the OA is B which takes the noun of clause ...
persuading people to eat .... restored market equilibrium.
....
while in D option
persuasion of people is the noun ...
i m confused whether the eating habit is the reason for restoration of market or the persuasion to eat cereal restored market...
help me in this dilemma
One pervasive theory explains the introduction of breakfast cereals in the early 1900s as a result of the growing number of automobiles, which led to a decline in horse ownership and a subsequent grain glut; by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored.
(A) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored
(B) persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(C) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, it restored market equilibrium
(D) the persuasion of people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(E) market equilibrium was restored when people were persuaded to eat former horse feed
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
help horse feeding problem
This topic has expert replies
-
thetrystero
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:57 pm
- Thanked: 3 times
for the benefit of other forum users, please use spoiler tags for the OA, and try to put your answers after the question.nitin360 wrote:the OA is B which takes the noun of clause ...
persuading people to eat .... restored market equilibrium.
....
while in D option
persuasion of people is the noun ...
i m confused whether the eating habit is the reason for restoration of market or the persuasion to eat cereal restored market...
help me in this dilemma
One pervasive theory explains the introduction of breakfast cereals in the early 1900s as a result of the growing number of automobiles, which led to a decline in horse ownership and a subsequent grain glut; by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored.
(A) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored
(B) persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(C) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, it restored market equilibrium
(D) the persuasion of people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(E) market equilibrium was restored when people were persuaded to eat former horse feed
-
thetrystero
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:57 pm
- Thanked: 3 times
Persuading people to eat cereal was what restored market equilibrium.nitin360 wrote: while in D option
persuasion of people is the noun ...
i m confused whether the eating habit is the reason for restoration of market or the persuasion to eat cereal restored market...
help me in this dilemma
One pervasive theory explains the introduction of breakfast cereals in the early 1900s as a result of the growing number of automobiles, which led to a decline in horse ownership and a subsequent grain glut; by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored.
(A) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored
(B) persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(C) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, it restored market equilibrium
(D) the persuasion of people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(E) market equilibrium was restored when people were persuaded to eat former horse feed
C: "it" is ambiguous.
D: passive voice sounds awkward here. I'm sure there's a formal explanation. Anyone?
E: gives the sense that equilibrium was restored immediately after persuasion. Rather, it probably took some time for people to consume all that grain for market to reach equilibrium.
Between A&B, the latter is more economical.
-
uptowngirl92
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:08 pm
- Location: Kolkata,India
- Thanked: 7 times
- GMAT Score:670
So the use of a semi-colon indicates that the later part of the sentence should stand independently.Eliminate A,C.
D>> persuasion of people ..Akward.Eliminate.
Left with B and E.
What is the reason for the elimination of E?Can it be said that its a passive construction?
D>> persuasion of people ..Akward.Eliminate.
Left with B and E.
What is the reason for the elimination of E?Can it be said that its a passive construction?
-
gmatpill
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:44 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:9 members
For purposes of answering this question in as little time as possible, you can just disregard anything to the left of the semicolon. The sentence after the semicolon should read like a "complete" sentence.One pervasive theory explains the introduction of breakfast cereals in the early 1900s as a result of the growing number of automobiles, which led to a decline in horse ownership and a subsequent grain glut; by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored.
(A) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored
(B) persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(C) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, it restored market equilibrium
(D) the persuasion of people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(E) market equilibrium was restored when people were persuaded to eat former horse feed
"By persuading [X], market equilibrium blah blah"
Ask yourself: Is "market equilibrium" persuading [X]?
NO! Market equilibriums do not persuade! It does not make sense! The word "by" needs to be eliminated.
So the answer is not (A).
What about (B)?
(B) is in the form of:
"persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium"
In other words,
"[This action] restored market equilibrium."
This makes sense! Looks like the answer is (B). But let's quickly glance at the other ones to make sure...
In (C), we don't know what "it" is referring to.
In (D), "the persuasion of people" is passive voice--not good when there is already another answer choice that is good (B).
In (E), there's TWO examples of passive voice:
1) market equilibrium was restored
2) people were persuaded.
Again, this is no good when there is already another answer choice that does not have this issue and has no mistake.
Therefore, the answer is (B).
-
disputedbug
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:24 am
- Location: Bangalore
-
Vipulvp
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:52 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- GMAT Score:760
What is "which" doing in the non-underlined part? Is it an OG question??nitin360 wrote:the OA is B which takes the noun of clause ...
persuading people to eat .... restored market equilibrium.
....
while in D option
persuasion of people is the noun ...
i m confused whether the eating habit is the reason for restoration of market or the persuasion to eat cereal restored market...
help me in this dilemma
One pervasive theory explains the introduction of breakfast cereals in the early 1900s as a result of the growing number of automobiles, which led to a decline in horse ownership and a subsequent grain glut; by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored.
(A) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, market equilibrium was restored
(B) persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(C) by persuading people to eat what had previously been horse feed, it restored market equilibrium
(D) the persuasion of people to eat what had previously been horse feed restored market equilibrium
(E) market equilibrium was restored when people were persuaded to eat former horse feed
-
Optimus Prime
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:47 pm
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
this is a really ugly question.
what is the SOURCE of this question? i.e., what is the original source (not another forum) from which this question was taken?
(b) is indicated as the correct answer, but it's definitely problematic -- you can't just use the gerund "persuading", in this sort of construction, without a subject.
for instance, you could say "persuading merchants to lower their prices gives John a feeling of accomplishment" -- in which we specify that John is the one doing the persuading -- but you can't just leave it headless, as is done in choice (b).
there are two ways in which you can write this sort of thing without the subject:
(1) you could write "the persuading of..."
--> this is one way to introduce gerunds without their subjects.
for instance, if you starting a sentence with Killing gang members is..., then you would have to include the subject/agent (whoever does the killing), BUT, if you started the sentence with The killing of gang members is..., then you would not have to include such an agent.
similarly,
persuading merchants to lower their prices is a standard component of shopping in colombia --> incorrect (in this construction you'd have to say who is doing the persuading)
the persuading of merchants to lower their prices is a standard component of shopping in colombia --> correct, though more than a bit awkward.
the problem with option (1) in the case above is that it would be horribly awkward.
(2) you could use the passive voice.
choice (e) does this.
in fact, choice (e) is perfect, if you just make one change -- take out "former horse feed" and replace it with "what had previously been horse feed", as in the other four choices.
(the current phrasing "former horse feed" suggests that people are eating food that was actually eaten by horses previously -- i.e., eating horse excrement.)
--
in any case, none of the choices to this problem is totally correct.
the only one of the five that is GRAMMATICALLY correct is (e), not (b).
someone should cite the source of this question, so that we can red-list it.
terrible question.
what is the SOURCE of this question? i.e., what is the original source (not another forum) from which this question was taken?
(b) is indicated as the correct answer, but it's definitely problematic -- you can't just use the gerund "persuading", in this sort of construction, without a subject.
for instance, you could say "persuading merchants to lower their prices gives John a feeling of accomplishment" -- in which we specify that John is the one doing the persuading -- but you can't just leave it headless, as is done in choice (b).
there are two ways in which you can write this sort of thing without the subject:
(1) you could write "the persuading of..."
--> this is one way to introduce gerunds without their subjects.
for instance, if you starting a sentence with Killing gang members is..., then you would have to include the subject/agent (whoever does the killing), BUT, if you started the sentence with The killing of gang members is..., then you would not have to include such an agent.
similarly,
persuading merchants to lower their prices is a standard component of shopping in colombia --> incorrect (in this construction you'd have to say who is doing the persuading)
the persuading of merchants to lower their prices is a standard component of shopping in colombia --> correct, though more than a bit awkward.
the problem with option (1) in the case above is that it would be horribly awkward.
(2) you could use the passive voice.
choice (e) does this.
in fact, choice (e) is perfect, if you just make one change -- take out "former horse feed" and replace it with "what had previously been horse feed", as in the other four choices.
(the current phrasing "former horse feed" suggests that people are eating food that was actually eaten by horses previously -- i.e., eating horse excrement.)
--
in any case, none of the choices to this problem is totally correct.
the only one of the five that is GRAMMATICALLY correct is (e), not (b).
someone should cite the source of this question, so that we can red-list it.
terrible question.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
-
ansh.kumar
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:20 am
- Thanked: 2 times
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
(d) doesn't use "persuasion" correctly.ansh.kumar wrote:thanks RON,
WATS IS THE PROBLEM IN "D"
if you're trying to say that people have been persuaded to do X (as is the case here), then "persuasion" isn't correct usage. (in this context, "persuasion" has a meaning that is closer to "proclivity" or "tendency".)
before worrying about this type of thing, though, you should ascertain the SOURCE of this question. this is already an awful problem, so i wouldn't really worry too much about this sort of usage issue.
if there is an official precedent for it, though, that would be another matter entirely.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
