Official Solution:Boomslangs, weighing rarely more than 500 gm or growing more than 160 cm, but with 3 large grooved fangs that can grow up to 5 mm long, are oviparous, and produce up to 30 eggs which are deposited in hollow tree trunks or rotting logs.A. Boomslangs, weighing rarely more than 500 gm or growing more than 160 cm, but with 3 large grooved fangs that can grow up to 5 mm long,
B. Boomslangs, rarely more than 500 gm in weight or more than 160 cm in length, but with 3 large grooved fangs, growing up to 5 mm,
C. Boomslangs, rarely weighing more than 500 gm and growing more than 160 cm, but having 3 large grooved fangs that can grow up to 5 mm long,
D. Boomslangs, weighing rarely more than 500 gm and growing more than 160 cm, but having 3 large grooved fangs that can grow to be 5 mm,
E. Boomslangs, rarely more than 500 gm in weight or more than 160 cm in length, but with 3 large grooved fangs that can grow to be 5 mm,
Concept 1: “and” vs or”: There are two characteristics that are rarely seen in Boomslangs:
I. weigh more than 500 gm
II. more than 160 cm
For the sake of explanation, one way of looking at the problem is to consider that “rarely” conveys a negative sense ( not commonly seen). Thus the following are intended to be conveyed:
I. A boomslang does not (commonly) weigh more than 500 grams.
II. A boomslang does not (commonly) grow more than 160 cm.
If we want to join the above sentences we must join with OR. Joining with "AND" conveys a different (illogical) meaning than intended:
A boomslang does not (comonly) weigh more than 500 grams and does not grow more than 160 cm.
The above sentence implies that a boomslang may grow more than 160 cms, but then it would weigh less than 500 gm. On the other hand it may weigh more than 500 gms, but then it would then be less than 160 cm long. Logically we can see that this statement is absurd - it is common knowledge that longer an item, more would be the weight.
Thus the correct conjunction is “or”, not “and”.
Note: For an even deeper understanding of the underlying logic, it might be useful to refer to
THIS OFFICIAL QUESTION. This question also tests “and” vs “or” construction - in the
OG question, “and” is correct because width and depth are inversely related, i.e. higher the width, lower is the depth, whereas in the above question “or” is correct because length and weight are directly related, i.e. higher the length, higher is the weight.
Concept 2: Use of the idiom “grow to be” / “grow up to”:
“Grow up to 5 mm long” is wrong - “long” is redundant.
“Grow to be” is idiomatically correct.
(A) Lack of parallelism: “weighing……or growing…….” is not parallel to “with 3 large grooved fangs”; instead “having 3 large grooved fangs” is preferred. The words grow and long are redundant.
Note: Present participle modifiers are technically adverbial modifiers (modifies verbs) and prepositional phrase modifiers are technically adjectival modifiers (modifies noun). Please refer to the note under option B for the conceptual understanding of the present participle modifier.
(B) The participial modifier growing to be… refers to the subject Boomslangs wrongly.
Note: Present participle modifiers are technically verb modifiers, but there must be a subject that this modifier can refer to - compare with the following example:
Steffi won Wimbledon, defeating Gabriela. The present participle “defeating Gabriela” is technically a verb modifier referring to the verb “won” (won how? By defeating). Nonetheless it should also be clear who defeated, hence the presence of the subject “Steffi” is mandatory. The action depicted by the present participle modifier is done by the subject of the main clause.
In the same way, it can be understood that in option B the action “growing” is done by the subject “Boomslangs” and hence this option is wrong.
(C) The conjunction "and" is wrong. The words grow and long are redundant.
(D) The conjunction "and" is wrong.
(E) CORRECT. Fixes all the problems above.
Answer: E
close
01 Dec 2015, 09:27
67%
(01:36)
wrong 
