moron wrote:Can someone explain why this sentence is right ? Honestly speaking I am not able to comprehend the meaning of the sentence. How do you handle similar situation in GMAT exam.

Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of Mayan as an achievement , the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China's first emperor , in his afterlife is more than 2000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete.

1)Comparing pyramids of Egypt or Myan ancient cities with army of terra-cotta warriors is itself illogical.

It's actually logical. They are being compared as achievements. All three are large undertakings presumably completed without the advantage of modern equipment.

2)The use of linking verb 'is' for subject who was the first emperor of China.

The subject of is is the army of terra cotta warriors.

3) took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete. -- Complete what ?

Here's the sentence simplified.

The army of terra cotta warriors is more than 2000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete.

Some of the GMAT SC sentences can be a little challenging to understand and analyze. You need to practice analyzing them until you see what they mean and what errors or issues are present. Often when doing practice SC questions, you will be best off taking much longer than two minutes to do each, because you need to develop skill in seeing what they mean and what is going on in the original and the answer choices.

To do well on the GMAT, you often need to have a certain dogged determination to figure things out. Some people repeatedly ask what things mean and ask for explanations, and they seem to be in a way hoping that eventually they will have gotten enough answers and explanations and somehow therefore be ready for the test. While yes, getting explanations can be helpful, what actually makes you ready for the test is more developing the skill, and having the sheer determination, to figure those things out yourself.

So I guess I am saying that the way to handle a question involving a sentence such as that one is to either guess and move on or have at it until you get it, and if you want to score high, then the latter approach is the way to go.

moron wrote:Comparing pyramids of Egypt or Myan ancient cities with army of terra-cotta warriors is itself illogical.

Many students do not understand the meaning of terra-cotta.
TERRA-COTTA is a type of CLAY.
The army of terra-cotta warriors is not a group of men but a VAST collection of clay statues built by 700,000 artisans over the course of 36 years, as the SC above states.
To understand the vastness of this achievement, check here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army

3) took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete. -- Complete what ?

It took John five years to write the book.
To write the book took John five years.
These sentences can be rephrased as follows:
The book took John five years to write.

OA: The army of terra-cotta warriors took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete.
This sentence conveys the following meaning:
To complete the army of terra-cotta warriors took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years.

Thanks.

The army of terra-cotta warriors is a collection of terracotta sculptures depicting the armies makes sense. Now it is much easier to interpret and analyze .