Examples Flashcards
(21 cards)
E) The complex hierarchical system on which property rights are still primarily based was developed in Europe in the Middle Ages, baffling students of the law year after year.
What is wrong? What are ways to see that it is wrong?
comma + verbING modifies the whole previous clause or a preceding noun. –> What is baffling about the mere fact that a complex system developed during a particular time period in Europe? Nothing. A system developed. The end.
“Result” test: Are the students baffled because the complex system was developed in Europe during the Middle Ages? No.
“How” test: Does “baffling students” tell us how the complex system was developed? No.
C) Professional baseball contracts have a standard provision, the reserve clause, [that assures] the rights to a player are permanently retained by the team that originally hires him or acquires his contract.
What is wrong?
Wahr would be right?
1) assures that
2) “,” that and the reserve clause should not be separated by a comma; if that (an essential modifier of a noun) is separated from its noun, what comes in between the two is a short phrase, not simply a comma
Right: under which
D. If the bill of rights proposed were modified and customized for Jefferson County, it would work and change the local face of politics, according to the local government official.
What is wrong?
“could” changed to “would”. bill will workout & change in politics have been shown as a separate event
Correct: C. If the proposed bill of rights were modified and customized for Jefferson County, it could work, indelibly changing the local face of politics, according to the local government official. Correct. ‘could’ correctly shows uncertainty. verb+ing ‘changing’ shows the result that will happen if the bill works out. ‘indelibly’ changing is correct.
[As accelerating climate change] and other man-made environmental degradations create growing alarm across the planet, the Sami people have much to teach the world about how to adapt, survive, and thrive.
A. As accelerating climate change
B. As accelerated climate change
A is correct
Accelerating change means the change is increasing its speed continuously.
Accelerated change means the change increased its speed before and now it is at a high speed.
Accelerating is in parallel with growing alarm
If the action is intentional then we use the verb-ed form (e.g. designed to perfection)
If the action is unintentional then we use the verb-ing form (e.g. Erupting at an absolutely wrong time)
The increased popularity and availability of televisions has led to the decline of regional dialects, language variations [that originated from diverse ethnic and cultural heritages and perpetuated] by geographic isolation.
(B) that originated from diverse ethnic and cultural heritages and perpetuated
(D) originating from diverse ethnic and cultural heritages and perpetuated
(E) originating from diverse ethnic and cultural heritages and perpetuating
B: PROBLEM: Again, we look after the marker “and” and find the participle “perpetuated”. Unfortunately, “originated” here is a past tense verb, not a participle
D: Correct
E: PROBLEM: “Perpetuating by” doesn’t make any sense. We need it to be passive, not active
To summarize: “perpetuated” can be used as a modifier or as a verb, depending on context. When it’s used as a verb, it has an active connotation, but when it’s used as a modifier, it’s passive and should be done “by” some entity.
What is the problem with?
The article explained that there is evidence that the dolphins suffer in captivity, living only a average of 12 years, with some even committing suicide.
Two consecutive modifiers referring to the same antecedent and without a conjunction is considered awkward in GMAT. In option A “ living only an average of 12 years” and “with some even committing suicide” do not have a conjunction between them, and both refer to “dolphins” ( or the entire clause “the dolphins suffer in captivity”). Hence option A is incorrect.
(B) ample proof that dolphins living in captivity survive only an average
A: The school’s having added art courses has benefited its students.
or
B: The courses in art added by the school has benefited its students.
A: Correct. The possessive “school’s” links with the “having added”. A possessive noun is usually followed by another noun, and seeing “having” after “school’s” seems wrong, but the action of “having added” in this case functions like a noun.
B: Secondly, ‘has’ is singular while ‘students’ is plural
[Before independence in 1947, India had been ruled as a colony by Britain, which relinquished power] only after a long struggle by the native people.
or
Before independence in 1947, India had been a colony of the British, who relinquished power
2nd option is right
issue with the first option is that it provides a potential meaning where India isn’t even a colony, just that is was ruled as if it were a colony
The prime lending rate is a key rate in the economy: (tied to the prime are the interest rates not only on most loans to small and medium-sized businesses, but also on) a growing number of consumer loans, including home equity loans.
or
the interest rates are tied to the prime, not only on most loans to small and medium-sized businesses, but also
”:” verb –> can be correct
The colon is used to provide further explanation or to expand on something. The sentence before the colon must be able to stand alone.
parallelism error in the second: should be “but also on”
Ending a contentious political stalemate that (frightened global business leaders, the new Italian Prime Minister, Enrico Letta, has finally formed a rare coalition government that united liberals and conservatives—and included a record number of women and Italy’s first nonwhite ministers—to guide Italy, Europe’s) third-largest economy, out of stagnation.
(B) had frightened global business leaders, the new Italian Prime Minister, Enrico Letta, finally formed a rare coalition government uniting liberals and conservatives—and including a record number of women and Italy’s first nonwhite minister—to guide Italy, with Europe’s
(D) had frightened global business leaders, the new Italian Prime Minister, Enrico Letta, finally formed a rare coalition government that united liberals and conservatives—and including a record number of women and Italy’s first nonwhite minister—to guide Italy, which has Europe’s
1) Verbs: To figure out which verb to use, we need to look at the other verbs in the sentence. Notice that in all the answers “Enrico Letta… formed….”; this is a reference to a past event. The “stalemate that frightened global business leaders” occurred BEFORE Enrico Letta formed the coalition government. We now have 2 past events, so we need the verb phrase “had frightened.” Eliminate A, C and E.
2) Verbs Pt. 2: Between B and D, we can now look at the next verb “issue” in line: “uniting” vs. “united.” The sentence tells us that Enrico Letta has “finally” formed a coalition government, which describes a relatively recent event. We need to think about whether the united liberals and conservatives are STILL united or if they were united for just a short time (in the past) and now are NOT united. The prompt further mentions how the coalition is meant to guide Italy out of stagnation, so the coalition still exists (it wasn’t just in the past). We need the verb “uniting” to convey that idea. Eliminate D.
According to some analysts, the gains in the stock market reflect growing confidence [that the economy will avoid the recession that many had feared earlier in the year and instead come] in for a ‘soft landing’, followed by a gradual increase in the business activity.
Why is the past perfect correct here?
“According to some analysts” is equal to saying “Analysts said”. This is just implied in the sentence. This is the past tense event for the analysts.
Also “earlier this year” makes it clear that the analysts “feared” before they stated their opinion. So the usage of past perfect tense is correct here.
In the presence of words that establish time sequencing, such “earlier in the year”, use of past perfect tense is optional and not incorrect. You may or may not choose to use past perfect tense in the presence of such words.
While most of the earliest known ball courts in Mesoamerica date to 900–400 b.c. (the finding of waterlogged latex balls at El Manati attests) to the fact that the Mesoamerican ballgame was well established by the mid-thirteenth century b.c.
or
waterlogged latex balls found at El Manati attest
1st option: it means that the finding attests to the fact, intended meaning is the balls attest to the fact
2nd option correct
Government officials announced that (restrictions on the use of water would continue because no appreciative increase in the level of the river) resulted from the intermittent showers that had fallen throughout the area the day before.
or
(restrictions on the use of water would continue because no appreciable increase in the level of the river had)
2nd option is correct –> past tense is also correct because it is indirect speech and the two events are more or less at the same time (imagine how the Government officials said the sentence in present tense)
1st option is incorrect as appreciative means showing gratitude
Sixty-five million years ago, according to some scientists, an asteroid bigger than Mount Everest slammed into North America, (which, causing plant and animal extinctions, marks) the end of the geologic era known as the Cretaceous Period.
or
an event that caused the plant and animal extinctions that mark
1st option incorrect as which would modify North America
2nd option correct –> double that is ok
Because of the multiplier effect inherent in any unlimited-transaction economy, the spending of one dollar (typically generates several times the gross income in such an economy than) in a single- or limited-transaction economy.
or
in such an economy typically generates several times as much gross income as the spending of one dollar would
1st incorrect: incorrectly uses generates several times the gross income . . . than .
2nd is correct
(Michelangelo, it is believed, had made his sculpture of David using an eight-inch plaster model that was recently discovered after being] lost for nearly 300 years.
or
An eight-inch plaster model believed to have been used by Michelangelo for his sculpture of David has been discovered after having been
Second option is correct
First option is incorrect because when -ing form (here “using …”) is used without a comma after a noun, it modifies the noun. –> It seems that David was using the eight-inch plaster model.
If comma, it modifies the complete sentence. Present participle can be used at the end of the sentence to modify the entire previous clause with a comma.
While New York-born Tomlinson is widely recognized as the inventor of email, Mumbai-born Ayyadurai, who immigrated to the US with his family when he was only seven, (fought) an epic battle to be recognized as the primary inventor of email.
or
has been fighting
2nd option because the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that Ayyadurai began fighting to be recognized as the primary inventor of email and continues to do so; the sentence indicates that this battle has not concluded, as it mentions that Tomlinson is widely recognized as the inventor of email, meaning Ayyadurai is still not recognized as such.
According to scholars, the earliest writing was probably not a direct rendering of speech, but (was more likely to begin as) a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication, and only later merged with spoken language.
or
(more than likely began as)
or
(it was more likely that it began)
1st incorrect because it’s almost as if the earliest writing had some probabilistic quality or something, and there was a good chance that it would eventually begin “as a separate and distinct symbolic system.”
2nd correct
3rd incorrect because: full independent clause, then another full independent clause, then an “and” followed by a verb phrase (“merged with spoken language”). That’s not OK, partly because you can’t just separate two independent clauses with a comma (a comma splice, if you like jargon), and partly because the “and” is followed by a verb phrase – so the other parallel elements should also be verb phrases, not full clauses. + “as” is missing at the end + double “it” no clear referent
(Animals which were originally feral, such as dogs, horses, and sheep, have been domesticated) for the purpose of producing foods and goods, providing faster transportation, and serving as pets for amusement as early as the Stone Age.
(1) Animals which were originally feral, such as dogs, horses, and sheep, have been domesticated
(2) Animals which used to be feral , such as dogs, horses, and sheep, have been domesticated
(3) Dogs, horses, and sheep are examples of animals which were originally feral and have since been domesticated
(4) Dogs, horses, and sheep are examples of animals which were originally feral and had been domesticated
(5) Dogs, horses, and sheep are examples of animals which were originally feral and were domesticated
I’d rule out (A) and (B) because the subject of the sentence in those options is all animals which were originally feral, and dogs, horses, and sheep are simply being given as sort of “optional” examples, so these two options wrongly make a statement about all originally-feral animals.
C, D wrong tense since “as early as the Stone Age.” –> need simple past (the process of domestication was completed in the past)
(What is as remarkable as Shostakovich’s writing of a caustically satirical musical in the Soviet Union of the 1950’s) was the fact that then-Premier Nikita Khrushchev allowed the show to be produced.
or
No less remarkable than Shostakovich’s writing of a caustically satirical musical in the Soviet Union of the 1950’s
1st option is wrong: What is –> should be what was
2nd option is correct
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States (reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump) into the Great Lakes.
or
reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
what would be the difference in meaning if last option would say “were”
1st is inocorrect because it non-sensically implies that municipalities were allowed to dump a certain amount sometime in the past - (they are no longer allowed to dump now, since the action is already completed) and then the next event in the past happened - the agreement reduced this amount. It is not possible to reduce an amount for something that has already happened (had been allowed).
2nd correct, with “were” we would not know whether they are still allowed to dump
