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.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
14 Jun 2017, 09:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Chat Transcript - 6/14/2017
Q: Can you provide an explanation on the usage of 'having + verb'
A: The quick version is that ""having + verb" ("having been", "having studied," "having eaten," etc.) is sort-of just another "-ing" modifier, but the timeline has to be correct.
Just like any other "-ing" modifier, it has to make sense with the noun it modifies. But the added twist is that the timeline has to make sense, too. The "having + -ing" has to occur before some other action. Sort of like past perfect tense.
Ex: 1) Having been sick all day today, Amber called in sick to work this morning.
Here’s the problem: the timeline is wrong in #1. The "having + verb" needs to be the first action, followed by another action. That’s not happening here. Logically, she wasn’t sick "all day today" before she called in sick this morning.
2) Having eaten dinner already, Amber immediately began drinking heavily at the dinner party.
This one actually gets the timeline right. She ate dinner first, and then started drinking at the dinner party. That’s perfectly fine logically.
To be honest, I can’t think of any official questions that use this "having + verb" construction in a correct answer. It’s not inherently wrong, but GMAT doesn’t seem to use it much.
In that sense, it’s sort of like "being" -- mostly used in wrong sentences, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be used correctly.
Q: But is 2 not redundant?
A: yes, in some sense the verb tenses already clarifies the timeline, so "already" is arguably redundant. But for a teaching example, I’m trying to be super-clear about the logical timeline, so that’s why I put it in there.
Q: Galileo did not invent the telescope, but on hearing, in 1609, that such an optical instrument had been made, he quickly built his own device from an organ pipe and spectacle lenses.
(A) Galileo did not invent the telescope, but on hearing, in 1609, that such an optical instrument had been made, he
(B) Galileo had not invented the telescope, but when he heard, in 1609, of such an optical instrument having been made,
(C) Galileo, even though he had not invented the telescope, on hearing, in 1609, that such an optical instrument had been made, he
(D) Even though Galileo did not invent the telescope, on hearing, in 1609, that such an optical instrument had been made,
(E) Even though Galileo did not invent the telescope, but when he heard, in 1609, of such an optical instrument being made, he
(A) looks OK to me
(B) is missing "he"! Also, the past perfect tense doesn’t work very well here -- there’s no good reason to use it. And the "having been" is unnecessary, too.
(C) is still a full sentence, not a fragment. That last part beginning with "he" is an independent clause. Bigger problem here is the use of past perfect tense. The sentence has three actions: "had not invented the telescope", "instrument had been made", "he quickly built." That implies that Galileo first did not invent the telescope, and then he built one. That doesn’t really make sense -- he NEVER invented the telescope, so why would we use past perfect tense, which suggests an action that ended before some other action?
(D) Repeats the error in B (missing 'he')
I think there’s a point about redundancy in (E), but there are plenty of other problems there, too. Absolutely no good reason to use "being" in (E).
Verb tenses also make more sense in (A): heard that the instrument HAD BEEN MADE... and then he BUILT his own. Textbook use of past perfect tense with simple past tense.
Q: About 5 million acres in the United States have been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia with milky sap that gives mouth sores to cattle, displacing grasses and other cattle food and rendering rangeland worthless.
(A) States have been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia with milky sap that gives mouth sores to cattle, displacing grasses and other cattle food and rendering
(B) States have been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia, with milky sap, that gives mouth sores to cattle and displaces grasses and other cattle food, rendering
(C) States have been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia having milky sap that gives mouth sores to cattle and displacing grasses and other cattle food, rendering
(D) States, having been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia with milky sap that gives mouth sores to cattle, displaces grasses and other cattle food, and renders
(E) States, having been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia that has milky sap giving mouth sores to cattle and displacing grasses and other cattle food, rendering
A: Refer - https://gmatclub.com/forum/about-5-mill ... l#p1869892
Q: I have picked up a bad habit of removing the line placed between two commas and thinking is the sentence right should I keep this practice or can it be fatal.
A: I think I might have said something about that in an earlier chat, but I’m not sure. Quick version: it’s really dangerous to "remove" entire chunks of a sentence. Sure, temporarily ignoring little pieces of the sentence can help you see what’s really happening, especially with subject-verb issues, or sometimes with comparisons or modifiers. But the key is "temporarily". Everything in the sentence is in there for a reason, and could very welll affect the grammar or structure or meaning.
Q: Can you throw some light on the usage of 'that' and 'which' modifying a distant noun
A: The traditional rule: when used as noun modifiers, "that" and "which" must modify the immediately preceding noun. And that’s correct most of the time.
Silly example: "My favorite restaurant is in Brooklyn, which serves delicious bhindi masala." - Wrong, because Brooklyn doesn’t serve bhindi masala.
Traditional rule about "that" and "which", part 2: "that" isn’t preceded by a comma, "which" always is. "That" is an essential modifier, "which" is non-essential.
The GMAT really doesn’t spend a lot of time testing the distinction between essential and non-essential modifiers, and it definitely doesn’t spend any time testing you on comma rules. It’s actually really hard to test whether it’s better to use "that" or "which"...
1) The GMAT book, which is on the table, is useless.
2) The GMAT book that is on the table is useless.
Both are fine. Which one is better? It just depends on whether you think that "on the table" is extra information, or if I’d have a hard time identifying the book if you didn’t point out that it was on the table. So the vast majority of the time, the GMAT is interested in whether you can figure out if the modifier makes logical sense -- the difference between "that" and "which" doesn’t matter much
And I can’t find any official GMAT questions that are concerned with comma rules, either. So yes: "which" is generally preceded with a comma, like any other non-essential modifier. "That" generally isn’t preceded with a comma when it’s used as a noun modifier. But there are exceptions, and you shouldn’t worry too much about the comma. That’s rarely, if ever, the thing you should be focused on.
Same with dashes, by the way -- they really don’t matter much. Experts disagree about the correct way to use dashes. When you see them on the GMAT, look for other issues. The dash isn’t the determining factor.
One last thought (for now!) on "that" and "which": both of them can occasionally reach back a little bit further. 95% of the time, they have to "touch" the noun being modified -- but there are exceptions. They’re rare, but they exist. There has to be a really, really good reason for "that" or "which" to "reach further back" into the sentence. Usually a prepositional phrase of some sort. Again, here’s one of the best examples: https://gmatclub.com/forum/for-many-rev ... -5903.html
Q: I need help in understanding the way they are solved
A: I think I have enough time for a quick wisecrack on weaken/strengthen questions. To be honest, there’s really not much to them from a logical perspective. I think you probably know what it means to weaken or strengthen something, at least in theory. The reason most people make mistakes on them: you’re not 100% clear about what you’re trying to weaken...
The key is to be crystal-clear about how, exactly, the argument is constructed in the passage. Identify the conclusion, and make sure that you understand the EXACT language of that conclusion.
If you tweak the language in the conclusion just a little bit, you can distort its meaning. And then you’re far more likely to make a mistake if you’re trying to weaken a conclusion that isn’t EXACTLY the same as the conclusion in the passage. It’s natural to paraphrase when you read, but it’s also really dangerous, in some sense, on CR. It’s all about precision: do you understand EXACTLY what the author’s conclusion is, or are you putting words in the author’s mouth? Honestly, that’s the heart of strengthen/weaken/assumption questions: precision in understanding the conclusion and the author’s support for that conclusion. Not terribly exciting, but that’s really it.
Q: Can you please provide me an approach to solve RC questions?
A: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 41004.html
Q: Can you provide an explanation on the usage of 'having + verb'
A: The quick version is that ""having + verb" ("having been", "having studied," "having eaten," etc.) is sort-of just another "-ing" modifier, but the timeline has to be correct.
Just like any other "-ing" modifier, it has to make sense with the noun it modifies. But the added twist is that the timeline has to make sense, too. The "having + -ing" has to occur before some other action. Sort of like past perfect tense.
Ex: 1) Having been sick all day today, Amber called in sick to work this morning.
Here’s the problem: the timeline is wrong in #1. The "having + verb" needs to be the first action, followed by another action. That’s not happening here. Logically, she wasn’t sick "all day today" before she called in sick this morning.
2) Having eaten dinner already, Amber immediately began drinking heavily at the dinner party.
This one actually gets the timeline right. She ate dinner first, and then started drinking at the dinner party. That’s perfectly fine logically.
To be honest, I can’t think of any official questions that use this "having + verb" construction in a correct answer. It’s not inherently wrong, but GMAT doesn’t seem to use it much.
In that sense, it’s sort of like "being" -- mostly used in wrong sentences, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be used correctly.
Q: But is 2 not redundant?
A: yes, in some sense the verb tenses already clarifies the timeline, so "already" is arguably redundant. But for a teaching example, I’m trying to be super-clear about the logical timeline, so that’s why I put it in there.
Q: Galileo did not invent the telescope, but on hearing, in 1609, that such an optical instrument had been made, he quickly built his own device from an organ pipe and spectacle lenses.
(A) Galileo did not invent the telescope, but on hearing, in 1609, that such an optical instrument had been made, he
(B) Galileo had not invented the telescope, but when he heard, in 1609, of such an optical instrument having been made,
(C) Galileo, even though he had not invented the telescope, on hearing, in 1609, that such an optical instrument had been made, he
(D) Even though Galileo did not invent the telescope, on hearing, in 1609, that such an optical instrument had been made,
(E) Even though Galileo did not invent the telescope, but when he heard, in 1609, of such an optical instrument being made, he
(A) looks OK to me
(B) is missing "he"! Also, the past perfect tense doesn’t work very well here -- there’s no good reason to use it. And the "having been" is unnecessary, too.
(C) is still a full sentence, not a fragment. That last part beginning with "he" is an independent clause. Bigger problem here is the use of past perfect tense. The sentence has three actions: "had not invented the telescope", "instrument had been made", "he quickly built." That implies that Galileo first did not invent the telescope, and then he built one. That doesn’t really make sense -- he NEVER invented the telescope, so why would we use past perfect tense, which suggests an action that ended before some other action?
(D) Repeats the error in B (missing 'he')
I think there’s a point about redundancy in (E), but there are plenty of other problems there, too. Absolutely no good reason to use "being" in (E).
Verb tenses also make more sense in (A): heard that the instrument HAD BEEN MADE... and then he BUILT his own. Textbook use of past perfect tense with simple past tense.
Q: About 5 million acres in the United States have been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia with milky sap that gives mouth sores to cattle, displacing grasses and other cattle food and rendering rangeland worthless.
(A) States have been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia with milky sap that gives mouth sores to cattle, displacing grasses and other cattle food and rendering
(B) States have been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia, with milky sap, that gives mouth sores to cattle and displaces grasses and other cattle food, rendering
(C) States have been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia having milky sap that gives mouth sores to cattle and displacing grasses and other cattle food, rendering
(D) States, having been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia with milky sap that gives mouth sores to cattle, displaces grasses and other cattle food, and renders
(E) States, having been invaded by leafy spurge, a herbaceous plant from Eurasia that has milky sap giving mouth sores to cattle and displacing grasses and other cattle food, rendering
A: Refer - https://gmatclub.com/forum/about-5-mill ... l#p1869892
Q: I have picked up a bad habit of removing the line placed between two commas and thinking is the sentence right should I keep this practice or can it be fatal.
A: I think I might have said something about that in an earlier chat, but I’m not sure. Quick version: it’s really dangerous to "remove" entire chunks of a sentence. Sure, temporarily ignoring little pieces of the sentence can help you see what’s really happening, especially with subject-verb issues, or sometimes with comparisons or modifiers. But the key is "temporarily". Everything in the sentence is in there for a reason, and could very welll affect the grammar or structure or meaning.
Q: Can you throw some light on the usage of 'that' and 'which' modifying a distant noun
A: The traditional rule: when used as noun modifiers, "that" and "which" must modify the immediately preceding noun. And that’s correct most of the time.
Silly example: "My favorite restaurant is in Brooklyn, which serves delicious bhindi masala." - Wrong, because Brooklyn doesn’t serve bhindi masala.
Traditional rule about "that" and "which", part 2: "that" isn’t preceded by a comma, "which" always is. "That" is an essential modifier, "which" is non-essential.
The GMAT really doesn’t spend a lot of time testing the distinction between essential and non-essential modifiers, and it definitely doesn’t spend any time testing you on comma rules. It’s actually really hard to test whether it’s better to use "that" or "which"...
1) The GMAT book, which is on the table, is useless.
2) The GMAT book that is on the table is useless.
Both are fine. Which one is better? It just depends on whether you think that "on the table" is extra information, or if I’d have a hard time identifying the book if you didn’t point out that it was on the table. So the vast majority of the time, the GMAT is interested in whether you can figure out if the modifier makes logical sense -- the difference between "that" and "which" doesn’t matter much
And I can’t find any official GMAT questions that are concerned with comma rules, either. So yes: "which" is generally preceded with a comma, like any other non-essential modifier. "That" generally isn’t preceded with a comma when it’s used as a noun modifier. But there are exceptions, and you shouldn’t worry too much about the comma. That’s rarely, if ever, the thing you should be focused on.
Same with dashes, by the way -- they really don’t matter much. Experts disagree about the correct way to use dashes. When you see them on the GMAT, look for other issues. The dash isn’t the determining factor.
One last thought (for now!) on "that" and "which": both of them can occasionally reach back a little bit further. 95% of the time, they have to "touch" the noun being modified -- but there are exceptions. They’re rare, but they exist. There has to be a really, really good reason for "that" or "which" to "reach further back" into the sentence. Usually a prepositional phrase of some sort. Again, here’s one of the best examples: https://gmatclub.com/forum/for-many-rev ... -5903.html
Q: I need help in understanding the way they are solved
A: I think I have enough time for a quick wisecrack on weaken/strengthen questions. To be honest, there’s really not much to them from a logical perspective. I think you probably know what it means to weaken or strengthen something, at least in theory. The reason most people make mistakes on them: you’re not 100% clear about what you’re trying to weaken...
The key is to be crystal-clear about how, exactly, the argument is constructed in the passage. Identify the conclusion, and make sure that you understand the EXACT language of that conclusion.
If you tweak the language in the conclusion just a little bit, you can distort its meaning. And then you’re far more likely to make a mistake if you’re trying to weaken a conclusion that isn’t EXACTLY the same as the conclusion in the passage. It’s natural to paraphrase when you read, but it’s also really dangerous, in some sense, on CR. It’s all about precision: do you understand EXACTLY what the author’s conclusion is, or are you putting words in the author’s mouth? Honestly, that’s the heart of strengthen/weaken/assumption questions: precision in understanding the conclusion and the author’s support for that conclusion. Not terribly exciting, but that’s really it.
Q: Can you please provide me an approach to solve RC questions?
A: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 41004.html
14 Jun 2017, 19:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Vyshak
I'm not afraid to admit that I screwed this question up pretty thoroughly during our chat.
As penance, I wrote a detailed explanation here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/about-5-mill ... l#p1869892Nasty little question that deals with some subtleties of meaning and modifier placement. I like it!
21 Jun 2017, 09:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
Chat Transcript - 6/21/2017
Q: In some species of cricket, the number of chirps per minute used by the male for attracting females rise and fall in accordance with the surrounding temperature, and they can in fact serve as an approximate thermometer.
A. for attracting females rise and fall in accordance with the surrounding temperature, and they can in fact serve.
B. for attracting females rises and falls in accordance with the surrounding temperature, which can in fact serve
C. in attracting females rise and fall in accordance with the surrounding temperature, in fact possibly serving.
D. to attract females rises and falls in accordance with the surrounding temperature, and it can in fact serve.
E. to attract females rises and falls in accordance with the surrounding temperature, in fact possibly serving.
Here ’it’ refers to ’number’ right? How can a number serve as a thermometer?
A: Think of it as "number of chirps per minute". "number of chirps per minute... can in fact serve as an approximate thermometer". For anybody who missed Monday’s session, we talked about the fact that in a sentence with two clauses -- either one dependent and one independent, or two independent clauses -- if the subject of the second sentence is a pronoun, it can unambiguously refer back to the subject of the first clause.
So in (D), that "it" looks ambiguous (does it refer to temperature? cricket? number?) -- but it unambiguously refers back to "number of chirps per minute" in (D).
Q: But E seems to convey the meaning better by providing the result of the action - ’rise and fall’
A: I’m not so sure about that. It’s the number of chirps that could be mapped onto temperature -- not just the rising and falling of the chirps. And the last little bit "in fact possibly serving" isn’t ideal, either -- seems to say that it actually may serve as a thermometer in practice, instead of saying that it CAN in fact serve as a thermometer if you wanted it to.
Q: Can you please advise us on the modifier touch rule, especially when which/that is used?
A: Warning: The abusive language that is used is solely for demonstrating the modifier touch rule and is not intended to offend any person or sentiments. It is upto the user to open the spoiler and learn the rule
Q: Also, we can not use which here, is it compulsory for which to always touch the subject/object it is modifying?
A: "that" and "which" basically work the same way on the GMAT: yeah, they generally have to be as close to the noun as possible. Most of the time, they’ll "touch" the noun being modified. But there are exceptions for both. Search for "Emily Dickinson" on GMAT Club, and you’ll find a notorious example that uses "which."
Here’s the thing, though: we’re talking about an exception here, and it’s really hard to know when it’s OK to have the exception. As far as I know, the "exception to the touch rule" generally applies only when there are prepositional phrases in the way.
And in general, the GMAT is mostly concerned with this: which of these sentences most clearly expresses the intended meaning of the sentence? So if the modifier placement seems unclear, there’s a good chance that it’s wrong. If there’s an exception to the "touch rule", there has to be a really good reason for it.
Q: Sir can you explain this example::Between 1892 and 1893, Claude Monet produced a series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral, which he revised in his studio in 1894 and which the French public received..
A: I’m not convinced by the example, though: "Between 1892 and 1893, Claude Monet produced a series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral, which he revised in his studio in 1894 and which the French public received..." I guess the "which" could "reach back" to the paintings, but I’m a little bit uncomfortable with it. This sort of thing is often wrong on the GMAT. If this were one of my answer choices on a real, official question, I wouldn’t automatically eliminate it -- but odds are good that there would be something better. Maybe this IS the best of the bunch on the Magoosh question, though.
Q: what about comma usage while using which and that?
A: this comes up a lot in the forums. I have two thoughts on commas with that and which.
1) as most of you know, "which" is a non-essential modifier, and is preceded by a comma; "that" is essential, and is not preceded by a comma
2) it’s almost impossible for the GMAT to test that distinction. And in general, the GMAT doesn’t test comma placement much. Style experts disagree about many comma rules, and the GMAT tends to steer clear of those issues.
In this particular case, consider these two sentences:
A) The GMAT book, which is on the table, is useless.
B) The GMAT book that is on the table is useless.
Both are fine. Different meanings: in A, the location of the book is extra information, and you would presumably know which book I’m talking about if I didn’t point out the location. In B, you presumably need to know the location in order for the sentence to make sense. Perhaps there’s another book in the refrigerator or something. Or in the oven -- many New Yorkers actually store their books in the oven, because the apartments are so small. Not making this up.
Q: But 'that' can also be preceded by a comma right - in case of a non-essential modifier coming in between
A: absolutely. Or if you have a list of modifiers beginning with "that", it’s possible to have commas between them. You definitely don’t want to get too mechanical with commas on the GMAT. It just isn’t a priority on the exam. And again, experts often disagree about comma placement rules, anyway. If the commas somehow impact meaning, great. But other than that, they’re generally a non-issue.
And you’ve all heard me say this before, but you’re never looking for a right answer. You’re looking for four wrong answers. The least-worst is the correct answer. Correct GMAT sentences are rarely "good." They’re wordy and awkward, in my opinion. But that doesn’t matter -- the GMAT makes the rules here. Least-worst is your winner.
While we’re on the topic of modifiers and "touch rules": if anything, the placement rules are even LESS strict for modifiers other than "that" and "which." For example, "-ing" and "-ed" modifiers need to be as close as possible -- and they need to make sense! -- but they don’t necessarily have to "touch" anything.
Friendly reminder: it’s "verbal reasoning", not "reading and grammar." So they’re testing you on your ability to connect meaning and structure. I wish that there were more absolute rules that applied to SC, but modifier placement is much more about logic and being LITERAL with your interpretation of the sentence than it is about absolute rules.
Q: can you give an example about the -ing and -ed and can you make the point you made up there more clear with the help of an example
A: "The politician who lost Tuesday’s election, which was the most expensive and closely-watched US House race in history, decided to hide from the public all night, crying silently in his bedroom."
Who is it that’s crying silently in his bedroom? The politician -- waaaaay at the beginning of the sentence. But that’s fine -- we could argue that "crying silently in his bedroom" modifies that entire clause "the politician decided to hide from the public all night." After all, "crying silently in his bedroom" is giving us extra information about what he was doing when he was hiding from the public. But the "-ing" isn’t terribly close to "the politician." And that really isn’t a big deal, as long as the sentence still makes sense logically. And I think it does here.
Q: can we discuss more on the order selection though - is it a good idea to start with verbal?
A: I can’t imagine that anybody missed the news, but if you have missed refer here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/big-gmat-cha ... 42718.html
You can choose the order of your GMAT sections starting July 11. Makes me happy. And I say that as somebody who really struggles to give a crap at the end of a 4-hour exam. Seriously, the hardest thing for me as always been verbal, just because I’m tired and don’t care anymore by the time I get to the end. Here’s what I think the selection order choice boils down to: do you need a warmup, or are you more worried about fatigue? IR works as a nice warmup for some people. If that’s the case, there’s no harm in keeping the conventional order. If you’re more worried about fatigue, put the IR and AWA at the end. Personally, I’m more worried about fatigue. Most people who struggle with verbal will probably want to put verbal 1st or 2nd. But I do have students who get a little bit jittery and out of sorts when they walk into the exam room, and the not-very-meaningful AWA and IR sections help them settle in. And if verbal is really easy for you, then the conventional order is probably fine. If quant is a warmup for you, then that’s perfect.
GMATPrep will be "fixed" at the end of July if that isn’t too late. MGMAT and Veritas and other companies have incorporated the changes already. You could also do what I call "fake tests" using the GMATPrep Question Pack. Basically, you can put the software in "random" and "exam" mode as you do practice questions, and it’ll feel like a real test. (The real thing is obviously adaptive, but it feels really, really random sometimes.) If you’re a high scorer, select medium and hard questions only. That way, you can do the sections in whatever order you’d like.
Q: Could you please suggest something about my issue - However much hard I try, I am not able to increase my text processing speed in CR and RC - if I take 180% of the test time, my accuracy becomes 90+%, but withing a time frame of 75 minutes, it is not more than 50%. Please suggest what to do?
A: yeah, that’s a common question: how do I improve my speed on CR and RC without having my accuracy fall apart?
I think the key is to distinguish between speed and efficiency...
Speed: to a large degree, your visual processing speed is innate, especially once you hit adulthood. We probably can’t make you a fundamentally faster reader, unless you’re still learning English. But certainly in your native language -- or any language you’ve spoken for a long time -- your reading speed is already pretty much fixed. If you try to speed up, your accuracy will fall apart.
But that’s not the same as efficiency. The question is: are you somehow wasting time in your approach to CR and RC?
On RC, you might be over-obsessing about details as you initially read the passage, and that can slow you down. The important thing is to grasp the big picture -- WHY the author has written each paragraph, and how those paragraphs connect -- before you jump into the answer choices. I won’t rehash all of that here, but check this article out for more on this issue: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 41004.html
Too much detail? A waste of time. But if you don’t understand the passage well enough, you’ll also waste time going back and forth between the answer choices.
I’d make a similar argument on CR: if you don’t understand the structure of the argument BEFORE you look at the answer choices, you’ll waste a ton of time going back and forth between them. You want to invest wisely and efficiently in the passage itself on CR -- if you’re not catching the author’s structure and his/her exact language choices on CR, you’ll be really slow on the answer choices.
Something I hear all the time: "I’m down to two answer choices on the ones I miss. That means I’m close!" No, not really. It probably means that you missed something in the passage, and that’s why those last two choices are indistinguishable from each other. Plus, the question-writers often have one GREAT idea for a tempting wrong answer. But the other three are often filler.
It’s funny, I’ve been arguing with myself for at least a decade on the issue of whether it’s worthwhile to read the question first. And I’m still not 100% sure that it matters much, one way or another...
Ultimately, CR is about the precision of your reading. If you miss some little modifier, you could be in huge trouble, right? One word can swing the whole passage.
The argument against reading the question first: maybe it’ll make you "cherry-pick" the passage (looking TOO hard for, say, an assumption), and then you might do a lousy job of figuring out EXACTLY what the passage is saying.
The argument for reading the question first: if you know that the passage will definitely have a conclusion (in weaken, strengthen, assumption questions, for example) or a discrepancy or a paradox, then you’ll maybe be a little bit sharper at seeing the structure of the passage.
Honestly, I’ve mostly stopped telling my students what to do on this issue. If they’re more comfortable reading the question first, I think that’s totally fine. If they seem to have a hard time reading EXACTLY what’s on the page because they’re eagerly looking for something specific, then I might make them stop reading the question first... but that’s rare.
I don’t think it matters much. On CR, it’s all about the precision of your reading and logic. Reading the question first -- or not reading it first -- isn’t going to affect that much.
Q: Ok - I don’t know what I do- I try reading the question first and then stem but some quesitons I have solved the other way round and still took the same time and got same accuracy
A: exactly! That doesn’t surprise me at all - I just don’t think it’s all that important, one way or the other. But it sells test-prep books, so you tend to see it in them. But it’s not super-important. Do whatever works for you, or whatever feels right, and don’t be too shocked if the results are similar either way.
Q: Subconsciously is time a factor on how accurate your answers are in Gmat RC.
A: Absolutely. The worst thing you can do is be so worried about time that you cheat yourself out of an extra ~15 seconds that might be the difference between "sort-of understanding the passage" and PRECISELY understanding the author’s structure and purpose. Sometimes, an extra little investment of a few seconds is awesome. But psychologically, it can be hard to do if you know that the timer is pounding away.
Q: So shall I conclude that to improve the processing speed on RC, I should read the question stem first?
A: No. You can only see one question at a time on RC, anyway. And your processing speed has virtually nothing to do with whether you read the question first or not. If reading the question helps with that, it won’t help much.
Q: Ok, so the question still remains open - how to improve my processing speed
A: right. It’s hard. If you’re a non-native speaker and you’re still working on getting better at English, then great -- your fundamental reading speed could still improve. Otherwise, strive for efficiency in the ways that we’ve discussed, since your processing speed might be basically "fixed" at this point.
Q: What is the difference between the 2 statements: "the option qualifies the claim that ....blah blah" and "the option supports the claim that ...blah blah"
A: well, one of them would strengthen a claim, and "qualifies" just means that it could strengthen or weaken. Or maybe affect it in some other way besides just strengthening/supporting. to "qualify" an argument just means that you’re altering it in some way -- perhaps strengthening, perhaps weakening. It’s just less specific than "support" or "strengthen."
Q: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland’s industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia’s industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland’s industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia’s are.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
How can I answer the question under time pressure?
A: The quick version of the way I would break down this passage: if there’s a conclusion, I always start there. "Parland’s industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia’s are."
Then I always ask myself: is there anything I should notice about the author’s exact choice of language? Any modifiers that would tweak the scope or the strength or the magnitude? Interesting: "on the whole."
Then figure out how they got there. In our QOTD explanations, you’ll notice that we generally use the same structure: start with the heart of the passage (conclusion, for example, in the author’s EXACT words, with an eye on the author’s language choices and modifiers), and then you’ll see some bullet points outlining the author’s evidence.
No reason to move onto the answer choices until the author’s structure and reasoning is 100% clear.
I’ve been threatening this for weeks, but we really do have a "CR for beginners" Topic of the Week coming up soon. It’s taken some time to make it appropriately succinct and awesome... but it is coming soon.
We will have Verbal Live sessions every Monday at 8.30 PM IST. Please subscribe to gmatclub youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEIeUi ... kETZFC9DKA) and turn on the notifications if you do not want to miss out on any live sessions organized by gmatclub. Also feel free to post your topic ideas for next week's 'Verbal Live Session' in the comments section - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhN_KU1bSKU
Q: In some species of cricket, the number of chirps per minute used by the male for attracting females rise and fall in accordance with the surrounding temperature, and they can in fact serve as an approximate thermometer.
A. for attracting females rise and fall in accordance with the surrounding temperature, and they can in fact serve.
B. for attracting females rises and falls in accordance with the surrounding temperature, which can in fact serve
C. in attracting females rise and fall in accordance with the surrounding temperature, in fact possibly serving.
D. to attract females rises and falls in accordance with the surrounding temperature, and it can in fact serve.
E. to attract females rises and falls in accordance with the surrounding temperature, in fact possibly serving.
Here ’it’ refers to ’number’ right? How can a number serve as a thermometer?
A: Think of it as "number of chirps per minute". "number of chirps per minute... can in fact serve as an approximate thermometer". For anybody who missed Monday’s session, we talked about the fact that in a sentence with two clauses -- either one dependent and one independent, or two independent clauses -- if the subject of the second sentence is a pronoun, it can unambiguously refer back to the subject of the first clause.
So in (D), that "it" looks ambiguous (does it refer to temperature? cricket? number?) -- but it unambiguously refers back to "number of chirps per minute" in (D).
Q: But E seems to convey the meaning better by providing the result of the action - ’rise and fall’
A: I’m not so sure about that. It’s the number of chirps that could be mapped onto temperature -- not just the rising and falling of the chirps. And the last little bit "in fact possibly serving" isn’t ideal, either -- seems to say that it actually may serve as a thermometer in practice, instead of saying that it CAN in fact serve as a thermometer if you wanted it to.
Q: Can you please advise us on the modifier touch rule, especially when which/that is used?
A: Warning: The abusive language that is used is solely for demonstrating the modifier touch rule and is not intended to offend any person or sentiments. It is upto the user to open the spoiler and learn the rule
[color=#f26522]The son of a *complain* that spilled my beer deserves to die. So I would look at that sentence and think, "the *complain* that spilled my beer" -- that’s wrong, because it wasn’t the *complain* that spilled my beer. It was the son. So what’s the issue here? We have two modifiers in a row: "of a *complain*" modifies "son" -- and logically, so does "that spilled my beer". The intended meaning is that the "son of a *complain*" spilled my beer and deserves to die. So it LOOKS like "that" is misplaced. But there really isn’t a better way to say it because there are two consecutive modifiers.
You wouldn’t want to say "the son that spilled my beer of the *complain*..."
We don’t really have a choice here, so this sentence is actually fine. I think some people call it a "mission critical modifier" -- not sure who popularized that term, but a few have asked about it here. "of a *complain*" can’t be separated from "son" -- so there’s really no way for "that" to touch the thing it modifies.
You wouldn’t want to say "the son that spilled my beer of the *complain*..."
We don’t really have a choice here, so this sentence is actually fine. I think some people call it a "mission critical modifier" -- not sure who popularized that term, but a few have asked about it here. "of a *complain*" can’t be separated from "son" -- so there’s really no way for "that" to touch the thing it modifies.
Q: Also, we can not use which here, is it compulsory for which to always touch the subject/object it is modifying?
A: "that" and "which" basically work the same way on the GMAT: yeah, they generally have to be as close to the noun as possible. Most of the time, they’ll "touch" the noun being modified. But there are exceptions for both. Search for "Emily Dickinson" on GMAT Club, and you’ll find a notorious example that uses "which."
Here’s the thing, though: we’re talking about an exception here, and it’s really hard to know when it’s OK to have the exception. As far as I know, the "exception to the touch rule" generally applies only when there are prepositional phrases in the way.
And in general, the GMAT is mostly concerned with this: which of these sentences most clearly expresses the intended meaning of the sentence? So if the modifier placement seems unclear, there’s a good chance that it’s wrong. If there’s an exception to the "touch rule", there has to be a really good reason for it.
Q: Sir can you explain this example::Between 1892 and 1893, Claude Monet produced a series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral, which he revised in his studio in 1894 and which the French public received..
A: I’m not convinced by the example, though: "Between 1892 and 1893, Claude Monet produced a series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral, which he revised in his studio in 1894 and which the French public received..." I guess the "which" could "reach back" to the paintings, but I’m a little bit uncomfortable with it. This sort of thing is often wrong on the GMAT. If this were one of my answer choices on a real, official question, I wouldn’t automatically eliminate it -- but odds are good that there would be something better. Maybe this IS the best of the bunch on the Magoosh question, though.
Q: what about comma usage while using which and that?
A: this comes up a lot in the forums. I have two thoughts on commas with that and which.
1) as most of you know, "which" is a non-essential modifier, and is preceded by a comma; "that" is essential, and is not preceded by a comma
2) it’s almost impossible for the GMAT to test that distinction. And in general, the GMAT doesn’t test comma placement much. Style experts disagree about many comma rules, and the GMAT tends to steer clear of those issues.
In this particular case, consider these two sentences:
A) The GMAT book, which is on the table, is useless.
B) The GMAT book that is on the table is useless.
Both are fine. Different meanings: in A, the location of the book is extra information, and you would presumably know which book I’m talking about if I didn’t point out the location. In B, you presumably need to know the location in order for the sentence to make sense. Perhaps there’s another book in the refrigerator or something. Or in the oven -- many New Yorkers actually store their books in the oven, because the apartments are so small. Not making this up.
Q: But 'that' can also be preceded by a comma right - in case of a non-essential modifier coming in between
A: absolutely. Or if you have a list of modifiers beginning with "that", it’s possible to have commas between them. You definitely don’t want to get too mechanical with commas on the GMAT. It just isn’t a priority on the exam. And again, experts often disagree about comma placement rules, anyway. If the commas somehow impact meaning, great. But other than that, they’re generally a non-issue.
And you’ve all heard me say this before, but you’re never looking for a right answer. You’re looking for four wrong answers. The least-worst is the correct answer. Correct GMAT sentences are rarely "good." They’re wordy and awkward, in my opinion. But that doesn’t matter -- the GMAT makes the rules here. Least-worst is your winner.
While we’re on the topic of modifiers and "touch rules": if anything, the placement rules are even LESS strict for modifiers other than "that" and "which." For example, "-ing" and "-ed" modifiers need to be as close as possible -- and they need to make sense! -- but they don’t necessarily have to "touch" anything.
Friendly reminder: it’s "verbal reasoning", not "reading and grammar." So they’re testing you on your ability to connect meaning and structure. I wish that there were more absolute rules that applied to SC, but modifier placement is much more about logic and being LITERAL with your interpretation of the sentence than it is about absolute rules.
Q: can you give an example about the -ing and -ed and can you make the point you made up there more clear with the help of an example
A: "The politician who lost Tuesday’s election, which was the most expensive and closely-watched US House race in history, decided to hide from the public all night, crying silently in his bedroom."
Who is it that’s crying silently in his bedroom? The politician -- waaaaay at the beginning of the sentence. But that’s fine -- we could argue that "crying silently in his bedroom" modifies that entire clause "the politician decided to hide from the public all night." After all, "crying silently in his bedroom" is giving us extra information about what he was doing when he was hiding from the public. But the "-ing" isn’t terribly close to "the politician." And that really isn’t a big deal, as long as the sentence still makes sense logically. And I think it does here.
Q: can we discuss more on the order selection though - is it a good idea to start with verbal?
A: I can’t imagine that anybody missed the news, but if you have missed refer here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/big-gmat-cha ... 42718.html
You can choose the order of your GMAT sections starting July 11. Makes me happy. And I say that as somebody who really struggles to give a crap at the end of a 4-hour exam. Seriously, the hardest thing for me as always been verbal, just because I’m tired and don’t care anymore by the time I get to the end. Here’s what I think the selection order choice boils down to: do you need a warmup, or are you more worried about fatigue? IR works as a nice warmup for some people. If that’s the case, there’s no harm in keeping the conventional order. If you’re more worried about fatigue, put the IR and AWA at the end. Personally, I’m more worried about fatigue. Most people who struggle with verbal will probably want to put verbal 1st or 2nd. But I do have students who get a little bit jittery and out of sorts when they walk into the exam room, and the not-very-meaningful AWA and IR sections help them settle in. And if verbal is really easy for you, then the conventional order is probably fine. If quant is a warmup for you, then that’s perfect.
GMATPrep will be "fixed" at the end of July if that isn’t too late. MGMAT and Veritas and other companies have incorporated the changes already. You could also do what I call "fake tests" using the GMATPrep Question Pack. Basically, you can put the software in "random" and "exam" mode as you do practice questions, and it’ll feel like a real test. (The real thing is obviously adaptive, but it feels really, really random sometimes.) If you’re a high scorer, select medium and hard questions only. That way, you can do the sections in whatever order you’d like.
Q: Could you please suggest something about my issue - However much hard I try, I am not able to increase my text processing speed in CR and RC - if I take 180% of the test time, my accuracy becomes 90+%, but withing a time frame of 75 minutes, it is not more than 50%. Please suggest what to do?
A: yeah, that’s a common question: how do I improve my speed on CR and RC without having my accuracy fall apart?
I think the key is to distinguish between speed and efficiency...
Speed: to a large degree, your visual processing speed is innate, especially once you hit adulthood. We probably can’t make you a fundamentally faster reader, unless you’re still learning English. But certainly in your native language -- or any language you’ve spoken for a long time -- your reading speed is already pretty much fixed. If you try to speed up, your accuracy will fall apart.
But that’s not the same as efficiency. The question is: are you somehow wasting time in your approach to CR and RC?
On RC, you might be over-obsessing about details as you initially read the passage, and that can slow you down. The important thing is to grasp the big picture -- WHY the author has written each paragraph, and how those paragraphs connect -- before you jump into the answer choices. I won’t rehash all of that here, but check this article out for more on this issue: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 41004.html
Too much detail? A waste of time. But if you don’t understand the passage well enough, you’ll also waste time going back and forth between the answer choices.
I’d make a similar argument on CR: if you don’t understand the structure of the argument BEFORE you look at the answer choices, you’ll waste a ton of time going back and forth between them. You want to invest wisely and efficiently in the passage itself on CR -- if you’re not catching the author’s structure and his/her exact language choices on CR, you’ll be really slow on the answer choices.
Something I hear all the time: "I’m down to two answer choices on the ones I miss. That means I’m close!" No, not really. It probably means that you missed something in the passage, and that’s why those last two choices are indistinguishable from each other. Plus, the question-writers often have one GREAT idea for a tempting wrong answer. But the other three are often filler.
It’s funny, I’ve been arguing with myself for at least a decade on the issue of whether it’s worthwhile to read the question first. And I’m still not 100% sure that it matters much, one way or another...
Ultimately, CR is about the precision of your reading. If you miss some little modifier, you could be in huge trouble, right? One word can swing the whole passage.
The argument against reading the question first: maybe it’ll make you "cherry-pick" the passage (looking TOO hard for, say, an assumption), and then you might do a lousy job of figuring out EXACTLY what the passage is saying.
The argument for reading the question first: if you know that the passage will definitely have a conclusion (in weaken, strengthen, assumption questions, for example) or a discrepancy or a paradox, then you’ll maybe be a little bit sharper at seeing the structure of the passage.
Honestly, I’ve mostly stopped telling my students what to do on this issue. If they’re more comfortable reading the question first, I think that’s totally fine. If they seem to have a hard time reading EXACTLY what’s on the page because they’re eagerly looking for something specific, then I might make them stop reading the question first... but that’s rare.
I don’t think it matters much. On CR, it’s all about the precision of your reading and logic. Reading the question first -- or not reading it first -- isn’t going to affect that much.
Q: Ok - I don’t know what I do- I try reading the question first and then stem but some quesitons I have solved the other way round and still took the same time and got same accuracy
A: exactly! That doesn’t surprise me at all - I just don’t think it’s all that important, one way or the other. But it sells test-prep books, so you tend to see it in them. But it’s not super-important. Do whatever works for you, or whatever feels right, and don’t be too shocked if the results are similar either way.
Q: Subconsciously is time a factor on how accurate your answers are in Gmat RC.
A: Absolutely. The worst thing you can do is be so worried about time that you cheat yourself out of an extra ~15 seconds that might be the difference between "sort-of understanding the passage" and PRECISELY understanding the author’s structure and purpose. Sometimes, an extra little investment of a few seconds is awesome. But psychologically, it can be hard to do if you know that the timer is pounding away.
Q: So shall I conclude that to improve the processing speed on RC, I should read the question stem first?
A: No. You can only see one question at a time on RC, anyway. And your processing speed has virtually nothing to do with whether you read the question first or not. If reading the question helps with that, it won’t help much.
Q: Ok, so the question still remains open - how to improve my processing speed
A: right. It’s hard. If you’re a non-native speaker and you’re still working on getting better at English, then great -- your fundamental reading speed could still improve. Otherwise, strive for efficiency in the ways that we’ve discussed, since your processing speed might be basically "fixed" at this point.
Q: What is the difference between the 2 statements: "the option qualifies the claim that ....blah blah" and "the option supports the claim that ...blah blah"
A: well, one of them would strengthen a claim, and "qualifies" just means that it could strengthen or weaken. Or maybe affect it in some other way besides just strengthening/supporting. to "qualify" an argument just means that you’re altering it in some way -- perhaps strengthening, perhaps weakening. It’s just less specific than "support" or "strengthen."
Q: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland’s industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia’s industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland’s industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia’s are.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
How can I answer the question under time pressure?
A: The quick version of the way I would break down this passage: if there’s a conclusion, I always start there. "Parland’s industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia’s are."
Then I always ask myself: is there anything I should notice about the author’s exact choice of language? Any modifiers that would tweak the scope or the strength or the magnitude? Interesting: "on the whole."
Then figure out how they got there. In our QOTD explanations, you’ll notice that we generally use the same structure: start with the heart of the passage (conclusion, for example, in the author’s EXACT words, with an eye on the author’s language choices and modifiers), and then you’ll see some bullet points outlining the author’s evidence.
No reason to move onto the answer choices until the author’s structure and reasoning is 100% clear.
I’ve been threatening this for weeks, but we really do have a "CR for beginners" Topic of the Week coming up soon. It’s taken some time to make it appropriately succinct and awesome... but it is coming soon.
We will have Verbal Live sessions every Monday at 8.30 PM IST. Please subscribe to gmatclub youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEIeUi ... kETZFC9DKA) and turn on the notifications if you do not want to miss out on any live sessions organized by gmatclub. Also feel free to post your topic ideas for next week's 'Verbal Live Session' in the comments section - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhN_KU1bSKU
