Hi,
This question was raised beofre but didnt get much attention.Pls explain
Children who watch a great deal of Television and their families have a history of near-sightedness will probably require glasses sooner than their peers who are not predisposed to myopia in these ways
1. and their families have a history of near-sightedness
2. whose families have a history of near-sightedness
3. and a history of near-sightedness runs in the family
4. whose families have a history of near-sightedness running in them
5. with a history of near-sightedness running in the family
i am with 2 n 5 to choose from........not able to............which of options is right?
An SC
This topic has expert replies
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:07 am
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:07 am
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:59 am
- Location: Mumbai
- Thanked: 1 times
I go with B.
Children who watch a great deal of Television whose families have a history of near-sightedness is correct rather than awkwardly phrased nearsightedness running in their family. we never say "running in their faimly". [/i]
Children who watch a great deal of Television whose families have a history of near-sightedness is correct rather than awkwardly phrased nearsightedness running in their family. we never say "running in their faimly". [/i]
To err is human, to repeat it is criminal.
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:07 am
On coming back to the question after some time....i too feel (too mild, need concrete stuff) (2) is more appropriate but can someone provide grounds on which to reject (5)
abby_g,
u wrote that (5) is awkward.............that apart, are there other reasons to reject (5)?
thanks
abby_g,
u wrote that (5) is awkward.............that apart, are there other reasons to reject (5)?
thanks
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:00 am
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:9 members
(5) - incorrect -- Children who watch a great deal of television with a history of ....=> children watch television having a history of....
IMO none of the choices seems to be correct.... What is the source of your question ?....
IMO none of the choices seems to be correct.... What is the source of your question ?....
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:07 am
Prachi, I was hoping ud stumble upon this question
Its from another post that id seen. dont know if its from this forum.
thanks
Its from another post that id seen. dont know if its from this forum.
thanks
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:16 am
It appears in one of the Kaplan tests. I was stuck with this one as well. The OA is B. I'll post the OE soon.prachipareekh wrote:(5) - incorrect -- Children who watch a great deal of television with a history of ....=> children watch television having a history of....
IMO none of the choices seems to be correct.... What is the source of your question ?....
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:16 am
Here's the OE:
"This sentence contains a nonparallel construction that results in an ambiguous interpretation of the sentence. The children here are described in two ways: "who watch a great deal of television" and "their families have a history of near-sightedness". These two descriptive phrases should be stated in the same way to make it clear that both phrases describe the children. At first reading, it sounds like the children watch a great deal of television AND they watch their families. (2) makes the two items parallel by changing "their" to "whose". Now it is clear that the two descriptive phrases ("who watch a great deal of television" and "whose families have a history of near-sightedness") modify the children as was intended. (3) eliminates the ambiguous meaning but does not make the two descriptive phrases parallel. (4) creates a problem by omitting the word "and" between the two descriptive phrases. (5) does not correct the parallel construction problem."
"This sentence contains a nonparallel construction that results in an ambiguous interpretation of the sentence. The children here are described in two ways: "who watch a great deal of television" and "their families have a history of near-sightedness". These two descriptive phrases should be stated in the same way to make it clear that both phrases describe the children. At first reading, it sounds like the children watch a great deal of television AND they watch their families. (2) makes the two items parallel by changing "their" to "whose". Now it is clear that the two descriptive phrases ("who watch a great deal of television" and "whose families have a history of near-sightedness") modify the children as was intended. (3) eliminates the ambiguous meaning but does not make the two descriptive phrases parallel. (4) creates a problem by omitting the word "and" between the two descriptive phrases. (5) does not correct the parallel construction problem."
- arora007
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 51 times
- Followed by:27 members
- GMAT Score:670
B is the answer... good question
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!