Hello Everyone!
Let's tackle this question, one problem at a time, to narrow it down to the correct answer quickly! First, let's take a quick look at the original question. We highlighted the major differences between each option in orange:
From an experiment using special extrasensory perception cards, each bearing one of a set of symbols, parapsychologist Joshep Banks Rhine claimed statistical proof for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand.
A. for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
C. of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand
After a quick glance over each option, there are a couple issues we can focus on to rule out incorrect answers quickly:
1. How they begin: for subjects / for a card / of subjects / that subjects
2. Placement of the phrase "a card in the dealer's hand" (possibly an issue with active/passive voice?)
Let's start with #1 on our list because it will likely rule out 2-3 answers quickly. When we talk about a person claiming statistical proof, each of these phrases mean something slightly different:
claiming statistical proof for subjects = Joshep Rhine is gathering proof that he plans to give to the subjects that they will then own
claiming statistical proof of subjects = Joshep Rhine is gathering proof that he can find subjects who can do this particular task
claiming statistical proof that subjects = Joshep Rhine is gathering proof that his subjects can do a particular task
It makes the clearest sense to say that Rhine is collecting proof that his subjects can use thought transference. He's not later giving that proof to his subjects, and there is no question that he already has subjects that can do this task, so the other two don't really make sense for this purpose. Therefore, we can rule out options A & C because they don't convey the most accurate meaning.
Now that we're left with only 3 options, let's tackle #2 on the list: where to put the phrase "a card in the dealer's hand." Whenever we see a phrase placed in so many different places, we are likely dealing with an issue of clarity or passive/active voice. Let's take a look at each answer to determine which option conveys the correct meaning as clearly as possible:
B. for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
This option is INCORRECT because it's written using passive voice. Instead of making the subjects the focus of the phrase, it makes the cards in the dealer's hand the focus. This isn't the clearest way to say this. Rhine isn't providing proof that the cards are doing anything - he's proving the subjects can do things.
D. that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
This option is CORRECT! It is clear that the subject is the focus of the phrase, it uses active voice, and the rest of the phrase is also clear and concise.
E. that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand
This is INCORRECT because it uses confusing and overly worded construction to convey meaning. Instead of saying "are capable to use," this could simply say "can use" or "could use" to convey the same meaning more clearly. Also, the phrase "for identifying" isn't as clear as saying "to identify" in this case. It sounds a bit overdone and confusing to some readers.
There you go - option D is the correct choice! It conveys the correct meaning and uses concise and clear language to convey information to readers!
Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
