Rock750 wrote:
While the thorns of all roses are protective, dissuading predators from feeding on the flowers’ blooms, unlike roses that grow in temperate climates, though, the thorns of desert roses also serve as reservoirs for water to forestall the ever-present threat of dehydration.
(A) While the thorns of all roses are protective, dissuading predators from feeding on the flowers’ blooms, unlike roses
(B) All roses’ protective thorns dissuade predators from feeding on their blooms; unlike those
(C) The thorns of all roses are protective, dissuading predators from feeding on the flowers’ blooms; unlike those of roses
(D) While all roses’ thorns are protective, they dissuade predators from feeding on the flowers’ blooms; unlike those of roses
(E) The thorns of all roses are protective and dissuade predators feeding on their blooms, however, unlike those
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The first part of the sentence describes a feature that all roses have in common; the second draws a distinction between temperate-climate roses and desert roses. The comparison signaled by
unlike should be constructed carefully so as to preserve parallelism without distorting the intended message of the sentence.
(A) The use of both
while and
though is redundant. The comparison is not parallel;
unlike roses, the thorns of desert roses. The sentence illogically compares
roses grown in one area to
the thorns of another type of rose.
(B) The comparison is illogical:
unlike those that grow in temperate climates, the thorns of desert roses serve. Parallelism dictates that
those should refer to
thorns, illogically suggesting that
thorns, not whole roses, grow in temperate climates. Even if
those is taken to stand for
the thorns of desert roses, the meaning is still illogical because, according to the sentence,
desert roses do not grow in temperate regions.
(C) CORRECT. The portion of the sentence preceding the semicolon is a complete sentence that correctly uses the adverbial modifier
dissuading to elaborate on the idea that thorns are protective. The comparison in the second clause is parallel, using
those to stand for
thorns and thereby creating a comparison between
[the thorns] of roses that grow in temperate regions and
the thorns of desert roses.
(D) The portion of the sentence preceding the semicolon doesn’t make sense.
While draws a
contrast between the notion that
thorns are protective and the idea that
they dissuade predators from feeding on rose blooms—but the second idea supports the first one; it is not in contrast.
(E) When
and is used to connect two thoughts, those two thoughts do not need to be related to each other. It doesn’t make sense, though, to say that the
thorns are protective and, separately, the
thorns dissuade predators. Rather, the thorns are protective because
they persuade predators. The sentence also contains an idiom error. The predators are
dissuaded from doing something; this sentence lacks the word
from. Finally, the comparison is illogical:
unlike those that grow in temperate climates, the thorns of desert roses serve. Parallelism dictates that those should refer to
thorns, illogically suggesting that
thorns, not whole roses, grow in temperate climates. Even if
those is taken to stand for
the thorns of desert roses, the meaning is still illogical because, according to the sentence,
desert roses do not grow in temperate regions.
_________________
"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."Rules for posting in verbal forum | Please DO NOT post short answer in your post!
Advanced Search : https://gmatclub.com/forum/advanced-search/