the pronoun “it” actually refers to “the amount of energy used by visible equipment” because this is the only kind of energy the sentence has mentioned so far.
C：The connector “comma + and” changes the structure and the logic of the sentence, as we saw in Choice C.
The subject “the timber frame” has two verbs — incorporates and is — but these verbs are not connected by any conjunction.
that was used has four times the tensile strength steel does, and the timber frame incorporates
Option D is a popular incorrect choice. However, if we look closely, we can see this option repeats the same error we see in option A. Choice D still illogically associates the “digging” as being “almost an epic” and not “the family legend.” So, D should leave the same bad taste in your mouth as option A does.
The phrase “so as to” means “in order to.” Now, the sentence says that land graders can flatten uneven farmlands “so as not to” = in order not to waste rainwater. So, the sentence suggests that the previous models of land graders used to waste rainwater. But this advanced model can flatten uneven land not to waste water. This meaning is illogical because land graders do not waste water any which way. Land graders have got nothing to do with rainwaters. This sentence presents an illogical meaning and hence is incorrect.
“including” messes up the meaning: Reading this sentence very carefully until the end makes it clear that the use of “including” makes the sentence illogical. Once you understand this point, you can get rid of THREE answer choices straight away without analyzing them. Imagine how much time you will save if you spend some time diligently on the original sentence.
“a possible workshop” is a hoax: I mean, think about it. There can be “a ballet workshop,” “an acting workshop.” How can there be a “possible” workshop? Is “possible” a kind of workshop? It makes no sense. The sentence speaks of a site that was possibly a workshop.
The malicious modifier: The comma + verb-ing action modifier “overlooking the possibility…” logically modifies the preceding action “is to rebuild” by presenting the result of this action. However, this modifier fails to logically connect with the subject of the modified action, “A natural response.” It does not make much sense to say that a response overlooks something. It makes more sense to say devasted communities overlook the possibility. But this connection is not possible in this sentence.
The problematic pronoun: The sentence uses the singular pronoun “it” but has no antecedent for it. Did you ask why it cannot refer to “earthquake” or “flood“? It cannot because the sentence does not talk about communities affected by an earthquake or a flood. The sentence talks about communities that get ruined by any natural calamity.
The minced-up meaning: The last part of the sentence says, “… the forces… could be repeated.” This meaning is totally illogical. It is clear from the context of the sentence that natural calamities such as earthquakes or floods can reoccur at the same site.
The ridiculous redundancy: The sentence uses “possibility” and “could” to talk about the same event. The usage of both words together makes the sentence redundant.
(2) CD = 1 and DE = 4 --> CD+DE=CE=R=5CD+DE=CE=R=5. Next, AD+DE=AE=DIAMETER=2R=10AD+DE=AE=DIAMETER=2R=10, and since AD=2rAD=2r, then 2r+DE=102r+DE=10 --> 2r+4=102r+4=10 --> r=3r=3. Sufficient.
In no other historical sighting did Halley's comet cause such a worldwide sensation as in its return of 1910–1911
Halley's comet cause such //a worldwide sensation 【in no other historical sighting】 as 【in its return of 1910–1911】//
D：We can have “neither/nor” or “not/or,” but we can’t have “neither/or.”
In addition, the plural is off here: “parents’ divorces.” "Divorces" sounds like the parents had multiple divorces. While it might be the case that their parents had multiple divorces, it is unlikely, especially since the statement discusses a single divorce earlier on in the sentence: “ten years after the parents' divorce.”
(D) is out.
E：In general, any time you find yourself wondering whether a certain construction is allowed, you don't want to use it as a decision point. It's very easy to get lost deliberating over rules that don't actually exist.
In this case, "reasons that their parents divorced," isn't the world's most elegant phrase, but I'm not sure that it's WRONG, exactly. There's no concrete grammatical error. The notion isn't illogical. So I'm not getting rid of an answer choice on this basis alone. (Notice that there's no need for a preposition here. And while there are certainly hard-core grammar teachers who will insist that you can't end a sentence with a preposition, there's no consensus on this, so if I encountered this construction, I'd avoid using it as a reason to kill an answer choice.)
So instead, let's search for a more concrete error in (E). Take another look:
"...neither preoccupied with the reasons that their parents divorced nor even very curious about it"
What does "it" refer to here? The only logical referent is "the reasons," but "it" has to refer to a singular noun, so this is a definitive error. Now I'm perfectly happy giving (E) the boot.
The takeaway: Anytime you're unsure about a rule, accept the possibility that there might be no rule, and look for either concrete grammatical errors or problems with logic and meaning.
Let’s now break up the sentence as we did in (A) and (B):
1) “preoccupied WITH the reasons.” - This works.
2) “curious WITH the reasons.” - Nope, we don’t have the right idiom here. The idiom is “curious ABOUT.”
In addition, there seems to be an issue with commas in this option:
The commas after "preoccupied" and after "curious" seem to act as parentheses--they are there to indicate extra, nonessential information.
But watch what happens if we get rid of the comma-separated part in (C): "children were neither preoccupied with the reasons that led to their parents divorce." This sentence now doesn't make sense on it's own.
In (B), however, if we get rid of the comma-separated part, we have: "...children were not preoccupied with the reasons...", which is totally fine. This is another vote in favor of (B) over (C).
Also (and this might just be a typo), there should be an apostrophe after parents to indicate possession: “parents’ divorce.”
(B) is still the best option, so let's get rid of (C).
A：The first issue with (A) is idiomatic: we have "not...nor" instead of "neither...nor." But it's best to be conservative when it comes to idioms, so let's chalk this up as a strike against (A) and move on.
Next, we have two descriptors for the children, so let’s see if the sentence works for each one individually:
1) children {...} were not preoccupied ABOUT the reasons {...}
2) [children] {...} were not even very curious ABOUT the reasons {...}
You can be curious ABOUT something, so the second bit works here. But you can only be preoccupied WITH something, not preoccupied ABOUT something. So we have another idiomatic issue and our second strike against (A).
The final issue (which does not involve idioms) is that the second part of the sentence is a bit redundant—we don’t need to say that they were reasons "that led to" their divorce because that’s what reasons do... something like “reasons for their divorce” would suffice. That gives us our third strike against (A).
If you aren't sure about the idioms, you'll have a tough time eliminating (A) right away. But with three votes against it, (A) isn't looking good.
(D) Much of the hope for continued improvement of the economy lies in consumer spending that is projected to increase this year.
This is INCORRECT because while it's close to the intended meaning, it's still not quite there. This sentence is saying that people are putting their hope in ONLY the part of consumer spending that increases - not ALL consumer spending increasing. Since that's not really what we're going for, let's rule this out.
(E) Much of the hope for continued improvement of the economy lies in increase in consumer spending that is projected for this year.
This is CORRECT! It's clear that people are putting their hope in an all-around increase in consumer spending, which we know from the rest of the sentence is likely to happen this year.
There's a difference in meaning between "may not" and "might not." Consider two examples:
1) Tim's daughter may not go to the dance with the boy sporting the tattoo of Barry Manilow on his face.
Here, "may not" means "does not have permission." So, Tim's daughter has been forbidden to go to the dance with a weirdo, and Tim can rest easy.
2) Tim's daughter might not go to the dance with the boy sporting the tattoo of Barry Manilow on his face.
Now, "might not" means there's a possibility that something won't happen. So there's still a real chance that Tim's daughter will be attending the dance with a shady character.
For our GMAT example, it makes sense to write that there's a possibility that behavior and thought processes won't emerge; it doesn't really make sense to write that the behavior and thought processes have been forbidden to emerge. So "might not" is the more logical option.
that might not emerge in other procedures or in weeksof ordinary interviews
ll sentence “unlikely to emerge in X or in Y” is parallel and idiomatic
(C) The overall slackening of growth in productivity is influenced... by the coming to an end of a period.
(E) The overall slackening of growth in productivity is influenced... by the end of a period.
When we use "end of [something]", we are usually referring to a specific time or place. For example,
We reached the end of the trail.
Please submit your expense report by the end of the workday.
The end of the Permian Period coincides with the end of the Paleozoic era.
On the other hand, the "coming to an end of [something]" refers, not to the end itself, but to the approach of the end.
Choice (E) refers to the actual end of the period. Choice (C) refers to the approach of the of the period. So which makes more sense?
For one thing, the verb "is influenced" suggests that the "influencing" is an ongoing action that is happening right now. The end of a period is a specific point in time. It doesn't make as much sense to say that the end itself IS influencing the slackening.
On the other hand, the "coming to an end of a period" is an ongoing action. It makes perfect sense to say that the approach of the end IS influencing the slackening.
(C) is a bit better meaning-wise as well. It's not the end itself but the approach of the end that influences the slackening.
Also, to say that growth is "rapid" is a fairly vague and subjective description. Who's to say when exactly the "rapid" growth ends? When do we go from "rapid" growth to "kinda fast" growth to "slow growth" to "no growth", etc.? If we go with choice (E), we are referring to the specific end of something that is, by nature, not so easily defined.
Choice (C) is more flexible. When exactly will that period end? Has it already ended?? It doesn't matter. The growth is slowing, and the period of rapid growth is coming to an end.
Because (C) is clearer and more logical, it's our winner.
扫描二维码，直接登录
A和D比较
定语从句weather conditions that cannot be foreseen（主谓宾--事实--没有被预见到的天气情况）被改成weather conditions that are not foreseeable（主系表--特征--不具备可预见性的天气）【×】
the book is not touchable. 描述书的一种特征：不可触摸
the book is not touched. 描述书的一个事实：没有被触摸过，但≠不可触摸