OG Verbal 2016-SC# 63

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:05 am
Thanked: 1 times

OG Verbal 2016-SC# 63

by ngk4mba3236 » Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:00 pm
Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets, such as blenders and food processors, which are able to inflict as serious injuries as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.

(A) which are able to inflict as serious injuries as those
(B) which can inflict serious injuries such as those
(C) inflicting injuries as serious as that having been
(D) capable to inflict injuries as serious as that
(E) capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those

OA: E

hi experts,
I'm lost between choice [spoiler]a & e[/spoiler]. can you please share your analysis for this sc ?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:40 am
Thanked: 57 times
Followed by:2 members

by fabiocafarelli » Fri Apr 15, 2016 2:00 am
Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets, such as blenders and food processors, which are able to inflict as serious injuries as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.

(A) which are able to inflict as serious injuries as those
(B) which can inflict serious injuries such as those
(C) inflicting injuries as serious as that having been
(D) capable to inflict injuries as serious as that
(E) capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those

1. Option A says that the gadgets in kitchens are ABLE to perform a certain action. In Sentence Correction, the verb TO BE ABLE and the noun ABILITY are used to refer only to living organisms. This would allow you to eliminate option A.

2. Option A also uses the relative pronoun WHICH in apposition to BLENDERS AND FOOD PROCESSORS. It therefore refers to them. But these are merely EXAMPLES of the gadgets in question, and the intention of the sentence is to say that HIGH-SPEED ELECTRICAL GADGETS in general, and not merely the examples, can cause injuries. WHICH therefore confuses the meaning of the sentence.

3. In option A you also have the structure AS SERIOUS INJURIES AS. But something is AS SERIOUS AS or AS INTERESTING AS or AS OLD AS something else: in such comparisons of equality, the noun or pronoun that is the first term of the comparison (INJURIES, in this case) must precede the phrase AS + ADJECTIVE + AS, and the second term of the comparison (THOSE, in this case) must follow it. in other words, a construction that inserts the adjective into the middle of the comparison, as this one does, is incorrect.

4. Option E constructs the phrase correctly: INJURIES AS SERIOUS AS THOSE. It replaces ABLE with CAPABLE and uses the correct idiom: CAPABLE OF INFLICTING. And the absence of WHICH avoids the confusion created by that pronoun in option A.

If you like this post, please click on the THANK icon.

Try our online GMAT prep

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:52 pm
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by aflaam » Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:36 pm
CAN SOME ONE TELL ME WHY b IS WRONG?
I thought in can vs capable split, can is given preference.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:40 am
Thanked: 57 times
Followed by:2 members

by fabiocafarelli » Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:31 am
1. Option B is wrong because in the first place it changes the meaning of the given sentence: there, you have to observe that the intention is to make a comparison between the seriousness of injuries caused by kitchen gadgets and the seriousness of injuries caused by a particular machine. Nevertheless, in option B, the comparison disappears and instead you have an exemplification of certain kinds of injuries.

2. Option B, like option A, uses the relative pronoun WHICH in apposition to BLENDERS AND FOOD PROCESSORS. It therefore refers to them. But these are merely EXAMPLES of the gadgets in question, and the intention of the sentence is to say that HIGH-SPEED ELECTRICAL GADGETS in general, and not merely the examples, can cause injuries. WHICH therefore confuses the meaning of the sentence.

3. Note that there are no mistakes of a grammatical or idiomatic kind in option B. Its defects are all involved with the question of meaning.

If you like this post, please click on the THANK icon.

Try our online GMAT prep

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:05 am
Thanked: 1 times

by ngk4mba3236 » Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:14 pm
hi experts@gmat verbal,
could you please share your analysis for this SC (and also please shed light on my concerns mentioned in the first post) ?

p.s: gmatguru/david@veritas/rich/ceilidh - it'd great to hear your feedback on this guys! any other experts also feel free to share yours. thank you!

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:22 am
ngk4mba3236 wrote:Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets, such as blenders and food processors, which are able to inflict as serious injuries as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.

(A) which are able to inflict as serious injuries as those
(B) which can inflict serious injuries such as those
(C) inflicting injuries as serious as that having been
(D) capable to inflict injuries as serious as that
(E) capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those
On the GMAT, which + PLURAL VERB must serve to refer to the NEAREST PRECEDING PLURAL NOUN.
To my knowledge, no OA has deviated from this rule.
A: food processors, which are able to inflict
Here, which are (which + plural verb) seems to refer to food processors (the nearest preceding plural noun), implying that FOOD PROCESSORS are ABLE TO INFLICT injuries.
The intended meaning is that a specific subset of GADGETS can cause injuries, as in the OA:
Kitchens are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets capable of inflicting injuries.
Food processors are merely an EXAMPLE of this type of high-speed electrical gadget.
Eliminate A.

If the verb attributed to which can be singular or plural, the referent for which must be the NEAREST PRECEDING NOUN.
To my knowledge, no OA has deviated from this rule.
B: food processors, which can inflict
Here, can inflict could be singular or plural.
As a result, which can inflict seems to refer to food processors, implying that FOOD PROCESSORS CAN INFLICT injuries.
The intended meaning is that a specific subset of GADGETS can cause injuries, as in the OA:
Kitchens are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets capable of inflicting injuries.
Food processors are merely an EXAMPLE of this type of high-speed electrical gadget.
Eliminate B.

In C and D, that lacks a singular referent.
Eliminate C and D.

The correct answer is E.

Other errors in A:

On the GMAT, the words able and ability should not be ascribed to an inanimate object such as a food processor or a gadget.

A: to inflict as serious injuries
Here, the portion in red would be appropriate to convey that something is inflicted in the form of a serious injury, as follows:
During the fight, John was able to inflict as serious injuries three very large gashes.
Not the intended meaning.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:05 am
Thanked: 1 times

by ngk4mba3236 » Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:55 am
GMATGuruNY wrote: On the GMAT, the words able and ability should not be ascribed to an inanimate object such as a food processor or a gadget.
is there any deviation of this rule on GMAT ?
GMATGuruNY wrote: A: to inflict as serious injuries
Here, the portion in red would be appropriate to convey that something is inflicted in the form of a serious injury, as follows:
During the fight, John was able to inflict as serious injuries three very large gashes.
Not the intended meaning.
didn't get this explanation clearly...

intended meaning is: kitchen gadgets cause serious injuries as those (re injuries) caused by an industrial wood-planing machine -- that means,injuries caused by these kitchen gadgets and by industrial machine are similar in terms of seriousness.

so how this meaning is distorted by this particular phrase - inflict as serious injuries as those ?

curious to hear your thoughts!

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:33 am
ngk4mba3236 wrote:
GMATGuruNY wrote: On the GMAT, the words able and ability should not be ascribed to an inanimate object such as a food processor or a gadget.
is there any deviation of this rule on GMAT ?

To my knowledge, the GMAT has never deviated from this rule.
GMATGuruNY wrote: A: to inflict as serious injuries
Here, the portion in red would be appropriate to convey that something is inflicted in the form of a serious injury, as follows:
During the fight, John was able to inflict as serious injuries three very large gashes.
Not the intended meaning.
didn't get this explanation clearly...
When as + NOUN PHRASE immediately follows a VERB FORM, it generally serves as an ADVERB modifying the preceding verb form.

The girls want to work as free-lance writers.
Here, as free-lance writers is an adverb modifying to work (the immediately preceding verb form).
Question: HOW do the girls want to work?
Answer: as free-lance writers.

Two free tickets were offered as compensation.
Here, as compensation is an adverb modifying were offered (the immediately preceding verb).
Question: HOW were two free tickets offered?
Answer: as compensation.

Answer choice A implies the following:
Food processors are able to inflict as serious injuries.
Here, as serious injuries seems to be an ADVERB serving to modify to inflict (the immediately preceding verb form).
Question: HOW are food processors able to inflict?
Answer: as serious injuries.
This meaning is nonsensical, implying that the usage of as serious injuries is incorrect.

To convey the intended meaning, injuries must serve not as part of an adverb but as a DIRECT OBJECT, as in the OA:
gadgets capable of inflicting injuries.
Here, injuries serves not as part of an adverbial as-modifier but as the direct object of inflicting.
Question: WHAT are gadgets capable of inflicting?
Answer: They are capable of inflicting INJURIES.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:05 am
Thanked: 1 times

by ngk4mba3236 » Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:30 am
GMATGuruNY wrote: When as + NOUN PHRASE immediately follows a VERB FORM, it generally serves as an ADVERB modifying the preceding verb form.

Answer choice A implies the following:
Food processors are able to inflict as serious injuries.
Here, as serious injuries seems to be an ADVERB serving to modify to inflict (the immediately preceding verb form).
Question: HOW are food processors able to inflict?
Answer: as serious injuries.
This meaning is nonsensical, implying that the usage of as serious injuries is incorrect.
gmatguru,
can understand most of your earlier reply. just a quick clarification needed on the above quote:

if we consider option A along with the rest of the sentence, then the structure evolves - "food processors...are able to inflict as serious injuries as those caused by...machine". so here, although as + NOUN PHRASE immediately follows a VERB FORM, the portion after "as + NOUN PHRASE" contains as + PRONOUN as part of the comparison depicted in this sc.

so, not able to get how this complete structure -- VERB FORM + as + NOUN PHRASE + as + PRONOUN -- becomes incorrect! because in GMAT comparison , we get structure like as NOUN as NOUN/PRONOUN, I guess!

can you please clarify ?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:18 pm
ngk4mba3236 wrote:
GMATGuruNY wrote: When as + NOUN PHRASE immediately follows a VERB FORM, it generally serves as an ADVERB modifying the preceding verb form.

Answer choice A implies the following:
Food processors are able to inflict as serious injuries.
Here, as serious injuries seems to be an ADVERB serving to modify to inflict (the immediately preceding verb form).
Question: HOW are food processors able to inflict?
Answer: as serious injuries.
This meaning is nonsensical, implying that the usage of as serious injuries is incorrect.
gmatguru,
can understand most of your earlier reply. just a quick clarification needed on the above quote:

if we consider option A along with the rest of the sentence, then the structure evolves - "food processors...are able to inflict as serious injuries as those caused by...machine". so here, although as + NOUN PHRASE immediately follows a VERB FORM, the portion after "as + NOUN PHRASE" contains as + PRONOUN as part of the comparison depicted in this sc.

so, not able to get how this complete structure -- VERB FORM + as + NOUN PHRASE + as + PRONOUN -- becomes incorrect! because in GMAT comparison , we get structure like as NOUN as NOUN/PRONOUN, I guess!

can you please clarify ?
as + NOUN + as + NOUN/PRONOUN is not a viable structure.
The correct structure is as + MODIFIER + as + NOUN/PRONOUN.
Examples:
Highway 5 is as LONG as HIGHWAY 10.
Mary exercises as FREQUENTLY as STEVE.
Cars as POPULAR as THOSE produced last year
.

A: as serious injuries as those
This structure is unidiomatic, since the first as may NOT be followed by a noun.
The proper structure -- as + MODIFIER + as + NOUN/PRONOUN -- is given in the OA:
injuries as SERIOUS as THOSE caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Legendary Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:39 am
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:5 members

by Mo2men » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:41 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
ngk4mba3236 wrote:Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets, such as blenders and food processors, which are able to inflict as serious injuries as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.

(A) which are able to inflict as serious injuries as those
(B) which can inflict serious injuries such as those
(C) inflicting injuries as serious as that having been
(D) capable to inflict injuries as serious as that
(E) capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those
On the GMAT, which + PLURAL VERB must serve to refer to the NEAREST PRECEDING PLURAL NOUN.
To my knowledge, no OA has deviated from this rule.
A: food processors, which are able to inflict
Here, which are (which + plural verb) seems to refer to food processors (the nearest preceding plural noun), implying that FOOD PROCESSORS are ABLE TO INFLICT injuries.
The intended meaning is that a specific subset of GADGETS can cause injuries, as in the OA:
Kitchens are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets capable of inflicting injuries.
Food processors are merely an EXAMPLE of this type of high-speed electrical gadget.
Eliminate A.

If the verb attributed to which can be singular or plural, the referent for which must be the NEAREST PRECEDING NOUN.
To my knowledge, no OA has deviated from this rule.
B: food processors, which can inflict
Here, can inflict could be singular or plural.
As a result, which can inflict seems to refer to food processors, implying that FOOD PROCESSORS CAN INFLICT injuries.
The intended meaning is that a specific subset of GADGETS can cause injuries, as in the OA:
Kitchens are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets capable of inflicting injuries.
Food processors are merely an EXAMPLE of this type of high-speed electrical gadget.
Eliminate B.

In C and D, that lacks a singular referent.
Eliminate C and D.

The correct answer is E.

Other errors in A:

On the GMAT, the words able and ability should not be ascribed to an inanimate object such as a food processor or a gadget.

A: to inflict as serious injuries
Here, the portion in red would be appropriate to convey that something is inflicted in the form of a serious injury, as follows:
During the fight, John was able to inflict as serious injuries three very large gashes.
Not the intended meaning.
Hi Mitch,

In OA E, 'capable of ......' is modifier stars with adjective.

comma + adjective modifies the nearest noun or noun phrase. So it may also modify 'food processors' not gadgets, the same as choice A & B? Why is Choice E considered right in this case?

Is there any deviation from the rule.

Do I miss something here?

Thanks

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:17 pm
Mo2men wrote:Hi Mitch,

In OA E, 'capable of ......' is modifier stars with adjective.

comma + adjective modifies the nearest noun or noun phrase. So it may also modify 'food processors' not gadgets, the same as choice A & B? Why is Choice E considered right in this case?

Is there any deviation from the rule.

Do I miss something here?

Thanks
COMMA + ADJECTIVE serves to modify the nearest preceding noun when the purpose of the comma is to indicate that the adjective is a nonessential modifier.
The Mochica developed their own elaborate society, based upon the cultivation of such crops as corn and beans.
Here, the purpose of the comma before based (adjective) is to indicate that this adjective is a nonessential modifier.
As a result, COMMA + based serves to modify society (the nearest preceding noun).

OA: Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets, such as blenders and food processors, capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.
Here, the purpose of the comma before capable is NOT to indicate that this adjective is a nonessential modifier.
Rather, this comma serves -- in conjunction with the comma before such -- to indicate that the PORTION IN RED is a nonessential modifier.
Since a nonessential modifier is just that -- NONESSENTIAL -- we can remove it without altering the core meaning of the sentence.
If we remove this nonessential modifier, we get:
Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.
In the resulting sentence, capable clearly serves to modify gadgets.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:05 am
Thanked: 1 times

by ngk4mba3236 » Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:50 am
GMATGuruNY wrote: On the GMAT, the words able and ability should not be ascribed to an inanimate object such as a food processor or a gadget.
gmatguru,
is it always followed on GMAT ? I mean, do we see any deviation of this rule on GMAT ?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:16 am
ngk4mba3236 wrote:
GMATGuruNY wrote: On the GMAT, the words able and ability should not be ascribed to an inanimate object such as a food processor or a gadget.
gmatguru,
is it always followed on GMAT ? I mean, do we see any deviation of this rule on GMAT ?
To my knowledge, no OA from GMAC has ascribed able or ability to an inanimate object.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Legendary Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:39 am
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:5 members

by Mo2men » Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:35 pm
GMATGuruNY wrote:
Mo2men wrote:Hi Mitch,

In OA E, 'capable of ......' is modifier stars with adjective.

comma + adjective modifies the nearest noun or noun phrase. So it may also modify 'food processors' not gadgets, the same as choice A & B? Why is Choice E considered right in this case?

Is there any deviation from the rule.

Do I miss something here?

Thanks
COMMA + ADJECTIVE serves to modify the nearest preceding noun when the purpose of the comma is to indicate that the adjective is a nonessential modifier.
The Mochica developed their own elaborate society, based upon the cultivation of such crops as corn and beans.
Here, the purpose of the comma before based (adjective) is to indicate that this adjective is a nonessential modifier.
As a result, COMMA + based serves to modify society (the nearest preceding noun).

OA: Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets, such as blenders and food processors, capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.
Here, the purpose of the comma before capable is NOT to indicate that this adjective is a nonessential modifier.
Rather, this comma serves -- in conjunction with the comma before such -- to indicate that the PORTION IN RED is a nonessential modifier.
Since a nonessential modifier is just that -- NONESSENTIAL -- we can remove it without altering the core meaning of the sentence.
If we remove this nonessential modifier, we get:
Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.
In the resulting sentence, capable clearly serves to modify gadgets.
Dear Mitch,

Based on you great explanation above, I have some couple of questions about adjective modifier.

Question 1:
Can 2 adjective modifiers comes in successive and relate to same NOUN?

Example:

New Your, known for its culinary, famous for its diversity, is the preferred touristic destination in 2019.

can 'famous for' be confusing as it might relate to 'culinary' , while I mean to say that NY is diverse?

Is it better to connect both adjective modifiers with 'and' as follows? Both are parallel construction.

New Your, known for its culinary and famous for its diversity, is the preferred touristic destination in 2019.

Question 2:

Can an adjective modifiers comes after an Appositive modifier and relate to same NOUN?

New Your, an iconic city in North America , famous for its diversity, is the preferred touristic destination in 2019.

Can 'famous for' be confusing as it might relate to 'North America' , while I mean to say that NY is diverse? I can argue it is not confusing because appositive modifier 'an iconic city......' explains more about New York . Then, there is modifier 'famous for .......'. that it's clear because we have noun and then appositive phrase that must be modifying the original noun New York. So it is viable construction, Am I right in my analysis?

Thanks in advance