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】//
扫描二维码，直接登录
it is hoped 表客观，ETS preferhopefully 表主观，GMAT中一般为错误选项