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
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
The Competition Continues - Game of Timers is a team-based competition based on solving GMAT questions to win epic prizes! Starting July 1st, compete to win prep materials while studying for GMAT! Registration is Open! Ends July 26th
With the muddy field delaying the advance
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Mar 2016, 03:29
2
5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
45% (medium)
Question Stats:
66% (02:02) correct 34% (02:05) wrong based on 265 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating off their reduced numbers easily.
(A) With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating their reduced numbers easily
(B) When the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt, with the English longbowmen being able to inflict significant damage on them, their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily was able to eliminate them
(C) The muddy field delayed the advance of the French infantrymen at the battle of Agincourt, allowing the English longbowmen to inflict significant damage on them, and as the number of the French infantrymen was reduced, the English infantry easily could eliminate these remaining few
(D) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt tried to advance but had been delayed by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen inflicted significant damage on them, and the English infantry eventually would eliminate their reduced numbers with ease
(E) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt were delayed in their advance by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt inflicted significant damage on them, so their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily could eliminate those left
Status: Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Posts: 278
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: With the muddy field delaying the advance
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Mar 2016, 03:38
HKD1710 wrote:
With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating off their reduced numbers easily.
(A) With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating their reduced numbers easily
(B) When the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt, with the English longbowmen being able to inflict significant damage on them, their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily was able to eliminate them
(C) The muddy field delayed the advance of the French infantrymen at the battle of Agincourt, allowing the English longbowmen to inflict significant damage on them, and as the number of the French infantrymen was reduced, the English infantry easily could eliminate these remaining few
(D) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt tried to advance but had been delayed by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen inflicted significant damage on them, and the English infantry eventually would eliminate their reduced numbers with ease
(E) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt were delayed in their advance by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt inflicted significant damage on them, so their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily could eliminate those left
tough one!! what is the source of this question _________________
"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas
Re: With the muddy field delaying the advance
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Mar 2016, 03:52
(A) With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating their reduced numbers easily - Incorrect - Usage of with is inappropriate in this context.
(B) When the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt, with the English longbowmen being able to inflict significant damage on them, their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily was able to eliminate them - Incorrect - Awkward structure
(C) The muddy field delayed the advance of the French infantrymen at the battle of Agincourt, allowing the English longbowmen to inflict significant damage on them, and as the number of the French infantrymen was reduced, the English infantry easily could eliminate these remaining few - Correct - The only doubt I had here was the usage of 'these'
(D) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt tried to advance but had been delayed by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen inflicted significant damage on them, and the English infantry eventually would eliminate their reduced numbers with ease - Incorrect - Tense error. The French tried to advance but were delayed by the muddy field. Usage of 'had been' is not appropriate.
(E) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt were delayed in their advance by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt inflicted significant damage on them, so their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily could eliminate those left - Incorrect - Wordy and sentence is in Passive Voice.
It would be good to know the following w.r.t. SCs like this one:
1. What to do when such a questions appears 2. what should be a general approach for such questions 3. Such a SC question looks time consuming so how to tackle it in a faster way
_________________
With the muddy field delaying the advance
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Mar 2016, 04:48
1
3
Hi @HKD171,
The Q is not so tough as it may seem to be.. It is normal tendency to believe a Q to be tough when it is fully underlined, but it is not the case always.. Here you will find all choices EXCEPT C glaringly wrong. Do not lose focus because it is completely underlined.. lets analuse the immediate thing that should strike us..
With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating off their reduced numbers easily.
(A) With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating their reduced numbers easily .. the construction of three clause is not done properly And the biggest Flaw is Preposition+Noun+Participle is almost always dicey in GMAT. we have an OG Q to on this issue
(B) When the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt, with the English longbowmen being able to inflict significant damage on them, their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily was able to eliminate them 'delaying' should be a reason to eliminate it immediately as in A. Can be eliminated for the wordy and awkward construction
(C) The muddy field delayed the advance of the French infantrymen at the battle of Agincourt, allowing the English longbowmen to inflict significant damage on them, and as the number of the French infantrymen was reduced, the English infantry easily could eliminate these remaining few usage of AND has cleared the wordiness that existed, joining different clauses correctly and 'modifier' with 'allowing ' correctly modifies preceding claause..
(D) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt tried to advance but had been delayed by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen inflicted significant damage on them, and the English infantry eventually would eliminate their reduced numbers with ease usage of HAD BEEN and conditional WOULD is not appropriate.. Also BY muddy field should be DUE TO muddy field
(E) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt were delayed in their advance by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt inflicted significant damage on them, so their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily could eliminate those left the FRENCH INFANTRYMEN has also become subject and thus 'THEM and THEIR' can be ambiguous. The construction on them, so their.. reduced, and the English.. left does not follow the proper construction
EDITING- forgot to put down the main point for A
_________________
Re: With the muddy field delaying the advance
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Mar 2016, 04:55
2
1
With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating off their reduced numbers easily.
Quote:
This looks like a Magoosh topic. Mike is the one who can combine history, theology and English judiciously.
(A) With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating their reduced numbers easily --- The use of a preposition along with a noun followed by a participle, in the given context is wrong, because it involves two different agents doing two different things, and because the first part, essentially a modifier, cannot modify the agent of the second part namely the English longbowmen.
(B) When the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt, with the English longbowmen being able to inflict significant damage on them, their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily was able to eliminate them ---Combination of a subordinate conjunction ‘when’ with a noun and a participle is grammatically wrong for the same reason as in A.
(C) The muddy field delayed the advance of the French infantrymen at the battle of Agincourt, allowing the English longbowmen to inflict significant damage on them, and as the number of the French infantrymen was reduced, the English infantry easily could eliminate these remaining few --- the best in the given context, of course with the small pinprick of the demonstrative pronoun ‘these’, as Vyshak pointed out.
(D) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt tried to advance but had been delayed by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen inflicted significant damage on them, and the English infantry eventually would eliminate their reduced numbers with ease --- varying widely with the intent of the original; use of ‘would' is particularly wrong.
(E) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt were delayed in their advance by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt inflicted significant damage on them, so their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily could eliminate those left --- so their numbers were reduced implies a cause and effect, which is not there in the context, and then the unnecessary passive voice _________________
Re: With the muddy field delaying the advance
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Mar 2016, 05:03
HKD1710 wrote:
With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating off their reduced numbers easily.
(A) With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating their reduced numbers easily
(B) When the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt, with the English longbowmen being able to inflict significant damage on them, their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily was able to eliminate them
(C) The muddy field delayed the advance of the French infantrymen at the battle of Agincourt, allowing the English longbowmen to inflict significant damage on them, and as the number of the French infantrymen was reduced, the English infantry easily could eliminate these remaining few
(D) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt tried to advance but had been delayed by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen inflicted significant damage on them, and the English infantry eventually would eliminate their reduced numbers with ease
(E) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt were delayed in their advance by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt inflicted significant damage on them, so their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily could eliminate those left
Let me try this one!
(A) With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them, with the English infantry eventually eliminating their reduced numbers easily.
The first part of the sentence "With the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen" presents the reason ( contributory cause) why the English were able to inflict damage .However, " with" does not convey the reason. We generally use words such as since/because for presenting the reason.Hence, the use of with is wrong.
The second part of the sentence " the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage on them" looks grammatically correct.The only issue that may bother is the use of passive voice when active voice could have been used.
The third part of the sentence "with the English infantry eventually eliminating off their reduced numbers easily" is used to describe the result of the previous clause.Use of verbing modifier would have been better. With does not do justice when we need to present the result of the previous clause.Also " eliminating off their reduced numbers" is clumsy.
(B) When the muddy field delaying the advance of the French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt, with the English longbowmen being able to inflict significant damage on them, their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily was able to eliminate them
Use of multiple phrases .What is the phrase with " with" describing".
The followingpost by mike garry may help to explain the use of with.
(C) The muddy field delayed the advance of the French infantrymen at the battle of Agincourt, allowing the English longbowmen to inflict significant damage on them, and as the number of the French infantrymen was reduced, the English infantry easily could eliminate these remaining few
Correct. Usage of these is correct. These is followed by noun few.The sentence corrects the meaning and construction issues in A.
(D) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt tried to advance but had been delayed by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen inflicted significant damage on them, and the English infantry eventually would eliminate their reduced numbers with ease
The French tried to advance but were delayed by the muddy field. Usage of 'had been' is not appropriate.
(E) The French infantrymen at the Battle of Agincourt were delayed in their advance by the muddy field, and the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt inflicted significant damage on them, so their numbers were reduced, and the English infantry easily could eliminate those left
The sentence is divided uselessly into three independent clauses .The meaning of the sentence is lost when the the reason ( contributory cause) why the English were able to inflict damage is presented in a separate and unrelated clause to "the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt inflicted significant damage on them".
i hope the above analysis is helpful and correct.
Do press Kudos if you find the above helpful.
_________________
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali
Mike, a quick query for you. I read through your linked post on Magoosh about Dropping Common Words in Parallel on the GMAT. I understood all the explanations except this one.
As I read it, if you have "with + noun/phrase + participial phrase," this is incorrect on the GMAT. You should have a regular noun + verb phrase instead? Can you please clarify if I have misunderstood.
Dear intheend14, I'm happy to respond. This is a very subtle issue. It depends very much on context. It's perfectly correct if the "with" expresses the ordinary uses of "with" --- accompaniment, means, or manner: accompaniment: I went to townwith my friend writing a book. mean: He dug the first scoop of earthwith a spade once used by 19th century railroad workers. manner: He strut into the roomwith a gait simply broadcasting his confidence across the room.. Those constructions are not problematic.
The problem occurs when a writer replaces a valid subordinate clause structure with this "with" structure.
Since the shipment from Uzbekistan was late, the salesman was unable to close the deal. = correct With the shipment from Uzbekistan being late, the salesman was unable to close the deal. = atrociously incorrect
Since our infantry has overrun most of the city, aerial attacks would not be effective at this time. = correct With our infantry having overrun most of the city, aerial attacks would not be effective at this time = atrociously incorrect
Does this distinction make sense? Mike
I donot mind Kudos.
_________________
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali
With the muddy field delaying the advance
[#permalink]
Show Tags
11 Jan 2018, 15:30
Official explanation for why D is incorrect:
(D) This choice has a combination of small problems. The tense mismatch in the first part, "tried … but had been delayed," doesn't make sense. Presumably, the "trying" and the "being delayed" would be more or less simultaneous. Also, that first part is very wordy. The overall sentence is just connect with a string of and's, and this gives no sense of the logical interconnection of these events, what cause what. The antecedent of "their" is ambiguous. The hypothetical tense, "would eliminate," is strange and awkward for a factual historical event. This choice is incorrect.
Re: With the muddy field delaying the advance
[#permalink]
Show Tags
25 Aug 2018, 01:42
Official Explanation
A question about the Henry V's victory at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.
Split #1: As explained in this blog, this question contains a "Case I" use of the "with" + [noun] + [participle] structure, action by a different actor. In the main clause, the English longbowmen are the actors, and in the "with" phrase, the muddy field is another actor. This is wrong. One way to see this, as discussed above, is to examine the sentence without the participle:
With the muddy field, the English longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt were able to inflict significant damage …
This makes no sense. The English longbowmen weren't doing anything with the muddy field. An essential piece of the action has been lost in dropping that participle. For a separate actor performing a separate action, we need a whole new clause. (A) is wrong because of this.
The sentence is radically reorganized on each choice, so we have to analyze each choice separately.
(A) In addition to the problematic structure at the beginning, this choice repeats the Case I mistake at the end, a double whammy! This is completely incorrect.
(B) This choice has the Case I mistake after the word "Agincourt": an "with" + [noun] + [participle] used incorrectly. Also, the antecedent of "their" is exceptionally unclear and ambiguous. This choice is incorrect.
(C) This choice makes no mistakes. All the pronouns have clear relationships with their antecedents. The logical connections are clear. This is promising.
(D) This choice has a combination of small problems. The tense mismatch in the first part, "tried … but had been delayed," doesn't make sense. Presumably, the "trying" and the "being delayed" would be more or less simultaneous. Also, that first part is very wordy. The overall sentence is just connect with a string of and's, and this gives no sense of the logical interconnection of these events, what cause what. The antecedent of "their" is ambiguous. The hypothetical tense, "would eliminate," is strange and awkward for a factual historical event. This choice is incorrect.
(E) This choice also links the information with "and" statements, which make the logical sequence less obvious. The antecedent of "them" is not perfectly clear. The passive structure at the beginning is weak. This choice is grammatically correct but far from ideal.
The best answer is (C). _________________
Thanks! Do give some kudos.
Simple strategy: “Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
close
66% (02:02) correct 
