The scientists noted that rats suffering from the rare degenerative disease had begun to die six months earlier, even though they had shown no signs of the disease then.
(A) earlier, even though they had shown no signs of the disease then
(B) earlier, but they were not showing no signs of the disease then
(C) earlier, no outward signs of the disease had been shown in them, however
(D) earlier without any signs of the disease shown then
(E) earlier, even though no signs of it were seen in them at that time

even though delivers the intent and starts the reasoning.

Another reason that i chose D is that other options have an "ambiguous "they " . D ,since it has no ambiguous pronoun , seemed to be a safer option compared to others .
Is there anything grammatically wrong with D

I think they logically refers to rats which I feel is correct

----Repeat

aspirant2011 wrote:I think they logically refers to rats which I feel is correct

For a pronoun to not be ambiguous , it must logically and grammatically refr to the same antecedent . While aristotle agrees that the pronoun is antecedent , it didnt bother to explain why is D inappropriate . I have a put a question to them but i dont expect a reply so quick

The sentence intents to show a contrast between the prior observation and the results (try to understand the meaning first!).
A and E are the only options that highlights that contrast.
E can be easily knocked out by the same reasoning you applied.

One other aspect of deciding whether a Comma is required is keeping the 1st option as it is (unless option A is absolutely nonsensical.)-In this case subordinating clause is fine.

One thing which disqualifies D is "without any signs of the disease shown then".
More than grammar I would say there is a clarity issue. It's not clear "who/what" had shown the signs of the disease.

I know that it's tough to convince you, but that's what I think about this sentence.

smackmartine wrote:The sentence intents to show a contrast between the prior observation and the results (try to understand the meaning first!).
A and E are the only options that highlights that contrast.
E can be easily knocked out by the same reasoning you applied.

One other aspect of deciding whether a Comma is required is keeping the 1st option as it is (unless option A is absolutely nonsensical.)-In this case subordinating clause is fine.

One thing which disqualifies D is "without any signs of the disease shown then".
More than grammar I would say there is a clarity issue. It's not clear "who" had shown the signs of the disease.

I know that it's tough to convince you, but that's what I think about this sentence.

Thanks smackmartine for the reply .
Actually its very difficult to unlearn concepts once one has acquired them . Thats the reason i try to verify concepts that are shared on BTG . Cos everyone has his way of interpreting things so when a person reads something , he interprets it in a certain way and then reproduces it on another thread . So the interpretation may or may not be correct . Thats the reason .

Coming back to the sentence

I think without ... prepositional phrase is an adverbial modifier and needs to modify a verb The closest verb is dies . Since the subject of verb die is rats ,the rpepositional phrase without ... must modify the action die performed by rats . What do you find unacceptable about this take on D

To your previous comment : No need to unlearn anything. Whatever you know is good and feel confident about it. As I said there is not much of grammar issues in D .(your points are fine in fact)

Personal observation : After recent announcement by GMAC that the emphasis will be more on meaning from now on, I have started taking a different approach towards SC. I first see what's the meaning of the sentence. I reject all options which distorts the meaning and then apply grammar rules on the left overs. Trust me, the accuracy level has reached unbelievable limits.Take any OG problem(apart from those that test idiom), apply this and you'll be amazed. I have bought new Aristotle SC question bank and I have seen many SCs of such kind GMAT loves to nitpick on.

smackmartine wrote:To your previous comment : No need to unlearn anything. Whatever you know is good and feel confident about it. As I said there is not much of grammar issues in D .(your points are fine in fact)

Personal observation : After recent announcement by GMAC that the emphasis will be more on meaning from now on, I have started taking a different approach towards SC. I first see what's the meaning of the sentence. I reject all options which distorts the meaning and then apply grammar rules on the left overs. Trust me, the accuracy level has reached unbelievable limits.Take any OG problem(apart from those that test idiom), apply this and you'll be amazed. I have bought new Aristotle SC question bank and I have seen many SCs of such kind GMAT loves to nitpick on.

thanks for sharing the strategy , people like u make btg a great community

Experts please explain why D is wrong? Isn't "without" in option D acting as adverb and modifying the verb "die"?

mundasingh123 wrote:The scientists noted that rats suffering from the rare degenerative disease had begun to die six months earlier, even though they had shown no signs of the disease then.
(A) earlier, even though they had shown no signs of the disease then
(B) earlier, but they were not showing no signs of the disease then
(C) earlier, no outward signs of the disease had been shown in them, however
(D) earlier without any signs of the disease shown then
(E) earlier, even though no signs of it were seen in them at that time


Hi GmatGuruNy / David/Brian ,
Could you please explain why is D wrong
In D the preposition without could modify the verb "die"
OA :A

In D, shown seems to modify disease, implying a contradictory meaning: that the DISEASE was in fact being SHOWN THEN, but the rats died without any signs of it. It must be clear what a modifier is modifying. Eliminate D.

Hi GmatGuruNY , substituting D in the sentence we get
The scientists noted that rats suffering from the rare degenerative disease had begun to die six months earlier without any signs of the disease shown then

But the dsease is the not the subject of the sentence
Disease is a part of a prepositional phrase which is part of another noun modifier
So basically cant we leave out the whole modifier
The scientists noted that rats had begun to die six months earlier without any signs of the disease shown then

also how does The modifier "without ... " modify "disease " when the two are so distant from each other. I am totally confused . The prepositional phrase is closer to the verb so why cant the "without ... " modify the verb

mundasingh123 wrote:Hi GmatGuruNY , substituting D in the sentence we get
The scientists noted that rats suffering from the rare degenerative disease had begun to die six months earlier without any signs of the disease shown then

But the dsease is the not the subject of the sentence
Disease is a part of a prepositional phrase which is part of another noun modifier
So basically cant we leave out the whole modifier
The scientists noted that rats had begun to die six months earlier without any signs of the disease shown then

also how does The modifier "without ... " modify "disease " when the two are so distant from each other. I am totally confused . The prepositional phrase is closer to the verb so why cant the "without ... " modify the verb

Yes, entire phrase (without...then) modifies die. How did the rats die? Without any signs. But within this modifying phrase, SHOWN (an adjective) seems to modify DISEASE, the noun that it follows. The result: the modifying phrase seems to be saying that DISEASE was SHOWN, but the rats died WITHOUT ANY SIGNS of it. The following would be better:

The rats died without showing any signs of disease.

Thanks for the good qsn!
But next time, please put a spoiler around the OA, easier for others to practice like that!