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.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.
May 0612:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
GMAT 615 to 715 in Just 15 Days! Riya’s 100-pt Improvement Strategy- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
26 Sep 2019, 00:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
36% (01:42) correct
64%
(01:41)
wrong
based on 710
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In times of economic difficulty, young adults and old people tend to live with other family members and not to maintain separate households, with implications for businesses that sell vacuum cleaners and dishwashers.
(A) to maintain separate households, with implications for businesses that sell
(B) maintain different households, which has implications for businesses selling
(C) to maintain separate households, a fact with implications for businesses that sell
(D) to maintain households that are separate, a fact that has implications for businesses selling
(E) maintain different households, and this has implications for businesses selling
26 Sep 2019, 00:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
• PROCESS OF ELIMINATION
• Split #1: the missing antecedent
In option A, "with implications" is not solidly connected to anything.
-- What has implications? The idea expressed in the previous clause—but the idea is not a noun.
-- does with modify households? No.
-- prepositional modifiers are versatile, but within reason. A something has implications. What something?
Option B uses the classic GMAT trap: which cannot modify (refer to) an entire clause.
-- the issue is similar to that in (A)
-- which must refer to a noun. There is none.
Option E similarly and incorrectly has no antecedent for this (which is an adjective that should refer to a noun).
-- so far, exactly one question that I know of allows this as a standalone pronoun. (We should see "this" point to a noun, such as "this fact")
Eliminate A, B, and E
• Split #2: concision and clarity
(C) to maintain separate households, a fact with implications for businesses that sell
(D) to maintain households that are separate, a fact that has implications for businesses selling
Style ("diction") decisions can be hard.
If one sentence says the same thing as another but does so more economically and both are grammatical, choose the economical sentence.
No reason exists to change "maintain separate households" to "maintain households that are separate."
Changing "with" to "that has" is not as bothersome, but "with" is still more efficient.
Option C is better than Option D.
Eliminate D.
The answer is (C)
• Notes
• Summative modifier — a few words that summarize the preceding clause so that noun-modifiers apply
You don't need to remember the jargon, but you do need to remember that this pattern is fairly common:
If a clause contains an idea or event or fact that is not stated outright, we can make up a noun that summarizes the clause.
Then a noun modifier has a noun [a something] to modify.
("Summarizes" - hence the word "summative" modifier.")
The noun that was added in (C) and that encapsulates (summarizes) the idea expressed by the preceding clause is "a fact."
• Parallelism?
"Not" gets in the way.
The word "to" needs to be repeated because the parallelism marker AND connects back to tend to live, /i] but [tend to maintain] is interrupted by "not."
Absolutely clear: . . . [i]tend TO live with family members and [tend] not TO maintain separate households.
Often the TO will distribute to two or three verbs .
But in this sentence, "not" gets in the way.
If we let the "tend to" simply distribute in options B and E, we get . . . tend to live with others and [tend to] not maintain separate households.
But to not maintain is not standard. The not should go before the infinitive.
That is, the standard construction in English is not to [verb].
Options B and E give us to not [verb].
The constructions in B and E are not as good as those that repeat to and place it after not.
Option C is clearer than B and E are.
COMMENTS
nehasomani33 and nehasomani33 , welcome to SC Butler.
At couple of you reasoned well but chose the wrong answer.
Kuaos to that group, and to all who explained.
generis
• PROCESS OF ELIMINATION
• Split #1: the missing antecedent
In option A, "with implications" is not solidly connected to anything.
-- What has implications? The idea expressed in the previous clause—but the idea is not a noun.
-- does with modify households? No.
-- prepositional modifiers are versatile, but within reason. A something has implications. What something?
Option B uses the classic GMAT trap: which cannot modify (refer to) an entire clause.
-- the issue is similar to that in (A)
-- which must refer to a noun. There is none.
Option E similarly and incorrectly has no antecedent for this (which is an adjective that should refer to a noun).
-- so far, exactly one question that I know of allows this as a standalone pronoun. (We should see "this" point to a noun, such as "this fact")
Eliminate A, B, and E
• Split #2: concision and clarity
(C) to maintain separate households, a fact with implications for businesses that sell
(D) to maintain households that are separate, a fact that has implications for businesses selling
Style ("diction") decisions can be hard.
If one sentence says the same thing as another but does so more economically and both are grammatical, choose the economical sentence.
No reason exists to change "maintain separate households" to "maintain households that are separate."
Changing "with" to "that has" is not as bothersome, but "with" is still more efficient.
Option C is better than Option D.
Eliminate D.
The answer is (C)
• Notes
• Summative modifier — a few words that summarize the preceding clause so that noun-modifiers apply
You don't need to remember the jargon, but you do need to remember that this pattern is fairly common:
If a clause contains an idea or event or fact that is not stated outright, we can make up a noun that summarizes the clause.
Then a noun modifier has a noun [a something] to modify.
("Summarizes" - hence the word "summative" modifier.")
The noun that was added in (C) and that encapsulates (summarizes) the idea expressed by the preceding clause is "a fact."
• Parallelism?
"Not" gets in the way.
The word "to" needs to be repeated because the parallelism marker AND connects back to tend to live, /i] but [tend to maintain] is interrupted by "not."
Absolutely clear: . . . [i]tend TO live with family members and [tend] not TO maintain separate households.
Often the TO will distribute to two or three verbs .
But in this sentence, "not" gets in the way.
If we let the "tend to" simply distribute in options B and E, we get . . . tend to live with others and [tend to] not maintain separate households.
But to not maintain is not standard. The not should go before the infinitive.
That is, the standard construction in English is not to [verb].
Options B and E give us to not [verb].
The constructions in B and E are not as good as those that repeat to and place it after not.
Option C is clearer than B and E are.
COMMENTS
nehasomani33 and nehasomani33 , welcome to SC Butler.
At couple of you reasoned well but chose the wrong answer.
Kuaos to that group, and to all who explained.
General Discussion
26 Sep 2019, 01:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Thanks for the great question. My answer is (C). It took me 1 minute and 6 seconds to make the call.
In reading the original sentence, my first idea is that "not to maintain separate households" is rather redundant. Certainly, that is not what this sentence is testing.
The "to" after not cannot be omitted. B and E are out.
In (E), "households that are separate" is just too wordy. "Separate households" is so much better.
Now, we are left between A and C; they only differ in the additional "a fact" in option (C). "a fact" sort of summarize and restate what has been described in the main clause. "A fact with implications" sounds so much better than "with implications" alone, but let's here what generis has to say about it.
In reading the original sentence, my first idea is that "not to maintain separate households" is rather redundant. Certainly, that is not what this sentence is testing.
The "to" after not cannot be omitted. B and E are out.
In (E), "households that are separate" is just too wordy. "Separate households" is so much better.
Now, we are left between A and C; they only differ in the additional "a fact" in option (C). "a fact" sort of summarize and restate what has been described in the main clause. "A fact with implications" sounds so much better than "with implications" alone, but let's here what generis has to say about it.
