aditya8062 wrote:
Guru is this ambiguity which you have told similar to the one in the following sentence: a leopard cannot catch a wild beast as fast as a chetah
i somehow get a feeling that such ambiguity in meaning easily pervades in sentences such as "leopard one" as all the THREE elements "leopard" ,"wild beast" and "chetah" are comparable in terms of being similar. when i was trying to apply this same ambiguity to the sentence at hand then some where i feel that even though "rice" and "wheat" are comparable, but "wheat" and "protein" are not .i mean can "rice" ever have "wheat" high in quality?
E:
protein higher in quality than wheat
Just as PROTEIN can be of high quality, so can WHEAT be of high quality.
As a result, a reader might construe that E is comparing the QUALITY OF THE PROTEIN in rice to the QUALITY OF WHEAT.
Another problem:
Generally, a COMMA + with modifier serves to modify the nearest preceding clause.
Your interpretation of E:
Rice has a protein higher in quality than wheat [has a protein high in quality], with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.
Here, with more of the amino acids seems to be modifying the implied clause in red -- the nearest preceding clause - implying that WHEAT has a protein with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.
The intended meaning is that RICE has a protein with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.
this is insightful . but guru please tell me if i apply this reasoning on the OA then will i not get the following interpretation: rice has protein[THAT IS] of higher quality than that [PROTEIN] in wheat [IS OF HIGH QUALITY],+ with clause .
NOW the "WITH clause" will modify the nearest clause : [
PROTEIN] in wheat [IS OF HIGH QUALITY],
Your interpretation of E:
RICE HAS a protein higher in quality than WHEAT HAS a protein of high quality, with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.
In your interpretation, one SUBJECT (rice) is compared to ANOTHER SUBJECT (wheat).
This interpretation is valid only if
wheat is given its own verb (
has).
Since COMMA +
with generally serves to modify the nearest preceding action, the
with-modifier in your interpretation seems to refer to the protein that WHEAT HAS:
WHEAT HAS a protein...WITH MORE OF THE AMINO ACIDS ESSENTIAL TO THE HUMAN DIET.
Not the intended meaning.
OA:
RICE HAS a protein of higher quality than that in wheat, with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.
Here, neither
protein nor
that in wheat is given a verb.
Since the only clause on hand is
rice has -- and COMMA +
with serves to modify the nearest preceding action -- the
with-modifier in the OA clearly refers to the protein that RICE HAS:
RICE HAS a protein...WITH MORE OF THE AMINO ACIDS ESSENTIAL TO THE HUMAN DIET.Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at
[email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
