Scientists who endeavor to explain the way scientific work was done in the laboratories of the seventeenth-century chemists, must address a fundamental inconsistency between the way such experiments were actually performed and the way the seventeenth-century rhetoric describing them
A. Scientists who endeavor to explain the way scientific work was done in the laboratories of the seventeenth-century chemists, must address a fundamental inconsistency between the way such experiments were actually performed and the way the seventeenth-century rhetoric describing them
B. Scientists who endeavor to explain how scientific work was done in the laboratories of the seventeenth-century chemists, and must address the fundamental inconsistency in the way such experiments were actually performed and the way the seventeenth-century rhetoric described them
C. Scientists endeavoring to explain how scientific work was done in the laboratories of the seventeenth-century chemists, and who must address a fundamental inconsistency distorting the actual manner of such experiments from the description by the seventeenth-century rhetoric.
D. Scientists endeavoring to explain how scientific work was done in the laboratories of the seventeenth-century chemists, must address a fundamental inconsistency of the actual manner of such experiments and the way the seventeenth-century rhetoric described it
E. Scientists who endeavor to explain how scientific work was done in the laboratories of the seventeenth-century chemists, must address a fundamental inconsistency between how such experiments were actually performed and how the same were described by the seventeenth-century rhetoric
Target Test Prep is 20% off right now!
Use code FLASH20
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Scientists who endeavor to explain the way scientific work
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
However technically an article may be and most still be analysed critically in order to solving the question.
In Option A - INCORRECT. There is a situation of ineffective language use in the form of a continuous verb ''describing'' even though the article was about seventeenth century laboratory work. It is also a lifted response from the article.
In Option B - INCORRECT. We must try to pay attention to every word involved in this statement. For an instance, the pronoun ''them'' was used in this option as a replacement word though the position and manner makes it look like it was modifying the scientists which in actual term is not.
In Option C. The use of ''endeavoring'' here is not suitable at all in that it's a verb that's been used in a continuous form even when all the other verb parts explained the statement in their past tense.
Option D - INCORRECT. Here, two words have been caught to fall off the normal sentence formation. The first is ''endeavoring'' which has been explained in the Option C above, the second being the pronoun ''it'' which describes a single item which will not qualify the plural form of ''experiments'' that's been used.
In Option E - CORRECT. Here, the keywords so explained front previous options are in their right forms. Example is ''described'', so also is ''were'' all consistent with the article explanation. This statement' analysis is appropriate enough because it has been re-written in the form prescribed by the writer.
In Option A - INCORRECT. There is a situation of ineffective language use in the form of a continuous verb ''describing'' even though the article was about seventeenth century laboratory work. It is also a lifted response from the article.
In Option B - INCORRECT. We must try to pay attention to every word involved in this statement. For an instance, the pronoun ''them'' was used in this option as a replacement word though the position and manner makes it look like it was modifying the scientists which in actual term is not.
In Option C. The use of ''endeavoring'' here is not suitable at all in that it's a verb that's been used in a continuous form even when all the other verb parts explained the statement in their past tense.
Option D - INCORRECT. Here, two words have been caught to fall off the normal sentence formation. The first is ''endeavoring'' which has been explained in the Option C above, the second being the pronoun ''it'' which describes a single item which will not qualify the plural form of ''experiments'' that's been used.
In Option E - CORRECT. Here, the keywords so explained front previous options are in their right forms. Example is ''described'', so also is ''were'' all consistent with the article explanation. This statement' analysis is appropriate enough because it has been re-written in the form prescribed by the writer.
