Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Dec 1310:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.- Dec 15
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. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
26 Jul 2017, 09:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Chat Transcript: 7/26/2017
Q: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions.
A. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also
B. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast), which gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also
C. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States, creating farmland (especially in the Northeast) and giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also
D. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also
E. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States not only created farmland (especially in the Northeast), giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it
I want to know when can we use but also without not only
A: Here’s the way I would think of it: if you see a "not/but" construction, you should be worried about parallelism, right? So in any answer choices in that particular question that have the not/but going on, check to see if it’s parallel. But there’s no reason why you couldn’t use "but also" without a "not only" -- and you obviously could use "but" by itself without any trouble at all. In other words: if you see a "but" or a "but also", don’t assume that you need a "not only."
In (A), there’s a subtle parallelism problem: "Not only did the clearing create farmland... and GAVE..." It should be "give" in this case. (A) is out.
The modifier "which" doesn’t make sense in (B).
(C) isn’t a sentence at all, since the subject "systematic clearing" has no verb.
No problems at all with (D) -- the subject "it" refers back to the subject of the first clause, "clearing." And again: just because there’s a "but" doesn’t mean that you need a "not only"
(E) botches the parallelism: not only created (verb), but it (noun)
So not a lot of reason to doubt (D), since the others have reasonably clear errors. They don’t all SOUND wrong... but sound really doesn’t have much to do with anything on this silly test.
Q: but you told in last chat here the stem is - not only did - in option A and parallel elements are create and gave both in past tense.
A: it’s a funny structure with a helping verb. Think of it this way: "Souvik did create a great MBA essay." "Souvik did gave a great admissions interview." Does that help?
Q: Bluegrass musician Bill Monroe, whose repertory, views on musical collaboration, and vocal style were influential on generations of bluegrass artists, was also an inspiration to many musicians, that included Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music differed significantly from his own.
(A) were influential on generations of bluegrass artists, was also an inspiration to many musicians, that included Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music differed significantly from
(B) influenced generations of bluegrass artists, also inspired many musicians, including Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music differed significantly from
(C) was influential to generations of bluegrass artists, was also inspirational to many musicians, that included Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music was different significantly in comparison to
(D) was influential to generations of bluegrass artists, also inspired many musicians, who included Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, the music of whom differed significantly when compared to
(E) were an influence on generations of bluegrass artists, was also an inspiration to many musicians, including Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music was significantly different from that of
I don’t get why A is wrong. And how could we correct it? will removing "was" from "was also" make this sentence correct?
A: Subject-verb eliminates (C) and (D) quickly.
(E): check out the pronoun "that" at the end of the underlined portion. If you’re not sure what to do with the pronoun "that", read this article: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 43686.html
In (A), "that included" -- especially after a comma -- is much clunkier than "including. Plus, "influenced... artists" is MUCH more clear and direct than "were influential on... artists." And: Monroe "inspired" in B, vs. "was an inspiration to" in A. That last one isn’t a DEFINITE error or anything, but everything points in the same direction: B is clearer
Q: is "that" never preceded by comma GMATNinja ?
A: I see that question fairly often. Sure, when "that" is used as a modifier, it’s usually not preceded by a comma, but there are other uses of "that." Even as a modifier, there’s no reason why you couldn’t have "that" as part of a list of some sort -- and then it might be preceded with a comma...
"I believe that Santa Claus is real, that the Knicks will win the 2018 NBA title, and that aliens control the White House." --> no problem, we have three parallel subordinate clauses
Q: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. However, it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods. For example, irradiation destroys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
I dont get what the question is asking me to find in the answer choices
A: First order of business: what sort of thing goes in the blank? We want something that supports the idea that "this fact" is either irrelevant or misleading.
So then... WTF is "this fact"? "irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking" -- meaning that irradiation is no worse than cooking in terms of its lowering of a food’s nutritional value.
And if you’ve read our CR guide for beginners (long-winded thing available here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 43170.html
you’ve heard me ramble about "modifiers." You always want to ask yourself if there are any tweaks of language that catch your eye.
I don’t know if it’s actually important, but their example says that irradiation destroys "a significant percentage" of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. Hm. OK, so "a significant percentage" is a pretty deliberate word choice. Maybe it doesn’t matter -- we’ll see.
So the blank needs to do the following: show that it’s either irrelevant or misleading when we say that "irradiation is no worse than cooking" when it comes to lowering "the nutritional value of many foods."
Where I’m not 100% clear: "in this respect" could, I suppose refer to the lowering of nutritional value in general, or the destruction of vitamin B1 in particular. I wish they’d made that clearer in the passage, but there’s not much we can do about that.
Anyway, let’s hit these answer choices.
I can’t for the life of me understand why (A) is relevant. That doesn’t tell us why the claim about nutrition is irrelevant or misleading. A is out.
In a weird, limited way, (B) actually sort of supports the idea that irradiation causes other trouble. And doesn’t tell us why the claim about nutrition is irrelevant/misleading. B is out, too.
I can’t see why (C) matters, either. Why would that make the claim about nutrition misleading or besides the point? C is out.
(D) is a little bit more interesting, right? Now we’re actually getting to some relevant stuff. We want to know why the comparison with cooking is misleading or irrelevant. And (D) is saying that cooking can be really, really bad. But wait: doesn’t that make the claim about nutrition -- i.e., that cooking can be worse than radiation -- a little bit stronger, if anything? (D) doesn’t make that claim seem irrelevant or misleading. So (D) is out, too.
Crap, I hope we like (E), or else we’re starting over.
And this is nice: (E) makes sense. If (E) is true, then irradiation still causes all sorts of trouble: with or without cooking, irradiation will harm nutrition. So who cares if cooking can be worse than irradiation? That’s really not important, since irradiation still lowers the nutritional value of the food. So (E) definitely supports the idea that the claim is besides the point or misleading.
Q: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered. Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannotbe readily identified. These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higherrates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious: clearly, in countires where automobile insurance doesnot include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A: The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the arguemnt criticizes; the second is that conclusion
B: The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the arguemnt criticizes; the second is the position that the argument defends
C: The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is the position that the argument defends
D: The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument defends; the second is the position that the argument opposes.
E: The first presents a claim that is disputed in the argument; the second is a conclusion that has been drawn on the basis of that claim.
A:Here’s the heart of the passage: "These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious"
In some sense, the author is arguing for two things: 1) "Some commentators have argued, correctly, that... spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified." 2) "These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious"
The commentator is criticizing the 2nd BF statement.
And the 1st BF is something that the writer agrees with... but at the same time, the fact that there’s no objective test for whiplash is used by others as support for that 2nd BF statement.
And the 1st BF is something that the writer agrees with... but at the same time, the fact that there’s no objective test for whiplash is used by others as support for that 2nd BF statement.
I don’t want to beat this one to death, so I’ll move through pretty quickly:
(A) looks OK. The 2nd isn’t the conclusion of the entire passage, but it is a conclusion -- made by other commentators -- that the passage criticizes. And the 1st BF supports that conclusion.
(B) the overall argument definitely doesn’t defend the 2nd BF. (B) is out.
For the same reason, (C) is out
(D) is tempting, to be honest. But I don’t really see how the 1st is an intermediate conclusion -- "there is presently no objective test for whiplash" is a fact, not an intermediate conclusion. And it also hasn’t been used to support a conclusion that the argument defends -- it supports the 2nd BF, which the argument OPPOSES. (D) is out.
(E) is out, because the argument definitely doesn’t dispute the 1st BF.
Q: Can you please suggest how to time yourself for Verbal Practice?
A: try starting with this thread: https://gmatclub.com/forum/strategy-of- ... 38048.html We’ll post something more comprehensive about verbal timing at some point, but that one should get you started.
Q: I am little confused now. Very basic question. I understand conclusion is what author is trying to say, and argument ideally should support authors conclusion. right?
A: Sure. "Argument" is a pretty generic term that basically refers to the logical structure of the passage.
Q: GMATNinja, how long it will take me to ace my verbal part if have gone through the basic ones?
A: "ace" the entire verbal section? That’s exceedingly rare. And there’s no answer to that question -- it just depends on your reading and grammar and reasoning abilities. Here, this one might help, too: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 41004.html
Q: The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion. Can you please help me break this down?
A: the second BF is the conclusion being criticized by the argument -- NOT the overall conclusion of the passage.
Q: can there still be hope if you spend double the time you usually do for the initial 10 verbal questions on test day?
A: no. Why would you change what you normally do on test day?!? Practice doing things EXACTLY how you’re going to do them in the actual exam. Why would you suddenly slow down like that? it’s actually a really important question, and something that gets ignored on quant, too. The key to success on the GMAT is being 100% consistent in your approach to questions, 100% of the time -- EVERY time you practice. Whenever I hear of anybody who walks into the testing room and tries to do something different on test day, that story always ends badly.
That said... well, it’s really hard to get faster at verbal. Your reading speed basically is what it is once you reach adulthood. (With an asterisk for non-native speakers who are still fundamentally improving at English.)
So the way I always want everybody to think about verbal is that you’re working on maximizing your EFFICIENCY, not your speed. If you try to read faster, that’s probably not going to work, because you’ll probably read more sloppily. All of those beginner’s guides are basically designed to help you think about maximizing accuracy and efficiency -- and sometimes, that requires investing some extra time in the passage itself, so that you waste less time on the answer choices.
Q: one quick question could I have solved that last question without knowing the meaning of the word spurious? I’m not a native speaker and words like that really disturb me especially on exam day if I don’t know the meaning
A: ooh, that’s another good question. What to do about vocabulary? Honestly, the GMAT isn’t really trying to test vocabulary. In a whole lot of cases, you can get around the "tough" word that’s in a passage or sentence... but not always. And there’s no magical vocab list out there that will be a good use of your time. If a shaky vocabulary is causing you HUGE problems, then you probably want to back up and just spend a whole lot more time reading good, hard material in English.
Q: Actually, the GMAT I took was one of the first that you could reorder the sections. However, since I had done 5 practice tests with the AWA IR Quant Verbal order I kept the same order, even though I think many would be tempted to put Quant first.
A: yeah, it’s an interesting issue. Personally, I’m starting to see more people for whom the original order (AWA/IR/Q/V) is best, just because it gives you time to settle into the testing room before anything actually matters. But everybody is different. Personally, the hardest thing about the GMAT for me is that I’m out of steam -- and I stop caring as much -- by the end of the test, so I’d prefer to do verbal earlier. But that’s just me -- and I also take the exam for different reasons than almost anybody else in here. Not an MBA applicant.
For most of our students? If I’m at all worried that they’ll get nervous, I think they should use the original order.
OK, that’s all we have time for today! We’ll be back in here next week at the same time. YouTube live webinars will be back in September.
Q: Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions.
A. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also
B. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast), which gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also
C. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States, creating farmland (especially in the Northeast) and giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also
D. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also
E. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States not only created farmland (especially in the Northeast), giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it
I want to know when can we use but also without not only
A: Here’s the way I would think of it: if you see a "not/but" construction, you should be worried about parallelism, right? So in any answer choices in that particular question that have the not/but going on, check to see if it’s parallel. But there’s no reason why you couldn’t use "but also" without a "not only" -- and you obviously could use "but" by itself without any trouble at all. In other words: if you see a "but" or a "but also", don’t assume that you need a "not only."
In (A), there’s a subtle parallelism problem: "Not only did the clearing create farmland... and GAVE..." It should be "give" in this case. (A) is out.
The modifier "which" doesn’t make sense in (B).
(C) isn’t a sentence at all, since the subject "systematic clearing" has no verb.
No problems at all with (D) -- the subject "it" refers back to the subject of the first clause, "clearing." And again: just because there’s a "but" doesn’t mean that you need a "not only"
(E) botches the parallelism: not only created (verb), but it (noun)
So not a lot of reason to doubt (D), since the others have reasonably clear errors. They don’t all SOUND wrong... but sound really doesn’t have much to do with anything on this silly test.
Q: but you told in last chat here the stem is - not only did - in option A and parallel elements are create and gave both in past tense.
A: it’s a funny structure with a helping verb. Think of it this way: "Souvik did create a great MBA essay." "Souvik did gave a great admissions interview." Does that help?
Q: Bluegrass musician Bill Monroe, whose repertory, views on musical collaboration, and vocal style were influential on generations of bluegrass artists, was also an inspiration to many musicians, that included Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music differed significantly from his own.
(A) were influential on generations of bluegrass artists, was also an inspiration to many musicians, that included Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music differed significantly from
(B) influenced generations of bluegrass artists, also inspired many musicians, including Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music differed significantly from
(C) was influential to generations of bluegrass artists, was also inspirational to many musicians, that included Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music was different significantly in comparison to
(D) was influential to generations of bluegrass artists, also inspired many musicians, who included Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, the music of whom differed significantly when compared to
(E) were an influence on generations of bluegrass artists, was also an inspiration to many musicians, including Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music was significantly different from that of
I don’t get why A is wrong. And how could we correct it? will removing "was" from "was also" make this sentence correct?
A: Subject-verb eliminates (C) and (D) quickly.
(E): check out the pronoun "that" at the end of the underlined portion. If you’re not sure what to do with the pronoun "that", read this article: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 43686.html
In (A), "that included" -- especially after a comma -- is much clunkier than "including. Plus, "influenced... artists" is MUCH more clear and direct than "were influential on... artists." And: Monroe "inspired" in B, vs. "was an inspiration to" in A. That last one isn’t a DEFINITE error or anything, but everything points in the same direction: B is clearer
Q: is "that" never preceded by comma GMATNinja ?
A: I see that question fairly often. Sure, when "that" is used as a modifier, it’s usually not preceded by a comma, but there are other uses of "that." Even as a modifier, there’s no reason why you couldn’t have "that" as part of a list of some sort -- and then it might be preceded with a comma...
"I believe that Santa Claus is real, that the Knicks will win the 2018 NBA title, and that aliens control the White House." --> no problem, we have three parallel subordinate clauses
Q: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. However, it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods. For example, irradiation destroys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
I dont get what the question is asking me to find in the answer choices
A: First order of business: what sort of thing goes in the blank? We want something that supports the idea that "this fact" is either irrelevant or misleading.
So then... WTF is "this fact"? "irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking" -- meaning that irradiation is no worse than cooking in terms of its lowering of a food’s nutritional value.
And if you’ve read our CR guide for beginners (long-winded thing available here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 43170.html
you’ve heard me ramble about "modifiers." You always want to ask yourself if there are any tweaks of language that catch your eye.
I don’t know if it’s actually important, but their example says that irradiation destroys "a significant percentage" of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. Hm. OK, so "a significant percentage" is a pretty deliberate word choice. Maybe it doesn’t matter -- we’ll see.
So the blank needs to do the following: show that it’s either irrelevant or misleading when we say that "irradiation is no worse than cooking" when it comes to lowering "the nutritional value of many foods."
Where I’m not 100% clear: "in this respect" could, I suppose refer to the lowering of nutritional value in general, or the destruction of vitamin B1 in particular. I wish they’d made that clearer in the passage, but there’s not much we can do about that.
Anyway, let’s hit these answer choices.
I can’t for the life of me understand why (A) is relevant. That doesn’t tell us why the claim about nutrition is irrelevant or misleading. A is out.
In a weird, limited way, (B) actually sort of supports the idea that irradiation causes other trouble. And doesn’t tell us why the claim about nutrition is irrelevant/misleading. B is out, too.
I can’t see why (C) matters, either. Why would that make the claim about nutrition misleading or besides the point? C is out.
(D) is a little bit more interesting, right? Now we’re actually getting to some relevant stuff. We want to know why the comparison with cooking is misleading or irrelevant. And (D) is saying that cooking can be really, really bad. But wait: doesn’t that make the claim about nutrition -- i.e., that cooking can be worse than radiation -- a little bit stronger, if anything? (D) doesn’t make that claim seem irrelevant or misleading. So (D) is out, too.
Crap, I hope we like (E), or else we’re starting over.
And this is nice: (E) makes sense. If (E) is true, then irradiation still causes all sorts of trouble: with or without cooking, irradiation will harm nutrition. So who cares if cooking can be worse than irradiation? That’s really not important, since irradiation still lowers the nutritional value of the food. So (E) definitely supports the idea that the claim is besides the point or misleading.
Q: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered. Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannotbe readily identified. These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higherrates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious: clearly, in countires where automobile insurance doesnot include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A: The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the arguemnt criticizes; the second is that conclusion
B: The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the arguemnt criticizes; the second is the position that the argument defends
C: The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is the position that the argument defends
D: The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument defends; the second is the position that the argument opposes.
E: The first presents a claim that is disputed in the argument; the second is a conclusion that has been drawn on the basis of that claim.
A:Here’s the heart of the passage: "These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious"
In some sense, the author is arguing for two things: 1) "Some commentators have argued, correctly, that... spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified." 2) "These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious"
The commentator is criticizing the 2nd BF statement.
And the 1st BF is something that the writer agrees with... but at the same time, the fact that there’s no objective test for whiplash is used by others as support for that 2nd BF statement.
And the 1st BF is something that the writer agrees with... but at the same time, the fact that there’s no objective test for whiplash is used by others as support for that 2nd BF statement.
I don’t want to beat this one to death, so I’ll move through pretty quickly:
(A) looks OK. The 2nd isn’t the conclusion of the entire passage, but it is a conclusion -- made by other commentators -- that the passage criticizes. And the 1st BF supports that conclusion.
(B) the overall argument definitely doesn’t defend the 2nd BF. (B) is out.
For the same reason, (C) is out
(D) is tempting, to be honest. But I don’t really see how the 1st is an intermediate conclusion -- "there is presently no objective test for whiplash" is a fact, not an intermediate conclusion. And it also hasn’t been used to support a conclusion that the argument defends -- it supports the 2nd BF, which the argument OPPOSES. (D) is out.
(E) is out, because the argument definitely doesn’t dispute the 1st BF.
Q: Can you please suggest how to time yourself for Verbal Practice?
A: try starting with this thread: https://gmatclub.com/forum/strategy-of- ... 38048.html We’ll post something more comprehensive about verbal timing at some point, but that one should get you started.
Q: I am little confused now. Very basic question. I understand conclusion is what author is trying to say, and argument ideally should support authors conclusion. right?
A: Sure. "Argument" is a pretty generic term that basically refers to the logical structure of the passage.
Q: GMATNinja, how long it will take me to ace my verbal part if have gone through the basic ones?
A: "ace" the entire verbal section? That’s exceedingly rare. And there’s no answer to that question -- it just depends on your reading and grammar and reasoning abilities. Here, this one might help, too: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 41004.html
Q: The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion. Can you please help me break this down?
A: the second BF is the conclusion being criticized by the argument -- NOT the overall conclusion of the passage.
Q: can there still be hope if you spend double the time you usually do for the initial 10 verbal questions on test day?
A: no. Why would you change what you normally do on test day?!? Practice doing things EXACTLY how you’re going to do them in the actual exam. Why would you suddenly slow down like that? it’s actually a really important question, and something that gets ignored on quant, too. The key to success on the GMAT is being 100% consistent in your approach to questions, 100% of the time -- EVERY time you practice. Whenever I hear of anybody who walks into the testing room and tries to do something different on test day, that story always ends badly.
That said... well, it’s really hard to get faster at verbal. Your reading speed basically is what it is once you reach adulthood. (With an asterisk for non-native speakers who are still fundamentally improving at English.)
So the way I always want everybody to think about verbal is that you’re working on maximizing your EFFICIENCY, not your speed. If you try to read faster, that’s probably not going to work, because you’ll probably read more sloppily. All of those beginner’s guides are basically designed to help you think about maximizing accuracy and efficiency -- and sometimes, that requires investing some extra time in the passage itself, so that you waste less time on the answer choices.
Q: one quick question could I have solved that last question without knowing the meaning of the word spurious? I’m not a native speaker and words like that really disturb me especially on exam day if I don’t know the meaning
A: ooh, that’s another good question. What to do about vocabulary? Honestly, the GMAT isn’t really trying to test vocabulary. In a whole lot of cases, you can get around the "tough" word that’s in a passage or sentence... but not always. And there’s no magical vocab list out there that will be a good use of your time. If a shaky vocabulary is causing you HUGE problems, then you probably want to back up and just spend a whole lot more time reading good, hard material in English.
Q: Actually, the GMAT I took was one of the first that you could reorder the sections. However, since I had done 5 practice tests with the AWA IR Quant Verbal order I kept the same order, even though I think many would be tempted to put Quant first.
A: yeah, it’s an interesting issue. Personally, I’m starting to see more people for whom the original order (AWA/IR/Q/V) is best, just because it gives you time to settle into the testing room before anything actually matters. But everybody is different. Personally, the hardest thing about the GMAT for me is that I’m out of steam -- and I stop caring as much -- by the end of the test, so I’d prefer to do verbal earlier. But that’s just me -- and I also take the exam for different reasons than almost anybody else in here. Not an MBA applicant.
For most of our students? If I’m at all worried that they’ll get nervous, I think they should use the original order.OK, that’s all we have time for today! We’ll be back in here next week at the same time. YouTube live webinars will be back in September.
28 Jul 2017, 13:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
warriorguy
GMATNinja
Gusty westerly winds will continue to usher in a seasonably cool air mass into the region, as a broad area of high pressure will build and bring fair and dry weather for several days.
A. to usher in a seasonably cool air mass into the region, as a broad area of high pressure will build and
B. ushering in a seasonably cool air mass into the region and a broad area of high pressure will build that
C. to usher in a seasonably cool air mass to the region, a broad area of high pressure building, and
D. ushering a seasonably cool air mass in the region, with a broad area of high pressure building and
E. to usher a seasonably cool air mass into the region while a broad area of high pressure builds, which will
I love it when the GMAT changes its mind about stuff! No problem, we'll cover this tomorrow. See you then!
Hello GMATNinja,
Apologies to dig up this question again. Can you please explain a bit more on the parallelism issue (in option A.)?
The parallelism isn't totally awful in (A), but it seems just a little bit weird to me, meaning-wise: "...a broad area of high pressure will build and bring fair and dry weather for several days." The two verbs are parallel to each other, and that's grammatically perfectly fine, but for it to make sense, you'd have to assume that the two actions are not dependent on each other, and that's not quite true here. The building of high pressure causes the fair and dry weather. So this isn't an absolute rule, but it's not ideal to have "build" and "bring" as parallel verbs here.
My preference would be something like this: "Gusty westerly winds will continue to usher a seasonably cool air mass into the region while a broad area of high pressure builds, bringing fair and dry weather for several days." That would make the dependent relationship clearer. But that's not an option. (E) is the best we can do, I guess.
02 Aug 2017, 09:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Chat Transcript: 8/2/2017
Q: Can we discuss something regarding assumption questions in CR SECTION AND HOW TO APPROACH
A: Starting point for weaken (like the Hollywood Restaurant question), strengthen, assumption questions is the same: find the conclusion. Then make sure you’ve found the conclusion EXACTLY in the author’s words -- not your words. If you miss a modifier or paraphrase, you might tweak the meaning of that conclusion a little bit. And if that happens, then you’ll be trying to strengthen or weaken or find an assumption that reinforces the wrong conclusions. And then you’re in trouble.
Related advice available here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 43170.html
It’s the heart of CR: most errors come from imprecise reading, not faulty logic, though sometimes the latter happens, too.
If you have a strengthen or weaken question, the logic is really, really straightforward. Find the conclusion EXACTLY in the author’s words, pay close attention to the author’s word choice ("modifiers", as we called them in the CR Guide), make sure you understand the author’s supporting argument... and then find that four answer choices that are wrong. Nothing fancy.
Assumptions really aren’t all that different from a strengthen question. You’re looking for something that will reinforce the conclusion -- and job #1 is to make sure that you have the RIGHT conclusion. From there, the only thing is that the assumption might be something that only subtly reinforces the conclusion. And the important part: it has to be necessary. Not just a strengthener, but a necessary one. Without it, the conclusion wouldn’t hold. But logically, that’s the only real difference.
Q: Colorado subalpine meadows, nonnative dandelions co-occur with a native flower, the larkspur. Bumblebees visit both species, creating the potential for interactions between the two species with respect to pollination. In a recent study, researchers selected 16 plots containing both species; all dandelions were removed from eight plots; the remaining eight control plots were left undisturbed. The control plots yielded significantly more larkspur seeds than the dandelion-free plots, leading the researchers to conclude that the presence of dandelions facilitates pollination (and hence seed production) in the native species by attracting more pollinators to the mixed plots.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researchers’ reasoning?
(A) Bumblebees preferentially visit dandelions over larkspurs in mixed plots.
(B) In mixed plots, pollinators can transfer pollen from one species to another to augment seed production.
(C) If left unchecked, nonnative species like dandelions quickly crowd out native species.
(D) Seed germination is a more reliable measure of a species’ fitness than seed production.
(E) Soil disturbances can result in fewer blooms, and hence lower seed production.
A: Conclusion here is: "the presence of dandelions facilitates pollination (and hence seed production) in the native species by attracting more pollinators to the mixed plots."
Supporting evidence: control plots (with dandelions left undisturbed) "yielded significantly more larkspur seeds than the dandelion-free plots."
(A) Bumblebees preferentially visit dandelions over larkspurs in mixed plots. --> I can’t even see why this is relevant. The conclusion is that dandelions facilitate pollination in native species. In the study, the larkspur was pollinated better in the presence of dandelions; who cares what the bees prefer? (A) is out.
(B) In mixed plots, pollinators can transfer pollen from one species to another to augment seed production.
--> just explains why the conclusion holds, but doesn’t undermine it.
(C) If left unchecked, nonnative species like dandelions quickly crowd out native species. --> that’s unfortunate, but the conclusion is very narrowly limited to pollination, so this is irrelevant, and doesn’t weaken the conclusion.
(D) Seed germination is a more reliable measure of a species’ fitness than seed production. --> That’s great, but the conclusion is narrowly limited to pollination, not overall fitness.
(E) Soil disturbances can result in fewer blooms, and hence lower seed production. --> winner. They dug up dandelions in the treatment group, so that might have created lower seed production.
Q: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available.
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals.
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant’s customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood’s customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables.
A: It’s funny, the passage isn’t really explicit in connecting the evidence to the conclusion. The evidence is just that 1) "customers... would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities." 2) "diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables." So we’re left to assume that this would lead to higher profits because 1) more customers would be attracted to the restaurant to watch celebrities, and 2) the diners wouldn’t stay as long, so the restaurant could serve more people. But the passage isn’t explicit about connecting the reasoning to the conclusion about profits.
The question is funky, too. "The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that..." So yes, it’s a weaken question, but not quite. The argument "gives reason to believe" that something is likely -- and the "something" will weaken the argument. Tricky!
(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available. -> First, there’s no reason why the passage "gives us reason to believe" this. Plus, I don’t know why it would undermine profits. (A) is gone.
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals. --> again, the passage does not "give us reason to believe" this. Plus, this wouldn’t weaken anything. (B) is gone.
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering --> hm, yeah -- the passage definitely gives us reason to believe that this is likely. After all, it’s the reason why customers come to the restaurant -- to watch celebrities. And if this is true, then the restaurant wouldn’t "turn tables" quickly, and profits would be hurt. Looks good.
(D) a restaurant’s customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer --> temping, because this sounds like it would harm profits. But remember the exact phrasing of the question! The correct answer "gives reason to believe that it is likely that..." And there’s no reason why this would be likely based on the passage. Plus, it’s not clear that the cheaper meals would offset the effects of shorter dining times. (D) is out.
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood’s customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables. --> again, we have no reason to think that this is likely, and the impact on profits is a little bit murky, too. For (E) to be correct, we’d have to assume that this actually chases customers away somehow, and that isn’t clear.
Q: According to findings derived from functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the area of the brain in which a second or third language is stored depends on the age of the language learner; whereas each language occupies a distinct area of the brain in an adult learner, language areas overlap in a young child.
(A) whereas each language occupies a distinct area of the brain in an adult learner,
(B) whereas for adults each language occupies a distinct area of the brain and
(C) each language occupies a distinct area of the brain when they are learned by an adult, while
(D) each language in adults occupied a distinct area of the brain, while
(E) each language occupying a distinct area of the brain for an adult learner, and
A: I immediately notice the semicolon, but I don’t think it’s doing anything terribly consequential. The "each" jumps out at me, because it makes me think that we’ll have a plural vs. singular thing, maybe. And I see some parallelism ("and") and another "they" lurking in (C). So plenty of nice, mechanical stuff to work with, at least in the beginning.
(A) whereas each language occupies a distinct area of the brain in an adult learner, --> looks OK to me, at least at a glance
(B) whereas for adults each language occupies a distinct area of the brain and --> the parallelism doesn’t feel quite right to me. "...and language areas overlap in a young child" is a clause, and I guess it’s parallel to "for adults each language occupies a distinct area of the brain," but it doesn’t seem quite right to me. If I’m being honest: I would keep this at first, to be safe. Why not be conservative on that first pass? I don’t see any DEFINITE errors, just stuff that doesn’t seem quite right. Keep (B), too.
(C) has an easy pronoun error
The verb tenses make no sense in (D). Why is "occupied" in past tense for adults, but "overlap" is present for the kids?
(E) is a clear mess.
Q: Researchers hypothesize that granitic soil is the ideal construction material for the desert tortoise because it is not so hard that it makes burrowing difficult or so soft that it could cause tunnels to collapse.
A. so hard that it makes burrowing difficult or so soft that it could cause
B. hard enough to make burrowing difficult or soft enough as to cause
C. so hard as to make burrowing difficult or soft enough so it causes
D. as hard as to make burrowing difficult or as soft as to cause
E. too hard, making burrowing difficult, nor too soft, so as to cause
A: Always start by looking for a trigger. "And" in many cases, "or" in this sentence. Then ask yourself: what follows the trigger? Here, it’s "so soft that it could cause" (in A). That’s nicely parallel to "so hard that it makes burrowing difficult." Same exact structure.
Q: Responding to the public’s fascination with - and sometimes undue alarm over-possible threats from asteroids, a scale developed by astronomers rates the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet may collide with Earth.
A. a scale developed by astronomers rates the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet may
B. a scale that astronomers have developed rates how likely it is for a particular asteroid or comet to
C. astronomers have developed a scale to rate how likely a particular asteroid or comet will be to
D. astronomers have developed a scale for rating the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet will
E. astronomers have developed a scale that rates the likelihood of a particular asteroid or comet that may
A: (A) and (B) are out quickly. "Responding to the public’s fascination..." Has to be the astronomers, not the scale. https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 39780.html
(C) vs. (D) is tough.
So in these situations, you want to be super-precise about finding EVERY difference between the two answer choices, and then figuring out how, exactly, those little changes might affect the meaning in particular.
C. astronomers have developed a scale to rate how likely a particular asteroid or comet will be to
D. astronomers have developed a scale for rating the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet will
Really just one change here. In (C): "...scale to rate how likely (an asteroid) will be to collide with Earth." In (D): "...scale to rate the likelihood that (an asteroid) will collide with Earth."
It makes sense to say that we’d "rate the likelihood" that something will occur. Doesn’t seem quite right to say that the scale rates "how likely an asteroid WILL BE to collide with Earth." It’s subtle, but that doesn’t seem right.
Q: How to get a question right in the exam given the pressure?
A: yup, you’re not alone. Under pressure, instincts take over, and that’s when test-takers tend to select the one that "sounds good" or "feels right" -- instead of taking the extra 15 seconds to coldly ANALYZE the difference between those last two answer choices in terms of their literal meaning.
I don’t know if this is helpful, but sometimes under time pressure, we all have an instinct to "save time" by rushing through that last little step. But that final, careful comparison of two answer choices might only take 15 seconds. That’s nothing. 100% worth the investment if it gets you an extra question right, even if it only happens on one question out of, say, every five or six. Basically, you don’t want to "save time" on anything that doesn’t really take that much time.
Q: Appendicitis (inflammation of the appendix) is potentially fatal; consequently, patients with symptoms strongly suggesting appendicitis almost have their appendix removed. The appropriate surgery is low-risk but performed unnecessarily in about 20 percent of all cases. A newly developed internal scan for appendicitis is highly accurate, producing two misdiagnoses for every 98 correct diagnoses. Clearly, using this test, doctors can largely avoid unnecessary removals of the appendix without, however, performing any fewer necessary ones than before, since ____________
A. the patients who are correctly diagnosed with this test as not having appendicitis invariably have medical conditions that are much less serious than appendicitis
B. the misdiagnoses produced by this test are always instances of attributing appendicitis to someone who does not, in fact, have it
C. all of the patients who are diagnosed with this test as having appendicitis do, in fact,have appendicitis
D. every patient who is diagnosed with this test as having appendicitis has more than one of the symptoms generally associated with appendicitis
E. the only patients who are misdiagnosed using this test are patients who lack one or more of the symptoms that are generally associated with appendicitis
A: key is: "without, however, performing any fewer necessary ones" --> you need to be sure it’s never true that people who actually have appendicitis are misdiagnosed as not having it (and we know there are some misdiagnoses), and that’s what B says.
OK, last bits of housekeeping. Next week is our last Wednesday verbal chat for a month! After that, we’ll be taking a one-month summer break. Starting in mid-September, we’ll be back, but with some format changes: we’ll alternate weeks, with old-school chat room one week, and YouTube live sessions the next.
Q: Can we discuss something regarding assumption questions in CR SECTION AND HOW TO APPROACH
A: Starting point for weaken (like the Hollywood Restaurant question), strengthen, assumption questions is the same: find the conclusion. Then make sure you’ve found the conclusion EXACTLY in the author’s words -- not your words. If you miss a modifier or paraphrase, you might tweak the meaning of that conclusion a little bit. And if that happens, then you’ll be trying to strengthen or weaken or find an assumption that reinforces the wrong conclusions. And then you’re in trouble.
Related advice available here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 43170.html
It’s the heart of CR: most errors come from imprecise reading, not faulty logic, though sometimes the latter happens, too.
If you have a strengthen or weaken question, the logic is really, really straightforward. Find the conclusion EXACTLY in the author’s words, pay close attention to the author’s word choice ("modifiers", as we called them in the CR Guide), make sure you understand the author’s supporting argument... and then find that four answer choices that are wrong. Nothing fancy.
Assumptions really aren’t all that different from a strengthen question. You’re looking for something that will reinforce the conclusion -- and job #1 is to make sure that you have the RIGHT conclusion. From there, the only thing is that the assumption might be something that only subtly reinforces the conclusion. And the important part: it has to be necessary. Not just a strengthener, but a necessary one. Without it, the conclusion wouldn’t hold. But logically, that’s the only real difference.
Q: Colorado subalpine meadows, nonnative dandelions co-occur with a native flower, the larkspur. Bumblebees visit both species, creating the potential for interactions between the two species with respect to pollination. In a recent study, researchers selected 16 plots containing both species; all dandelions were removed from eight plots; the remaining eight control plots were left undisturbed. The control plots yielded significantly more larkspur seeds than the dandelion-free plots, leading the researchers to conclude that the presence of dandelions facilitates pollination (and hence seed production) in the native species by attracting more pollinators to the mixed plots.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researchers’ reasoning?
(A) Bumblebees preferentially visit dandelions over larkspurs in mixed plots.
(B) In mixed plots, pollinators can transfer pollen from one species to another to augment seed production.
(C) If left unchecked, nonnative species like dandelions quickly crowd out native species.
(D) Seed germination is a more reliable measure of a species’ fitness than seed production.
(E) Soil disturbances can result in fewer blooms, and hence lower seed production.
A: Conclusion here is: "the presence of dandelions facilitates pollination (and hence seed production) in the native species by attracting more pollinators to the mixed plots."
Supporting evidence: control plots (with dandelions left undisturbed) "yielded significantly more larkspur seeds than the dandelion-free plots."
(A) Bumblebees preferentially visit dandelions over larkspurs in mixed plots. --> I can’t even see why this is relevant. The conclusion is that dandelions facilitate pollination in native species. In the study, the larkspur was pollinated better in the presence of dandelions; who cares what the bees prefer? (A) is out.
(B) In mixed plots, pollinators can transfer pollen from one species to another to augment seed production.
--> just explains why the conclusion holds, but doesn’t undermine it.
(C) If left unchecked, nonnative species like dandelions quickly crowd out native species. --> that’s unfortunate, but the conclusion is very narrowly limited to pollination, so this is irrelevant, and doesn’t weaken the conclusion.
(D) Seed germination is a more reliable measure of a species’ fitness than seed production. --> That’s great, but the conclusion is narrowly limited to pollination, not overall fitness.
(E) Soil disturbances can result in fewer blooms, and hence lower seed production. --> winner. They dug up dandelions in the treatment group, so that might have created lower seed production.
Q: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available.
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals.
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant’s customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood’s customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables.
A: It’s funny, the passage isn’t really explicit in connecting the evidence to the conclusion. The evidence is just that 1) "customers... would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities." 2) "diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables." So we’re left to assume that this would lead to higher profits because 1) more customers would be attracted to the restaurant to watch celebrities, and 2) the diners wouldn’t stay as long, so the restaurant could serve more people. But the passage isn’t explicit about connecting the reasoning to the conclusion about profits.
The question is funky, too. "The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that..." So yes, it’s a weaken question, but not quite. The argument "gives reason to believe" that something is likely -- and the "something" will weaken the argument. Tricky!
(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available. -> First, there’s no reason why the passage "gives us reason to believe" this. Plus, I don’t know why it would undermine profits. (A) is gone.
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals. --> again, the passage does not "give us reason to believe" this. Plus, this wouldn’t weaken anything. (B) is gone.
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering --> hm, yeah -- the passage definitely gives us reason to believe that this is likely. After all, it’s the reason why customers come to the restaurant -- to watch celebrities. And if this is true, then the restaurant wouldn’t "turn tables" quickly, and profits would be hurt. Looks good.
(D) a restaurant’s customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer --> temping, because this sounds like it would harm profits. But remember the exact phrasing of the question! The correct answer "gives reason to believe that it is likely that..." And there’s no reason why this would be likely based on the passage. Plus, it’s not clear that the cheaper meals would offset the effects of shorter dining times. (D) is out.
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood’s customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables. --> again, we have no reason to think that this is likely, and the impact on profits is a little bit murky, too. For (E) to be correct, we’d have to assume that this actually chases customers away somehow, and that isn’t clear.
Q: According to findings derived from functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the area of the brain in which a second or third language is stored depends on the age of the language learner; whereas each language occupies a distinct area of the brain in an adult learner, language areas overlap in a young child.
(A) whereas each language occupies a distinct area of the brain in an adult learner,
(B) whereas for adults each language occupies a distinct area of the brain and
(C) each language occupies a distinct area of the brain when they are learned by an adult, while
(D) each language in adults occupied a distinct area of the brain, while
(E) each language occupying a distinct area of the brain for an adult learner, and
A: I immediately notice the semicolon, but I don’t think it’s doing anything terribly consequential. The "each" jumps out at me, because it makes me think that we’ll have a plural vs. singular thing, maybe. And I see some parallelism ("and") and another "they" lurking in (C). So plenty of nice, mechanical stuff to work with, at least in the beginning.
(A) whereas each language occupies a distinct area of the brain in an adult learner, --> looks OK to me, at least at a glance
(B) whereas for adults each language occupies a distinct area of the brain and --> the parallelism doesn’t feel quite right to me. "...and language areas overlap in a young child" is a clause, and I guess it’s parallel to "for adults each language occupies a distinct area of the brain," but it doesn’t seem quite right to me. If I’m being honest: I would keep this at first, to be safe. Why not be conservative on that first pass? I don’t see any DEFINITE errors, just stuff that doesn’t seem quite right. Keep (B), too.
(C) has an easy pronoun error
The verb tenses make no sense in (D). Why is "occupied" in past tense for adults, but "overlap" is present for the kids?
(E) is a clear mess.
Q: Researchers hypothesize that granitic soil is the ideal construction material for the desert tortoise because it is not so hard that it makes burrowing difficult or so soft that it could cause tunnels to collapse.
A. so hard that it makes burrowing difficult or so soft that it could cause
B. hard enough to make burrowing difficult or soft enough as to cause
C. so hard as to make burrowing difficult or soft enough so it causes
D. as hard as to make burrowing difficult or as soft as to cause
E. too hard, making burrowing difficult, nor too soft, so as to cause
A: Always start by looking for a trigger. "And" in many cases, "or" in this sentence. Then ask yourself: what follows the trigger? Here, it’s "so soft that it could cause" (in A). That’s nicely parallel to "so hard that it makes burrowing difficult." Same exact structure.
Q: Responding to the public’s fascination with - and sometimes undue alarm over-possible threats from asteroids, a scale developed by astronomers rates the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet may collide with Earth.
A. a scale developed by astronomers rates the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet may
B. a scale that astronomers have developed rates how likely it is for a particular asteroid or comet to
C. astronomers have developed a scale to rate how likely a particular asteroid or comet will be to
D. astronomers have developed a scale for rating the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet will
E. astronomers have developed a scale that rates the likelihood of a particular asteroid or comet that may
A: (A) and (B) are out quickly. "Responding to the public’s fascination..." Has to be the astronomers, not the scale. https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 39780.html
(C) vs. (D) is tough.
So in these situations, you want to be super-precise about finding EVERY difference between the two answer choices, and then figuring out how, exactly, those little changes might affect the meaning in particular.
C. astronomers have developed a scale to rate how likely a particular asteroid or comet will be to
D. astronomers have developed a scale for rating the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet will
Really just one change here. In (C): "...scale to rate how likely (an asteroid) will be to collide with Earth." In (D): "...scale to rate the likelihood that (an asteroid) will collide with Earth."
It makes sense to say that we’d "rate the likelihood" that something will occur. Doesn’t seem quite right to say that the scale rates "how likely an asteroid WILL BE to collide with Earth." It’s subtle, but that doesn’t seem right.
Q: How to get a question right in the exam given the pressure?
A: yup, you’re not alone. Under pressure, instincts take over, and that’s when test-takers tend to select the one that "sounds good" or "feels right" -- instead of taking the extra 15 seconds to coldly ANALYZE the difference between those last two answer choices in terms of their literal meaning.
I don’t know if this is helpful, but sometimes under time pressure, we all have an instinct to "save time" by rushing through that last little step. But that final, careful comparison of two answer choices might only take 15 seconds. That’s nothing. 100% worth the investment if it gets you an extra question right, even if it only happens on one question out of, say, every five or six. Basically, you don’t want to "save time" on anything that doesn’t really take that much time.
Q: Appendicitis (inflammation of the appendix) is potentially fatal; consequently, patients with symptoms strongly suggesting appendicitis almost have their appendix removed. The appropriate surgery is low-risk but performed unnecessarily in about 20 percent of all cases. A newly developed internal scan for appendicitis is highly accurate, producing two misdiagnoses for every 98 correct diagnoses. Clearly, using this test, doctors can largely avoid unnecessary removals of the appendix without, however, performing any fewer necessary ones than before, since ____________
A. the patients who are correctly diagnosed with this test as not having appendicitis invariably have medical conditions that are much less serious than appendicitis
B. the misdiagnoses produced by this test are always instances of attributing appendicitis to someone who does not, in fact, have it
C. all of the patients who are diagnosed with this test as having appendicitis do, in fact,have appendicitis
D. every patient who is diagnosed with this test as having appendicitis has more than one of the symptoms generally associated with appendicitis
E. the only patients who are misdiagnosed using this test are patients who lack one or more of the symptoms that are generally associated with appendicitis
A: key is: "without, however, performing any fewer necessary ones" --> you need to be sure it’s never true that people who actually have appendicitis are misdiagnosed as not having it (and we know there are some misdiagnoses), and that’s what B says.
OK, last bits of housekeeping. Next week is our last Wednesday verbal chat for a month! After that, we’ll be taking a one-month summer break. Starting in mid-September, we’ll be back, but with some format changes: we’ll alternate weeks, with old-school chat room one week, and YouTube live sessions the next.
