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 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.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
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.
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.
08 Oct 2019, 21:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Eg. ..., their descendants had migrated as far north as the other kind of bee had migrated.
Question: is any of the below omitting correct? Why?
1. Their descendants had migrated as far north as the other kind of bee (had migrated).
2. Their descendants had migrated as far north as the other kind of bee had (migrated).
Question: is any of the below omitting correct? Why?
1. Their descendants had migrated as far north as the other kind of bee (had migrated).
2. Their descendants had migrated as far north as the other kind of bee had (migrated).
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
09 Oct 2019, 06:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
ELLIPSES or omission is valid till the point where this omission does not create any new ambiguity in the sentence.
1. Their descendants had migrated as far north as the other kind of bee (had migrated). - Here we have not introduced the verb again, but it is necessary here to repeat, not because of illogical meaning, but we are using "as" to compare an entire clause with a noun phrase, which is not correct. We have to compare apple to apple, "as" to compare to complete clauses & "Like" to compare nouns.
2. Their descendants had migrated as far north as the other kind of bee had (migrated). - "migrated" ommision is correct here, something as the main verb is the action performed by both the entities.
Hope this helps
1. Their descendants had migrated as far north as the other kind of bee (had migrated). - Here we have not introduced the verb again, but it is necessary here to repeat, not because of illogical meaning, but we are using "as" to compare an entire clause with a noun phrase, which is not correct. We have to compare apple to apple, "as" to compare to complete clauses & "Like" to compare nouns.
2. Their descendants had migrated as far north as the other kind of bee had (migrated). - "migrated" ommision is correct here, something as the main verb is the action performed by both the entities.
Hope this helps
09 Oct 2019, 07:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
Here are my two cents:
In brief, the second sentence you mentioned is correct while the first is not.
lets start with this example first:
Their descendants had migrated as far north as Alaska
after "as", there is a noun and it is still grammatically and logically correct. Why?
Because when we ask ourselves: what does "far" compare?
the answer is that we compare "North" to"Alaska", and both are nouns and logically represents places.
But when we return to the other example:
Their descendants had migrated as far north as the other kind of bee
Here, what does "far" compare?
option one : it is comparing "North" to "the other kind of bee". Maybe "the other kind of bee" is at a place which is so far in distance compared to the distance to the north
option two : it is comparing "Their descendants had migrated" to "the other kind of bee (had migrated)". This is a more plausible assumption and describes the intended meaning. In this case, "had" is needed to clarify the ambiguity and ensure the parallel comparison between two clauses.
A third case to mention is this one:
Their descendants had migrated as far as the other kind of bee
Again, what does "far" compare?
Option one: It is comparing "Their descendants" to "the other kind of bee". It is grammatically correct.
But, Is it comparing the location of one with the location of the other? maybe
option two: it is comparing "Their descendants had migrated" to "the other kind of bee (had migrated)"
This is more logical and near to the intended meaning.
To avoid this ambiguity, "had" is needed.
In brief, the second sentence you mentioned is correct while the first is not.
lets start with this example first:
Their descendants had migrated as far north as Alaska
after "as", there is a noun and it is still grammatically and logically correct. Why?
Because when we ask ourselves: what does "far" compare?
the answer is that we compare "North" to"Alaska", and both are nouns and logically represents places.
But when we return to the other example:
Their descendants had migrated as far north as the other kind of bee
Here, what does "far" compare?
option one : it is comparing "North" to "the other kind of bee". Maybe "the other kind of bee" is at a place which is so far in distance compared to the distance to the north
option two : it is comparing "Their descendants had migrated" to "the other kind of bee (had migrated)". This is a more plausible assumption and describes the intended meaning. In this case, "had" is needed to clarify the ambiguity and ensure the parallel comparison between two clauses.
A third case to mention is this one:
Their descendants had migrated as far as the other kind of bee
Again, what does "far" compare?
Option one: It is comparing "Their descendants" to "the other kind of bee". It is grammatically correct.
But, Is it comparing the location of one with the location of the other? maybe
option two: it is comparing "Their descendants had migrated" to "the other kind of bee (had migrated)"
This is more logical and near to the intended meaning.
To avoid this ambiguity, "had" is needed.
