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.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
13 Nov 2021, 23:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
35% (01:28) correct
65%
(01:29)
wrong
based on 251
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The police chief argued that first-time offenders who have no high school diploma but who have families with a record of crime will probably break the law again.
A) who have no high school diploma but who have families with a record of crime
B) without a high school diploma and families having a criminal record
C) without a high school diploma whose families have a record of crime
D) whose families have criminal records and lacking high school diplomas
E) lacking high school diplomas and also having families having criminal records
13 Nov 2021, 23:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
THE PROMPT
First time offenders who have no high school diploma and who have families with records of crime are likely to be repeat offenders.
• Notes
Go with the four worst answers.
Go with logic.
Try to avoid getting too attached to one rule, one way.
On the meaning side:
Diplomas do not have families. No reason exists to suspect that anyone would actually be confused by the reference.
On the grammar side:
The phrase "without a diploma" is a short, intervening phrase.
Such phrases are allowed to come in between a noun and its relative pronoun.
Answer: nothing good.
The lack of a diploma and being part of a family with a history of crime are not contrasting characteristics in this sentence.
If the two ideas are to be sutured in this option, we need the word and.
The word but is silly.
Eliminate A
B implies that the offenders lack both diplomas and families
The objects of the preposition without are diploma and families.
Without carries over to both.
Eliminate B
• it's an example of a noun whose relative clause permissibly gets interrupted by a short phrase ("without a high school diploma")
• Diplomas do not have families. Whose refers to offenders.
KEEP
We have no idea.
We have two antecedents, both of which are logical: the offenders and families.
→ I think that at best, this option implies that the families lack diplomas
Eliminate D
• having families having is a diction disaster
Eliminate E
THe answer is C.
COMMENTS
FazliddinKD , welcome to SC Butler.
We are delighted to have you.
This sentence is a tough call.
In the end, I think that E is worse than C by a lot.
(The diction in option E is abysmal.)
Potential ambiguity does not equal actual ambiguity.
Option C is the least bad of five.
On this one, I'll give kudos for bravery and/or good post OA explanation—in a word, kudos to all.
Stay safe, everyone.
Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC2)
THE PROMPT
Quote:
• Meaning?
First time offenders who have no high school diploma and who have families with records of crime are likely to be repeat offenders.
• Notes
Go with the four worst answers.
Go with logic.
Try to avoid getting too attached to one rule, one way.
On the meaning side:
Diplomas do not have families. No reason exists to suspect that anyone would actually be confused by the reference.
On the grammar side:
The phrase "without a diploma" is a short, intervening phrase.
Such phrases are allowed to come in between a noun and its relative pronoun.
Quote:
• what is the word "but" doing in this sentence?
Answer: nothing good.
The lack of a diploma and being part of a family with a history of crime are not contrasting characteristics in this sentence.
If the two ideas are to be sutured in this option, we need the word and.
The word but is silly.
Eliminate A
Quote:
• meaning
B implies that the offenders lack both diplomas and families
The objects of the preposition without are diploma and families.
Without carries over to both.
Eliminate B
Quote:
• this is better than the other four
• it's an example of a noun whose relative clause permissibly gets interrupted by a short phrase ("without a high school diploma")
• Diplomas do not have families. Whose refers to offenders.
KEEP
Quote:
• do the families lack diplomas? or the offenders?
We have no idea.
We have two antecedents, both of which are logical: the offenders and families.
→ I think that at best, this option implies that the families lack diplomas
Eliminate D
Quote:
• and also is not needed
• having families having is a diction disaster
Eliminate E
THe answer is C.
COMMENTS
FazliddinKD , welcome to SC Butler.
We are delighted to have you.
This sentence is a tough call.
In the end, I think that E is worse than C by a lot.
(The diction in option E is abysmal.)
Potential ambiguity does not equal actual ambiguity.
Option C is the least bad of five.
On this one, I'll give kudos for bravery and/or good post OA explanation—in a word, kudos to all.
Stay safe, everyone.
14 Nov 2021, 00:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
My answer is (A). It took me 01:04.
(A) I do have reservation with the use of "but" as "no high school diploma” and "families with a record of crime" are not necessarily in contrast with each other. Keep for now.
(B) "without ... families having a criminal record"? It should be "with families having a criminal record".
(C) "whose families“ can be interpreted to modify "a high school diploma", but it does not make sense to expect such family connection for a diploma. Note that a sensible reader will ultimately, or rather easily, figure out what the "whose families" should modify. That fact in itself cannot be used to argue for such a sloppy construction.
(D) "have criminal records" and "lacking diplomas" are not parallel.
(E) This option is a bit tricky. It is grammatically sound. But "having families having criminal records" is stylistically flawed.
On top of that, "and also" is generally agreed as redundant.
So, (A) is the best answer among five options, its use of "but" notwithstanding.
(A) I do have reservation with the use of "but" as "no high school diploma” and "families with a record of crime" are not necessarily in contrast with each other. Keep for now.
(B) "without ... families having a criminal record"? It should be "with families having a criminal record".
(C) "whose families“ can be interpreted to modify "a high school diploma", but it does not make sense to expect such family connection for a diploma. Note that a sensible reader will ultimately, or rather easily, figure out what the "whose families" should modify. That fact in itself cannot be used to argue for such a sloppy construction.
(D) "have criminal records" and "lacking diplomas" are not parallel.
(E) This option is a bit tricky. It is grammatically sound. But "having families having criminal records" is stylistically flawed.
On top of that, "and also" is generally agreed as redundant.
So, (A) is the best answer among five options, its use of "but" notwithstanding.
