooshExpert wrote:
Prateek176 wrote:
AjiteshArun , MagooshExpert

Shouldn't the main clause start with "phlogiston" as the subordinate clause "Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century" should modify "phlogiston" instead of "many scientists"??

That was the reason why I eliminated A,B, and E on;y to arrive at the wrong choice?

Hi Prateek176!

There's no reason that the main clause should start with "phlogiston". The idea here is that scientists held a particular belief until Tammy Howard proved that belief wrong. The main clause should be talking about what the scientists believed, and so the subject should be "many scientists". There is no action associated with "phlogiston" here, so it should not be the subject of the clause.

Hope that helps! :-)
-Carolyn



MagooshExpert , daagh

Sorry but i am not fully convinced.

The opening Modifier is "Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,". This modifier modifies "Phlogiston was believed.......". Doesn't this construction show the belief which was contradicted by Tommy Howard??
Retired Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4542
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2018, 13:31
Top Contributor
Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th 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 undeB.ood
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.

Quote:
Shouldn't the main clause start with "phlogiston" as the subordinate clause "Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century" should modify "phlogiston" instead of "many scientists"??

That was the reason why I eliminated A,B, and E only to arrive at the wrong choice?



Prateek

The difference between a subordinate clause and a modifier should be appreciated first. While an introductory modifier phrase has to necessarily modify its due noun that it is entitled to, the introductory subordinate clause is under no such obligation. Look at the analysis herein.
[/color]

A. Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century, many scientists had believed that combustion released phlogiston, an imaginary substance whose properties were not fully understood
If choice A were to start with a modifier, then your point would hold good. --Until Tammy Howard's proof otherwise, in the 18th century, phlogiston was believed to have been released by combustion and so on. However, one can see the convoluted structure such a sentence with a passive voice, etc. There is not even a pronoun such as 'it' to refer to the phlogiston in the subordinate clause. Therefore, 'many scientists' is better than phlogiston to start the main clause.

2. B changes the meaning that Phlogiston was believed to be an imaginary substance. The scientists only believed that combustion released phlogiston.

_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Re: Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century, &nbs [#permalink] 13 Aug 2018, 13:31

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 30 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Until Tammy Howard proved otherwise in the 18th century,

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


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®.