Purvidebuka
Hi Experts,
Could you please explain why B is the correct answer? I found it quite peculiar.
Sure,
Purvidebuka, I will take a shot.
Quote:
Without fully understanding the problem, it was difficult to explain to the mechanic.
a) Without fully understanding the problem
The problem with the original sentence is that
understanding is a modifier, and the subject, the one who understands, should follow the comma, not
it—
it was not doing any thinking.
Without is acting to negate the information that follows, and
fully simply modifies
understanding; if the sentence were to start with
understanding—
understanding the problem, it...—I doubt many people would be fooled by this answer choice.
Quote:
b) Because I didn’t understand the problem well
You have to keep in mind that anything that is underlined can be negotiated, so the sudden appearance of the subject
I is not an inherent problem. Neither is the switch from
fully understand to
understand... well an issue. It is just another way to head the sentence. The only question is whether this beginning is functional. The answer is yes. An introductory or dependent clause leads into the main clause, and the meaning is fine—
Because I didn't understand the problem well, [the problem] was difficult to explain... This option is at least worth keeping in the running.
Quote:
c) Because the problem wasn’t fully understood
Now
this is a completely debatable answer choice. The passive voice appears in several OAs to official questions, so we cannot say that an active construct is necessarily better. We need to find another way to separate this answer choice from our perfectly valid one above. You might point to the lack of a subject in this iteration, but remember, the subject appeared in the underlined portion. Who is to say that a room full of, say, physicists at a public presentation were not discussing a complex problem when a mechanic in the audience asked a question, and then the events that this sentence outlines transpired? Such an interpretation cannot be ruled out, and the answer choice remains on the table.
Quote:
d) Because of the lack of understanding of the problem
The diction here is what is lacking.
Because of the lack of achieves nothing in the way of clarity that a more concise
without does not. Neither can we get behind a change such as
Lacking an understanding... since the same dangling participle that we saw in the original sentence would plague the grammatical construction. (Again,
it cannot possess an understanding of anything.)
Quote:
e) The problem which I didn’t understand well
GMAC™ has stated in more recent OGs that a restrictive
which versus
that is
not the sort of split that will be tested, so that point is a nonissue. However, the redundant
the problem..., it cannot be overlooked, since the relative clause subordinates the information that follows (up to the comma). This fatal flaw should be easy to spot.
I guarantee that answer choices (B) and (C) would not appear as such on the GMAT™, side by side. I would say that (B) is the safer bet, but it really depends on the context, and that is a luxury we do not have with this question. My guess is that the person who wrote it intended to make a point about introducing a proper agent or doer of an action such as thinking in a sentence that goes on to talk about
explaining something. In my view, either (B) or (C) could be defended.
As always, I would suggest studying official questions for Verbal preparation. (It is okay to have fun with side questions from time to time.)
- Andrew