Digging in sediments in northern China, evidence has been

Expert replies

Previous Topic Next Topic

RBBmba@2014: Legendary Member; Posts: 944; Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 amFollowed by: 5 members; Thanked: 8 times

by RBBmba@2014 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:28 am

Timer

00:00

Answers

Stats

Difficulty—

Digging in sediments in northern China, evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had previously thought.

(A) evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had
(B) evidence gathered by scientists suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than had been
(C) scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than
(D) scientists have gathered evidence that suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that which was
(E) scientists have gathered evidence which suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that

OA: C

P.S: It's an official question and I'm stuck between C & E (albeit more inclined to C but need some solid reasons to eliminate E).
@Experts - could you please share your detail analysis.Much thanks in advance.

Like this post

Source: Beat The GMAT — Sentence Correction | Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:28 am

DavidG@VeritasPrep: Legendary Member; Posts: 2663; Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 amFollowed by: 128 members; Location: Boston, MA; Thanked: 1153 times; GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:47 am

Here are some problems with E: first, 'evidence which suggests' is incorrect. "Which' is considered a non-restrictive modifier, so in this case, it should follow a comma. For example, I can write "My birch tree, which I planted in the front yard two years ago, is now six feet tall."

If I use 'that' I would not insert a comma, because 'that' is a restrictive modifier. So I could also write, "The birch tree that I planted in the front yard two years ago is now six feet tall."

The two sentences are both correct, but mean different things - in the first, I'm saying I only have one birch tree, and this tree happens to be in my front yard. In the second case, I'm suggesting that I have multiple birch trees, but I'm only writing about the one in my front yard. As far as the GMAT is concerned, we just need to know that 'which' follows a comma in this case, and 'that' does not. E has no comma preceding 'which.'

The other problem with E is the 'that' in "a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that" What is "that" referring to? Emergence? It isn't clear.

Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Like this post

RBBmba@2014: Legendary Member; Posts: 944; Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 amFollowed by: 5 members; Thanked: 8 times

by RBBmba@2014 » Mon Mar 23, 2015 6:39 am

Hi Dave - few clarifications required on your reply.

1. In GMAT, whenever "which" modifies a noun (as in this case), there should be a comma before "which". Right ? Is this always TRUE in GMAT - I mean, is this construction strictly followed in GMAT ?

2. As for option E, could you please clarify why do you say that "What is "that" referring to? Emergence? It isn't clear" ? Isn't 'that' here actually referring to 'Emergence' ?

Look forward to your reply.

Like this post

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Mon Mar 23, 2015 3:42 pm

1. In GMAT, whenever "which" modifies a noun (as in this case), there should be a comma before "which". Right ? Is this always TRUE in GMAT - I mean, is this construction strictly followed in GMAT?

To date, NO PUBLISHED OA has ever included NOUN + no comma + which.

2. As for option E, could you please clarify why do you say that "What is "that" referring to? Emergence? It isn't clear" ? Isn't 'that' here actually referring to 'Emergence' ?

Look forward to your reply.

E: a much earlier emergence than that previously thought.
Here, that seems to be standing in for the emergence.
If we replace that with the emergence, we get:
a much earlier emergence than the emergence previously thought.
The portion in red seems to suggest that THE EMERGENCE previously THOUGHT something.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate E.

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

Like this post

RBBmba@2014: Legendary Member; Posts: 944; Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 amFollowed by: 5 members; Thanked: 8 times

by RBBmba@2014 » Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:08 am

GMATGuruNY wrote: a much earlier emergence than the emergence previously thought.
The portion in red seems to suggest that THE EMERGENCE previously THOUGHT something.

Hi Mitch - I don't have any issue to understand why E is wrong, but I'd like to clarify the following a bit...

How we can even deduce this meaning - EMERGENCE previously THOUGHT something ? How EMERGENCE (an ABSTRACT NOUN) can think about something ?

Please shed light on this.Much thanks in advance!

Like this post

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:37 am

RBBmba@2014 wrote:
GMATGuruNY wrote: a much earlier emergence than the emergence previously thought.
The portion in red seems to suggest that THE EMERGENCE previously THOUGHT something.
Hi Mitch - I don't have any issue to understand why E is wrong, but I'd like to clarify the following a bit...

How we can even deduce this meaning - EMERGENCE previously THOUGHT something ? How EMERGENCE (an ABSTRACT NOUN) can think about something ?

Please shed light on this.Much thanks in advance!

One other interpretation is possible:
a much earlier emergence than the emergence [that was] previously thought [by someone].
This meaning too is nonsensical: it is not possible for someone to think an emergence.
Regardless of how E is interpreted, the meaning is nonsensical.
Eliminate E.

Like this post

RBBmba@2014: Legendary Member; Posts: 944; Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 amFollowed by: 5 members; Thanked: 8 times

by RBBmba@2014 » Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:05 am

GMATGuruNY wrote: One other interpretation is possible:
a much earlier emergence than the emergence [that was] previously thought [by someone].
This meaning too is nonsensical: it is not possible for someone to think an emergence.

GMATGuruNY - STILL not getting it clear

Why do we say that it is not possible for someone to think [OF] an emergence ? Scientists could think about an emergence, I guess! How that is wrong ?

Also, for the C, scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than [complex life-forms] previously thought [to have been emerged] -- this is what the SC intends to convey, I think. Correct me please if wrong!

Looking forward to know your feedback.

Like this post

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:56 am

RBBmba@2014 wrote:
GMATGuruNY wrote: One other interpretation is possible:
a much earlier emergence than the emergence [that was] previously thought [by someone].
This meaning too is nonsensical: it is not possible for someone to think an emergence.
GMATGuruNY - not getting it clear STILL Why do we say that it is not possible for someone to think [OF] an emergence ? Scientists could think about an emergence, I guess! How that is wrong ?

To think X and to think OF X convey different meanings.
If the latter construction is intended, the preposition of cannot be omitted.
Regardless, someone thought OF the emergence would imply that someone CONCEIVED of the emergence.
Not the intended meaning.

Also, for the C, scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than [complex life-forms] previously thought [to have been emerged] -- this is what the SC intends to convey, I think. Correct me please if wrong!

Looking forward to know your feedback.

C implies the following meaning:
It was previously thought that complex life-forms emerged at a certain time in the past, but new evidence indicates that they emerged even earlier.

Last edited by GMATGuruNY on Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Like this post

RBBmba@2014: Legendary Member; Posts: 944; Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 amFollowed by: 5 members; Thanked: 8 times

by RBBmba@2014 » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:03 am

GMATGuruNY wrote: To think X and to think OF X convey different meanings.
If the latter construction is intended, the preposition of cannot be omitted.

Great. Got it.

GMATGuruNY wrote: Regardless, someone thought OF the emergence would imply that someone INVENTED the emergence.
Not the intended meaning.

BTw, doesn't thought OF mean expected/hoped ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:
Also, for the C, scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than [complex life-forms] previously thought [to have been emerged] -- this is what the SC intends to convey, I think. Correct me please if wrong!

Looking forward to know your feedback.
C implies the following meaning:
It was previously thought that complex life-forms emerged at a certain time in the past, but new evidence indicates that they emerged even earlier.

Yes, exactly so.I just wanted to know how the sentence would look like with ELLIPSIS removed(re along with the dropped parts in the second clause after THAN ) ? Could you please share it ?

Like this post

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:46 am

RBBmba@2014 wrote:
BTw, doesn't thought OF mean expected/hoped ?

Better definitions of to think of X would be to conceive of X/to envision X/to imagine X.

I just wanted to know how the sentence would look like with ELLIPSIS removed(re along with the dropped parts in the second clause after THAN ) ? Could you please share it ?

The OA conveys the following meaning:
Scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than complex-life forms were previously thought to have emerged.
It is probably best to consider than previously thought an idiom -- one that serves to compare what was previously thought to what is now known to be true.

Another reason to eliminate E:
a much earlier emergence of complex-life forms than that previously thought.
Here, the usage of that implies that ONE emergence (the emergence of complex life-forms) is being compared to a DIFFERENT emergence (the emergence previously thought).
Not the intended meaning.
In each case, the intent is discuss the SAME emergence (the emergence of complex-life forms).
The question at hand is WHEN this emergence took place.

Like this post

RBBmba@2014: Legendary Member; Posts: 944; Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 amFollowed by: 5 members; Thanked: 8 times

by RBBmba@2014 » Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:06 pm

GMATGuruNY wrote: Another reason to eliminate E:
a much earlier emergence of complex-life forms than that previously thought.
Here, the usage of that implies that ONE emergence (the emergence of complex life-forms) is being compared to a DIFFERENT emergence (the emergence previously thought).
Not the intended meaning.
In each case, the intent is discuss the SAME emergence (the emergence of complex-life forms).
The question at hand is WHEN this emergence took place.

Hi GMATGuruNY - Can you please give a quick clarification on why that (in the RED phrase) can't indicate the emergence of complex-life forms as a whole instead of indicating ONLY the emergence ? (because does it make sense to say ONLY the emergence previously thought - there must be emergence of SOMETHING , I guess!)

Regardless E is wrong althoguh! However, curious to hear from you on the above.

Like this post

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:13 am

RBBmba@2014 wrote: Hi GMATGuruNY - Can you please give a quick clarification on why that (in the RED phrase) can't indicate the emergence of complex-life forms as a whole instead of indicating ONLY the emergence ? (because does it make sense to say ONLY the emergence previously thought - there must be emergence of SOMETHING , I guess!)

When used in a comparison, that is a COPY PRONOUN.
Its purpose is to represent a DIFFERENT COPY of the antecedent noun.
If we interpret E as you are suggesting, the usage of that still implies that there were two DIFFERENT emergences of complex life-forms:
a much earlier emergence of complex-life forms than the emergence of complex life forms previously thought.
Not the intended meaning.
There were not two different emergences of complex life forms.
There was only ONE emergence of complex life-forms.
The question at hand is WHEN this emergence of complex life-forms occurred.
Since there were not two different emergences of complex life-forms, the usage of that is inappropriate.

Like this post

Mo2men: Legendary Member; Posts: 712; Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:39 amFollowed by: 5 members; Thanked: 14 times

by Mo2men » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:00 am

GMATGuruNY wrote:
RBBmba@2014 wrote: Hi GMATGuruNY - Can you please give a quick clarification on why that (in the RED phrase) can't indicate the emergence of complex-life forms as a whole instead of indicating ONLY the emergence ? (because does it make sense to say ONLY the emergence previously thought - there must be emergence of SOMETHING , I guess!)
When used in a comparison, that is a COPY PRONOUN.
Its purpose is to represent a DIFFERENT COPY of the antecedent noun.
If we interpret E as you are suggesting, the usage of that still implies that there were two DIFFERENT emergences of complex life-forms:
a much earlier emergence of complex-life forms than the emergence of complex life forms previously thought.
Not the intended meaning.
There were not two different emergences of complex life forms.
There was only ONE emergence of complex life-forms.
The question at hand is WHEN this emergence of complex life-forms occurred.
Since there were not two different emergences of complex life-forms, the usage of that is inappropriate.

Dear Mitch,
In the OA, is there any kind of ellipses? is the red part below correct?

scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than complex life-forms were previously thought.

Thanks

Like this post

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:51 am

Mo2men wrote:Dear Mitch,
In the OA, is there any kind of ellipses? is the red part below correct?

scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than complex life-forms were previously thought.

Thanks

As mentioned in my post above, the OA conveys the following meaning:
Scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than complex-life forms were previously thought to have emerged.
It is probably best to consider than previously thought an idiom -- one that serves to compare what was previously thought to what is now known to be true.

Like this post

GMAT/MBA Expert

Brent@GMATPrepNow: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 16207; Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pmFollowed by: 1268 members; Location: Vancouver, BC; Thanked: 5254 times; GMAT Score:770

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:34 am

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Digging in sediments in northern China, evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had previously thought.

(A) evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had
(B) evidence gathered by scientists suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than had been
(C) scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than
(D) scientists have gathered evidence that suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that which was
(E) scientists have gathered evidence which suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that

Important: When a sentence begins with a with noun modifier (as it does in the above sentence), stop at the comma and ask the question that the modifier raises.

So, once we read, Digging in sediments in northern China, we should stop and ask . . .

"Who or what was digging in sediments?"

If the sentence is properly constructed, the part that immediately follows the comma will answer that question in a logical manner.

Reading on we get...

A) ...evidence. Evidence was digging in sediments?
Makes no sense.
ELIMINATE A

B) ...evidence. Evidence was digging in sediments?
Makes no sense.
ELIMINATE B

C, D, E) ...scientists. Scientists were digging in sediments?
Makes sense.
KEEP C, D and E

Now examine the differences in the remaining answer choice
(C) scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than (previously thought)
Looks fine.
We have "life-forms emerged much earlier than previously thought"
KEEP for now

(D) scientists have gathered evidence that suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that which was (previously thought)
First off, this version should seem quite awkward, and unnecessarily verbose.
Also, it is unclear what that is referring to.
ELIMINATE D

(E) scientists have gathered evidence which suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that (previously thought)
Again, it is unclear what that is referring to.
ELIMINATE E

Answer: C

Cheers,
Brent

Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com

Like this post

Post new topic Locked

GMAT Course Reviews

559 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (560 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review