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.
Everything from THAT to WORKERS is modifying the noun INDUSTRIES. So what do we have? Industries THAT x and THAT y. What are our x and y?
x = ARE clean and fast-growing
y = PAY good wages
Since clean and fast-growing are adjectives, while pay is a verb, we need a way to provide all of these traits without trying to make them parallel items in one list. So we have the verb ARE to introduce the adjectives, and the verb PAY to make the last point.
A and E: shaped SMOOTHLY
smoothly means performed WITHOUT DIFFICULTY.
Thus, shaped smoothly means shaped WITHOUT DIFFICULTY, implying that the process of shaping the wings is easy.
Not the intended meaning.
The intended meaning is not that the shaping PROCESS is smooth but that the WINGS themselves are SMOOTH.
Eliminate A and E.
C: are shaped so smooth and perfect
Here, smooth and perfect (two adjectives) seem to modify are shaped (a verb).
An adjective cannot modify a verb.
An adjective must serve to modify a NOUN.
Eliminate C.
D: shaped in such a smooth and perfect manner
Like A and E, this option implies that the MANNER of shaping the wings is EASY.
Not the intended meaning.
The intended meaning is not that the shaping MANNER is smooth but that the WINGS themselves are SMOOTH.
Eliminate D.
OA: Since the 1930's aircraft manufacturers have tried to build airplanes with frictionless wings, wings so smooth and so perfectly shaped that the air passing over them would not become turbulent.
The portion in green is an example of a RESUMPTIVE MODIFIER.
A resumptive modifier:
-- repeats a key word in the sentence
-- conveys additional information about that key word
-- often includes a that-clause
-- usually appears at the end of a sentence
In the OA, the resumptive modifier makes it clear that so smooth and so perfectly shaped refers only to the WINGS, not to the entire airplane.
(B) Incorrect. “Try and recover” is incorrect. The point is to try to recover; “try” and “recover” are not two different actions.
(C) Incorrect. For the following reasons:
“Recover x out of y” is incorrect. The correct idiom is “recover x from y”.
With this option, “this process” of the non-underlined part will refer to “trying to recover uranium”. Logically, “this process” should refer to “recover uranium”.
(D) Incorrect. For the following reasons:
The first error of option C
“To try to recover uranium” is much better than “to try for the recovery of uranium”, just as “to try to reduce weight” is much better than “to try for the reduction in the weight”. The first construction emphasizes the action that is being tried.
(E) Incorrect. “To do” is incorrect. If we replace ‘do’ with ‘recover’, the redundancy is evident. “Recovering …. to try someday” would work.
As with many complicated SC problems, the first thing you have to figure out is WHAT THE SENTENCE IS TRYING TO SAY. In many cases this is straightforward, but not here. The process:
(1) "2000 years as old as" is nonsense. If you don't see why, try applying it to a statement about other ages: "I am about 4 years as old as my brother." Huh?
This is good enough to eliminate all of A, C, E.
The only reasonable interpretation is that the monuments in Brittany are 2000 years OLDER than the other ones. There's no other way in which this sentence could legitimately make sense.
(2) To break the deadlock between B and D, we need to use the MEANING of the sentence. Here's the meaning of each choice.
Choice B ('supposed Mediterranean predecessors') --> There's no doubt that the other monuments are Mediterranean, but what was supposed (and now disproved by the new evidence) is that they were the predecessors of the ones in Brittany.
Choice D ('supposedly Mediterranean predecessors') --> There's no doubt that the other monuments are the predecessors of the ones in Brittany, but what was supposed (and now disproved by the new evidence) is that they were Mediterranean.
B makes sense; D doesn't. If you don't immediately see why, consider that the decisive evidence was carbon-14 dating (which is used to tell how old things are, not where they're from).
The sentence says that the marketing of toys was once prohibited. Logically, it makes much more sense to say that such programs that are now thriving were once prohibited. Thus, it should have been “which were once prohibited” in place of “which was once prohibited”.
Prohibiting a practice (developing programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys) makes more sense than prohibiting the final product (programs developed in conjunction with the marketing of toys)
(A) Incorrect. For the reasons mentioned above.
(B) Incorrect. For the following reasons:
The plural subject “programs” doesn’t agree with the singular verb “is thriving”.
The Noun+Noun modifier “a practice…” modifies “the marketing of toys”, leading to the same error as the first error in the original sentence.
(C) Incorrect. For the following reasons:
The use of “as” is incorrect. The correct construction would be “once prohibited by federal regulations”.
The option says that developing television programs is thriving. Either we should say that television programs are thriving or we should say that the practice of developing television programs is thriving.
(D) Incorrect. “they”, being the subject of a clause, refers to the subject of the preceding clause i.e. “regulations” in this case. Thus, the option means that the regulations are thriving. Clearly, an illogical meaning.
(E) Correct.
——句意——
1）比较错误
B：November is traditionally the strongest month for sales of light trucks, but even when 【it(代指November)】 is compared with 【previous Novembers】, this past November's sales 11月和11月比较❌ 应该是11月销量与11月销量比较
C：November is traditionally the strongest month for sales of light trucks, but even when 【they(代指sales or trucks)】 are compared with 【previous Novembers】, sales of light trucks this past November 销量 or 卡车 与11月比较❌
——句意——
1）平行错误
A：Construction of the Roman Colosseum, which was officially known as the Flavian Amphitheater, 【began】 in A.D. 69, during the reign of Vespasian, 【was completed】 a decade later, during the reign of Titus, who opened the Colosseum with a one-hundred-day cycle of religious pageants, gladiatorial games, and spectacles.❌
C：Construction of the Roman Colosseum, which was officially known as the Flavian Amphitheater, 【began in A.D. 69】, during the reign of Vespasian, and 【was completed a decade later】, during the reign of Titus, who opened the Colosseum with a one-hundred-day cycle of religious pageants, gladiatorial games, and spectacles. 【始建】【竣工】两者平行✔
2）缺少谓语
B、D：Construction of the Roman Colosseum, 【officially known as the Flavian Amphitheater, begun in A.D. 69, during the reign of Vespasian】, and❌
——语法——
1）主谓不一致
C、D：【Yellow jackets】 number among the 900 or so species of the world's social wasps, which 【means❌】
——句意——
1）指代错误
A：Yellow jackets number among the 900 or so species of the world's social wasps, wasps living in a highly cooperative and organized society where 【they❌】 consist almost entirely of females—the queen and her sterile female workers.
2）并列错误
D：【Yellow jackets number among the 900 or so species of the world's social wasps】, which means that their society is highly cooperative, organized, and 【it is almost entirely females—the queen and her sterile female workers.】❌ 两者并列句意有误
E：【Yellow jackets number among the 900 or so species of the world's social wasps】, living in a society that is highly cooperative, organized, and 【it consists of almost all females—the queen and her sterile female workers.】❌ 两者并列句意有误
扫描二维码，直接登录
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.