While the nurses frantically searched for his parents to collect his v

This problem is based on a misconception. When we're writing a sentence that takes place in the past, there is nothing wrong with using all past tense verbs, even if we are describing something that is still the case. For instance, I could say "When the guy next to me on the plane learned I was a Manhattan Prep instructor, he began a barrage of grammar questions that lasted the whole flight." The correctness of this sentence doesn't depend on whether I am a Manhattan Prep instructor now. It works on its own merits. Therefore, there is no valid reason to select E over A.
_________________

That the boy's blood type is not a universal fact is crystal clear. If we were to take the OA on its face value, is there any specific reason why Veritas thinks that the shift of tense from past tense to present in a reported speech of a specific instance is passable and why choice E overwhelms choice A or for that matter even D in meaning?
_________________

OFFICIAL SOLUTION

Now what does this question tell us (apart from borderline neglectful parenting)? The boy was injured at some point and then explained things to the doctor while the nurses tried to call the parents. The timeline makes perfect sense in this regard, and therefore we can look through the answer choices for any contradictions to this timeline. Answer choice C will be eliminated for this reason as it indicates that the boy was injured while the nurses tried to call his parents, creating a nonsensical timeline. Why would the nurses call the boy’s parents if he were fine? Clearly he would have to have been injured before any calls were made (even if they were collect calls).

This leaves us with four viable answer choices. Looking at them one by one, answer choice A seems reasonable, but answer choice D says exactly the same thing in almost the exact same way. It will therefore be hard to differentiate between these two choices. Answer choice B incorrectly messes with the timeline as well, so it can be eliminated. Answer choice E is exactly the same as the initial sentence with the verb tense updated to the present. This is a clear decision point as only one of the two answer choices can be correct. To determine which one is correct, we need to revisit the concept of universality.

Compare the following two sentences:

“In 2010, I moved to Montreal, which was an island”

and

“In 2010, I moved to Montreal, which is an island”

Since the move was several years ago, it makes sense that the verb “moved” is in the past. However, Montreal was an island in 2010, and is still an island in 2013 (although half the bridges are now falling down). Using the past here is only correct if something happened in the interim to change the status of Montreal. For example, had Montreal been destroyed, Krakatau style, then the first sentence would have been correct. Since Montreal is still here, nothing has changed since the move, and the present tense is correct.

Going back to the injured boy, since he is in the process of explaining his blood type to the doctor, he clearly isn’t deceased, which would have been the only justification for using the past tense. As such, the boy is fine and he is still O positive, a universal truth that will not spontaneously change. Answer choice E is correct because Answer choices A and D both erroneously use the past tense.

When evaluating universal truths, it is important to keep in mind that unchangeable elements will always remain in the present. When dealing with transitory elements, the timeline must be consistent with a changing reality.  When dealing with something as intractable as blood types, you can be positive (which is my blood type!) that they will never change.
_________________

Before determining blood types are intractable as has been made out, I may request that the following link be gone through.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 015-2019-5
Notwithstanding these cases, it has also been reported in media that treatments of the dreaded Rubella disease and transplants involving bone marrow and liver also may cause blood group jumping.
The idea of this response is not to impress upon some medical phenomena but to dispel the myth blood groping is eternal and everlasting.
But coming to grammar, how about this? Which one is correct?

Eve told Adam that apples were tempting
Eve told Adam that apples are tempting.
(to be sure, apples are always tempting)
Of course I know Brain will say why one should look at the larger picture in GMAT rather than to exceptions to general rule. I will mostly agree with that stand.
_________________

I agree with Daag sir , this is not a good question. when a past event is explained every present tense is shifted to past irrespective of the nature of the statement.
Related explanation can be found in Manhattan SC book

sequence of tenses is explaned in grammar books. we do have to review grammar but remember gmat test very basics grammar.

sequence rules dictates that if the main clause is in the past tense, normally the tenses in dependent clauses are in the past. this means the tenses in dependent clauses can be in different tenses depending on meaning/ logic

simple present is about the fact or condition which is correct and will be-is thought-correct indefinitely. so E fit the point.

My take on E - It is the only answer choice that doesn't change the meaning. To say that the boy's blood type WAS O positive, means that it isn't O positive anymore.

Please let us know your thoughts on this question. Confusion is between choice A and E. Thanks...

Dear Daag Sir and Other Experts, with regards, I am here new to chip you all, but being Engineer, I follow logics and practicality of things. I would like to say something. Everything is relative to each other and each rule of any language comes from uses and experience of native speakers. Here I would like to say that GMAT clearly writes that "Choose best option , that is properly conveying meaning of sentence."

Here is close fight in between option A and option E.

May be for a while a suppose option A is correct, but think for a second is sentence - "While the nurses frantically searched for his parents to collect his vital information, the injured boy calmly explained to the doctor that his blood type was O positive." is conveying proper logical meaning. Injured boy explained his blood group was O positive. That mean he is not sure right now what is his blood group. He want to check up??? --- It's irrelevant , how blood group can change ??? - Hence option A is not able to convey proper meaning.

Let's come to the option E - "While the nurses frantically searched for his parents to collect his vital information,the injured boy calmly explained to the doctor that his blood type is O positive ." Here meaning is logically correct. Boy is sure about his blood group. As per GMAT rule which option is proper conveying meaning that is correct.

Here Option E is best choice in all 5.

While the nurses frantically searched for his parents to collect his vital information, the injured boy calmly explained to the doctor that his blood type was O positive.

(A) the injured boy calmly explained to the doctor that his blood type was O positive

(B) the injured boy had calmly explained to the doctor that his blood type was O positive

(C) the boy was injured and explained that his blood type is O positive to the doctor

(D) the boy, who was injured, calmly explained to the doctor that his blood type was O positive

(E) the injured boy calmly explained to the doctor that his blood type is O positive

Sarkar93 What I'm suggesting is that there is no valid answer. Whoever wrote it is assuming that we should make a distinction that does not in fact need to be made.

iamjaipandey The GMAT does indeed ask us for the best answer, but if you look at official questions, the four wrong answers are almost always clearly incorrect in some way. The same is often not true of third-party questions. That's why it's best to study from the real thing.
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________