Sentence Correction

lunarpower wrote: ok, here's a better explanation of that.

if comma + AND is followed by a complete sentence ("independent clause"), then the clauses before and after AND should make sense as parallel statements.

e.g.
stephanie told me that her son was sick and she would need an extra day to finish the project.
--> this sentence makes sense, with "her son was sick" and "she would need an extra day..." in parallel.

stephanie told me that her son was sick, and she would need an extra day to finish the project.
--> this sentence doesn't make sense.
the comma construction implies that "stephanie told me that her son was sick" and "she would need an extra day to finish the project" are separate and parallel. that interpretation doesn't make sense; the sensible interpretation of the sentence is that stephanie told me both things, but, according to this parallelism (in which the two sentences are separate ideas), stephanie only told me thing #1.[/b]

Hello Ron, thanks for wonderful explanation as always. Also, I feel that the addition of another "that" would give a sensible interpretation.

Stephanie told me that her son was sick, and that she would need an extra day to finish the project.

Can you please advice.

gmat740 wrote:42) Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
(A) that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved
(B) that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving
(C) suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally evolving
(D) to suggest that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolving
(E) to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved

OA E

I'm just talking about E. Here, the correct sentence is:
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
This sentence works like------
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest
a) that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal (x)
and
b) that its trunk originally evolved (y)
So, the whole sentence looks like----
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest x and y. This sentence will also be fine if I say: Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest Mr. Robert and Mr. John.
This x and y should be equivalent to some activities (like tense or clause) to make the original sentence legitimate. We can't say that ''I have found evidence to suggest pen (x) and paper (y)''. We should write the activities of 'pen and paper'. So, the complete sentence will be something like below.
I have found evidence to suggest pen is used to write something on the answer script and paper is used for making answer script.

In the above sentence, there should have a conjunction like THAT to animate the part ''I have found evidence to suggest''. So, the correct sentence will be:
I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script and paper is used for making answer script.
In the above sentence, I suggested two things simultaneously. So, if I break down the whole sentence into several parts, then the sentence will be like following.
I have found evidence to suggest THAT
1) pen is used to write something on the answer script
and
2) paper is used for making answer script.
So, if I write the above sentence into separate parts, then it'll work perfectly. Here are the separate parts of the above sentence:
1/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script.
2/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT paper is used for making answer script.

Now, if I write the sentence like below, then it'll be...
I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script and THAT paper is used for making answer script.
If I breakdown this sentence, then it'll be...
I have found evidence to suggest THAT
a) pen is used to write something on the answer script
and
b) THAT paper is used for making answer script.
So, if I write the above sentence into separate parts, then it'll NOT work perfectly. Here are the separate parts of the above sentence:
1/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT pen is used to write something on the answer script.
--->OK
2/ I have found evidence to suggest THAT THAT paper is used for making answer script.
---->NOT OK
SAME thing is happened in the original sentence of Official Guide!
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
Now, if I break down this sentence into several parts it'll be....
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that
a) the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal
and
b) that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel
So, if I write the above sentence into separate parts, then it'll NOT work perfectly. Here are the separate parts of the above sentence:
1/ Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal.
----->OK
2/ Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
-----> NOT OK (doesn't make sense to me!)

Again,
if we break down the original sentence into several parts like below, then it'll be....
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest
a) that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal (X)
b) that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel (Y)
The whole sentence is something like below....
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest X and Y.
So, the above sentence is ''SENTENCE FRAGMENT''

It seems that I'm questioning the Official Sentence. I've some confusion in this problem. But, unfortunately, all the confusion is in the correct option, which is E. So, it'll be better for me if you eradicate my confusion.

iMyself wrote:Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

Now, if I break down this sentence into several parts it'll be....

Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that

a) the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal
and
b) that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel

So, if I write the above sentence into separate parts, then it'll NOT work perfectly. Here are the separate parts of the above sentence:

1/ Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal.
----->OK

2/ Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
-----> NOT OK (doesn't make sense to me!)

You made a wrong move. You put the first "that" with "suggest".

So you have "suggest that + x and y."

What you really have to do is work it the following way.

"suggest + that x and that y"

Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest

that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal

and

that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

If you were to break it into two sentences, you would get the following.

Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal.

Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.

Meanwhile, I find "evidence to suggest" itself to be flawed in E.

The expression "evidence to suggest" seems to convey that the evidence exists for the purpose of suggesting something.

Also, who or what is the agent of "suggest" is not clear. Is "evidence" the agent of "to suggest", or is the evidence a means by which the embryologists suggest something?

What would be better is "evidence suggesting", which clearly conveys that evidence that they found suggests something.

Marty Murray wrote:Meanwhile, I find "evidence to suggest" itself to be flawed in E.

The expression "evidence to suggest" seems to convey that the evidence exists for the purpose of suggesting something.

Also, who or what is the agent of "suggest" is not clear. Is "evidence" the agent of "to suggest", or is the evidence a means by which the embryologists suggest something?

What would be better is "evidence suggesting", which clearly conveys that evidence that they found suggests something.

YES brother, that's the point. The use of ''evidence to suggest'' is confusing in this sentence. If we replace the word '' to suggest'' with ''suggesting'', then the correct sentence will be:
Australian embryologists have found evidence suggesting that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
Here, the Australian embryologists' evidence suggest 2 things: Australian embryologists have found evidence suggesting X and Y.

Here is the Official Answer (E) again,
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
If we remove the word ''the'' from the original sentence, then it'll be subtle different in which the ''elephant'' is definite in the above sentence and in the following sentence (after removing 'the') it is NOT definite ''elephant''. But, there is NO big deal between these 2 sentences.
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest that elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
If we breakdown the above sentence into 2 parts, then it says:
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest
that elephant is descended from an aquatic animal (X)
and
that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel (Y).
The red part is something like the wrong choice (D) in the official guide 13th edition, question#10.
Here is the wrong sentence of this specific question:
The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the beginning of the universe to have been an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago.--->(NOT OK)
---> in this sentence, the big-bang theory has 2 hands that holds the universe. (HaHaHa)
The widely accepted big-bang theory holds that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago.--->(OK)
In the red part, Australian embryologists are suggesting the elephant! This sentence is totally ridiculous and nonsense to me.
The Official correct choice (E) is something like my following sentence:
Students have found evidence to suggest that instructor is totally different from other instructors (X) and that his GMAT score is awesome (Y).
---> In this above sentence, the students' evidence has NOT found 2 things. Actually, students are suggesting the instructor IN the above sentence!
If everything make sense what I've explained, then there is somewhat problem the the choice E.

Am I right brother?
Thank you for your nice help.

iMyself wrote:If we breakdown the above sentence into 2 parts, then it says:
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest
that elephant is descended from an aquatic animal (X)
and
that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel (Y).
In the red part, Australian embryologists are suggesting the elephant! This sentence is totally ridiculous and nonsense to me.
Am I right brother?
Thank you for your nice help.

What you are saying is not right.

You are ignoring the presence of "that" between "suggest" and "elephant".

Marty Murray wrote:

iMyself wrote:If we breakdown the above sentence into 2 parts, then it says:
Australian embryologists have found evidence to suggest
that elephant is descended from an aquatic animal (X)
and
that its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel (Y).
In the red part, Australian embryologists are suggesting the elephant! This sentence is totally ridiculous and nonsense to me.
Am I right brother?
Thank you for your nice help.

What you are saying is not right.

You are ignoring the presence of "that" between "suggest" and "elephant".

No brother. I'm not ignoring anything here. I'm taking the ''that'' as a 'determiner'.
Here is an example:
I'm suggesting THAT boy to do the job.
---> In the official sentence, the embryologists are suggesting THAT elephant to do blah blah blah...
In the official sentence, someone takes the sentence as comparison like THAT....THAT. But, I'm taking the sentence like The embryologists are suggesting THAT elephant (the elephant, which is owned by Mr. Robert)..... So, If I take this sentence above where is my fault?
Thank again brother...

iMyself wrote:

Marty Murray wrote:What you are saying is not right.

You are ignoring the presence of "that" between "suggest" and "elephant".

No brother. I'm not ignoring anything here. I'm taking the ''that'' as a 'determiner'.
Here is an example:
I'm suggesting THAT boy to do the job.
---> In the official sentence, the embryologists are suggesting THAT elephant to do blah blah blah...
In the official sentence, someone takes the sentence as comparison like THAT....THAT. But, I'm taking the sentence like The embryologists are suggesting THAT elephant (the elephant, which is owned by Mr. Robert)..... So, If I take this sentence above where is my fault?
Thank again brother...

Oh, I get it now.

There are multiple ways to use "suggest".

One is to create command sentences, as it is used in the following sentence.

He suggested that the elephant do X.

The other is to it as somewhat of a synonym of "indicate".

The evidence suggests that evolution progressed in this way.

is somewhat similar to

The evidence indicates that evolution progressed in this way.

So, the truth is that even though "to suggest" is not as good as "suggesting", the context indicates that even if the embryologists were doing the suggesting, they would not be suggesting that the elephant DO something.

They would be suggesting, an action similar to "indicating", that the elephant IS something.