V11-07

Question

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,

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

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.
   
 Note:  These exact concepts have been tested in  THIS OFFICIAL QUESTION .
  
(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

pcnemesis · Answer

Is ''grow to be 5mm" correct usage?

bb · Answer

Good question. It does not sound natural to me either... does not mean it is wrong, just not natural.

Bunuel · Answer

The question or/and solution has been revised and edited. Thank you  sayantanc2k  !!!

gd96 · Answer

Can someone please clarify if "grow up to" and "grow to be" have different meanings?
I think the former implies the maximum height attainable whereas the latter implies a possibility.
In my opinion, C is the correct answer. As it does not change the intent of the phrase in the original sentence.

TrisIndra · Answer

i dont understand this conclusion

"The above sentence implies that a boomslang may grow more than 160 cms"

When the previous sentence clearly stated that "A boomslang does not grow more than 160 cm"

Jarvis07 · Answer

Hi  Bunuel ,
Thank you for the explanation.

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.
  
Unlike the example (  Steffi won Wimbledon, defeating Gabriela  ), which has a verb,  won , to refer to, option B does not have any verb to refer to. Could you please help how can we decide referent in such cases?

hdsinghdang · Answer

I think this is a  poor-quality  question and I don't agree with the explanation. The OG question referred in the explanation also states right answer as "Grow up to be Xmm long", therefore long is not redundant.

In fact, in its absence, the meaning could be literally taken as, that some entity becomes a distance. Which of course is illogical.

RenB · Answer

Is the 'and' vs 'or' logic given in the explanation correct?
The OG qs mentioned here is fairly straightforward. I am not convinced by the explanation on the direct and inverse relationship given here. Can you share links to OG examples with similar seldom/rarely type qs?

V11-07

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