From an experiment using special extrasensory

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 93
Joined: 25 Apr 2016
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

From an experiment using special extrasensory perception cards, each bearing one of a set of symbols, parapsychologist Joseph 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

D

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 410
Joined: 13 Mar 2015
Location: Worldwide
Thanked: 120 times
Followed by:8 members
GMAT Score:770

by OptimusPrep » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:39 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

We need to understand the meaning of the sentence too to eliminate the options here.

A) for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand
Joseph did not claim the proofs for the subjects.

B) for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
Joseph did not claim proof for a card.

C) of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand
Joseph did not claim proof of subjects.

D) that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
Correct

E) that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand
Correct idiom is capable of not capable to.

Correct Option: D

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Apr 2016

by thuyduong91vnu » Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:45 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

OptimusPrep wrote:We need to understand the meaning of the sentence too to eliminate the options here.

A) for subjects who could use thought transference to identify a card in the dealer's hand
Joseph did not claim the proofs for the subjects.

B) for a card in the dealer's hand to be identified by subjects with thought transference
Joseph did not claim proof for a card.

C) of subjects able to identify with thought transference a card in the dealer's hand
Joseph did not claim proof of subjects.

D) that subjects could identify a card in the dealer's hand by using thought transference
Correct

E) that subjects are capable to use thought transference for identifying a card in the dealer's hand
Correct idiom is capable of not capable to.

Correct Option: D
Hi,

I have one question here: how can we determine which the intended meaning is? I mean, it is also reasonable to think that Joseph was trying to justify the existence of people who can identify the card by using thought transference, right? So how can we confirm that it is not really the intended meaning of the sentence?

Thank for your help!

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 179
Joined: 20 Jul 2015
Followed by:8 members

by [email protected] » Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:58 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: 04 Aug 2019

by [email protected] » Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:46 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Hi.

Why are we using hypothetical 'could' here?