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 0912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.
May 0808:00 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.
May 0808:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 1001:00 AM EDT
-02:00 AM EDT
Stuck at the same GMAT score? Plateaus aren’t about effort—they’re about approach. Watch Srikar’s journey to uncover what truly drives score improvement—and how you can apply it to break your plateau.- May 15
06:00 PM PDT
-07:00 PM PDT
Start your free trial!
20 Mar 2021, 20:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
78% (01:47) correct
22%
(01:52)
wrong
based on 287
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In a work that is to cinema what The Wealth of Nations is to economics, screenwriter David Mamet provides several nuggets of wisdom on how to direct a film and is a mandatory read for anyone connected to the movie industry.
A) In a work that is to cinema what The Wealth of Nations is to economics, screenwriter David Mamet provides several nuggets of wisdom on how to direct a film and is a mandatory read for anyone connected to the movie industry.
B) In a work that is the same to cinema what The Wealth of Nations is to economics, screenwriter David Mamet provides several nuggets of wisdom on how to direct a film, which is a mandatory read for anyone connected to the movie industry.
C) Screenwriter David Mamet, in a work for cinema what The Wealth of Nations is for economics, provides several nuggets of wisdom on directing a film and is a mandatory read for anyone connected to the movie industry.
D) In a work that is a mandatory read for anyone connected to the movie industry and that is to cinema what The Wealth of Nations is to economics, screenwriter David Mamet who provides several nuggets of wisdom on how to direct a film.
E) In a work that is to cinema what The Wealth of Nations is to economics, screenwriter David Mamet provides several nuggets of wisdom on how to direct a film, making it a mandatory read for anyone connected to the movie industry.
20 Mar 2021, 21:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
THE PROMPT
The correct idiomatic expressions are either
(1) the same to X as to Y or
(2) something is to X what something else is to Y.
Be careful not to mix up these two expressions.
THE OPTIONS
→ David Mamet himself is not a mandatory read.
ELIMINATE A
→ correct: Mamet's work is the same to cinema as The Wealth of Nations is to economics.
→ correct: Mamet's work is to cinema what The Wealth of Nations is to economics.
→ wrong: Mamet's work is the same to cinema what The Wealth of Nations is to economics.
This option follows the third pattern. Wrong. The idioms are cobbled together incorrectly.
• misplaced modifier: to what does which is a mandatory read refer?
→ presumably the thing that is a mandatory read is the "work," but the placement of that which-clause is too far from its noun
→ the Modifier "Touch" Rule states that noun modifiers must be as close as possible to the nouns they modify. The rule has exceptions.
A noun modifier can be fairly far away from its noun—but not this far.
The target of the which-clause is the third word in the sentence ("work").
The word which can often "reach back over" other essential modifiers to get to its noun, but in this case the which must jump back over three verbs. Not okay.
ELIMINATE B
→ David Mamet himself is not a mandatory read.
• garbled idiom
→ The construction of a work for cinema what [i]The Wealth of Nations is for economics[/i] botches something is to X what something else is to Y
ELIMINATE C
No main verb exists; this would-be sentence is a fragment.
The word who "eats up" the only available verb, provides.
Sentences that contain relative clauses (which-, that-, or who-clauses) will contain at least two verbs: one for the main subject and one for the relative pronoun.
ELIMINATE D
• The word making creates a phrase that modifies the entire previous clause, which starts at "In a work . . ."
• "it" refers to "a work."
→ This usage does not constitute pronoun ambiguity.
Only one noun in this sentence logically qualifies as the antecedent of the pronoun it.
The word it is tucked into a phrase that modifies the whole previous clause, so we look at that whole clause to see whether more than one noun could logically be a mandatory read.
Only one noun matches "it" and makes logical sense.
KEEP
The answer is E.
AkashM , you asked:
Answer: I don't think so.
In fact, if a person were not familiar with the idiom, the addition of "the same" might create better "word sense."
The idiom at play is weird (and tested!): Something literally IS to ABC what something else IS to XYZ.
Again, I think that if you had never heard of the idiom, seeing "the same" in that idiom would make it seem more sensible.
If you knew the idiom, then your first thought would be that the construction is not idiomatic rather than that it lacks concision.
Some idioms are not concise.
Most of the time, answer choices that contain idiom errors will also contain another error.
We can eliminate option B on other grounds. The which-clause is too far from its noun.
I've been playing catch-up, as I mentioned in another post, so I'll get to March 18 soon.
These answers range from good to excellent.
To some of you: Please, explain yourselves. Labeling is not explanation.
I won't dock kudos this time, but I will do so next time.
David Mamet is a formidable talent—Pulitzer Prize winning playwright, screenwriter, director, and nonfiction author—albeit sometimes uneven.
This sentence refers to his 1991 book, On Directing Film.
Stay safe, everyone.
Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC2)
THE PROMPT
Quote:
• Idioms that are easy to mix up
The correct idiomatic expressions are either
(1) the same to X as to Y or
(2) something is to X what something else is to Y.
Be careful not to mix up these two expressions.
THE OPTIONS
Quote:
• Nonsensical
→ David Mamet himself is not a mandatory read.
ELIMINATE A
Quote:
• mixed up and garbled idioms
→ correct: Mamet's work is the same to cinema as The Wealth of Nations is to economics.
→ correct: Mamet's work is to cinema what The Wealth of Nations is to economics.
→ wrong: Mamet's work is the same to cinema what The Wealth of Nations is to economics.
This option follows the third pattern. Wrong. The idioms are cobbled together incorrectly.
• misplaced modifier: to what does which is a mandatory read refer?
→ presumably the thing that is a mandatory read is the "work," but the placement of that which-clause is too far from its noun
→ the Modifier "Touch" Rule states that noun modifiers must be as close as possible to the nouns they modify. The rule has exceptions.
A noun modifier can be fairly far away from its noun—but not this far.
The target of the which-clause is the third word in the sentence ("work").
The word which can often "reach back over" other essential modifiers to get to its noun, but in this case the which must jump back over three verbs. Not okay.
ELIMINATE B
Quote:
• Nonsensical
→ David Mamet himself is not a mandatory read.
• garbled idiom
→ The construction of a work for cinema what [i]The Wealth of Nations is for economics[/i] botches something is to X what something else is to Y
ELIMINATE C
Quote:
• The case of the missing verb
No main verb exists; this would-be sentence is a fragment.
The word who "eats up" the only available verb, provides.
Sentences that contain relative clauses (which-, that-, or who-clauses) will contain at least two verbs: one for the main subject and one for the relative pronoun.
ELIMINATE D
Quote:
• Bingo. No errors
• The word making creates a phrase that modifies the entire previous clause, which starts at "In a work . . ."
• "it" refers to "a work."
→ This usage does not constitute pronoun ambiguity.
Only one noun in this sentence logically qualifies as the antecedent of the pronoun it.
The word it is tucked into a phrase that modifies the whole previous clause, so we look at that whole clause to see whether more than one noun could logically be a mandatory read.
Only one noun matches "it" and makes logical sense.
KEEP
The answer is E.
AkashM , you asked:
Quote:
Good question.
Answer: I don't think so.
In fact, if a person were not familiar with the idiom, the addition of "the same" might create better "word sense."
The idiom at play is weird (and tested!): Something literally IS to ABC what something else IS to XYZ.
Again, I think that if you had never heard of the idiom, seeing "the same" in that idiom would make it seem more sensible.
If you knew the idiom, then your first thought would be that the construction is not idiomatic rather than that it lacks concision.
Some idioms are not concise.
Most of the time, answer choices that contain idiom errors will also contain another error.
We can eliminate option B on other grounds. The which-clause is too far from its noun.
I've been playing catch-up, as I mentioned in another post, so I'll get to March 18 soon.
These answers range from good to excellent.
To some of you: Please, explain yourselves. Labeling is not explanation.
I won't dock kudos this time, but I will do so next time.
David Mamet is a formidable talent—Pulitzer Prize winning playwright, screenwriter, director, and nonfiction author—albeit sometimes uneven.
This sentence refers to his 1991 book, On Directing Film.
Stay safe, everyone.
20 Mar 2021, 21:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
My answer is (E). It took me 01:16.
(A) screenwriter David Mamet ... is a mandatory read? Does not make sense.
(B) The placement of "which is a mandatory read" is problematic as readers may think it modifies "a film" rather than "a work", which is at the very beginning of the sentence.
(C) screenwriter David Mamet ... is a mandatory read? Does not make sense.
(D) Fragment: no main verb for "screenwriter David Mamet".
(A) screenwriter David Mamet ... is a mandatory read? Does not make sense.
(B) The placement of "which is a mandatory read" is problematic as readers may think it modifies "a film" rather than "a work", which is at the very beginning of the sentence.
(C) screenwriter David Mamet ... is a mandatory read? Does not make sense.
(D) Fragment: no main verb for "screenwriter David Mamet".
