camitava wrote:dextar wrote:17. A patient accusing a doctor of malpractice will find it difficult to prove damage if there is a lack of some other doctor to testify about proper medical procedures.
(A) if there is a lack of some other doctor to testify
(B) unless there will be another doctor to testify
(C) without another doctor’s testimony
(D) should there be no testimony from some other doctor
(E) lacking another doctor to testify
Here is there any problem with the senternce formation of option D?
Dextar, in GMAT, they generally look for a simple and the best solution. If u think in that way, option - C suits the best. Now with D, is it not too much wordy and I think, this is also changing the meaning of the sentence. Above all, it is not making any sense at all! Am I clear to u, Dextar?
you are correct about which choices are right and wrong.
however, the issue between choices c and d is one of pure wordiness. c is concise and clear, whereas d is extremely wordy and a bit opaque (although it
doesn't change the meaning of the sentence).
--
i do have one big problem with this question, though: it relies on changing the original meaning of the sentence. the original meaning - which was not nonsense that
had to be changed - involved a lack of
doctors, while the correct answer choice involves a lack of
testimony. importantly, the gmat doesn't really do this: it usually requires you to stick to the meaning of the original sentence, unless that meaning happens to be self-contradictory, ambiguous, or nonsensical (none of which is the case in choice a here).
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
