fabiocafarelli wrote:This is not a question of 'imposing our own interpretations on [the people who write the test']. Nor is it about any personal 'usage philosophy'. The fact is that the people to whom you refer do themselves require comparisons to be made logical by the insertion of a verb. Thus, two conclusions follow:
1. One has the right to require GMAC to be consistent;
2. It becomes impossible to depend on the notion of an ellipsis to justify as correct in one case what is rightly considered incorrect in a comparable case: Question 61, current Official Guide.
D. would have to know a great deal more than they do now about the social and economic
E. would have to know a great deal more than now about the social and economic
If we accept the notion of 'the only coherent way to read the sentence', then we must accept that E is good. Obviously, nobody intends to compare what demographers would have to know with NOW: 'the only coherent way to read the sentence' would be to postulate an ellipsis and conclude as a result that the sentence really makes sense. But it does not make sense, because there is on the one hand a logical intended meaning and on the other an absurd stated meaning. This is precisely why Option E is not the correct answer, and why Option D, which inserts the requisite subject and verb, is given by GMAC as the correct answer - and here, they're right.
GMAC is not infallible, as you come rather close to implying. The fact that it states in its explanation of the question about livestock that 'either would be correct here' may indeed mean that they 'have given this some thought' - or it may mean that they have given it some, but not enough. Precisely because students have got, in your words, 'to understand the philosophy of the people who write the test', I have to object that the philosophy must be consistent. GMAC can't have it both ways. If wild animals can have less total fat than livestock, then demographers can know more than now, and lions can drink camels.
But perhaps we shall just have to agree to disagree on this matter.
I implied that GMAC was infallible? Finally, the Pope has some competition!
You're frustrated with what you perceive to be GMAC's inconsistency. I can understand that. But GMAC writes the test, and it determines what is correct and incorrect. We can wish it weren't so. We can quietly say unkind things about them to our loved ones. But they call the shots. That is simply the reality. (Unless you're planning some kind of GMAT coup, in which case, I want in
But let's grant you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say GMAC may have goofed on multiple occasions. The claim is that if 111B can be considered correct then we must also consider an incorrect answer - 61E- correct, otherwise the test writers have been inconsistent. This claim is predicated on the notion that the two are structurally similar. And, well, they aren't. There is a logical way to interpret answer choice 111B that is consistent with common usage.
Wild animals have less total fat than [do] livestock fed on grain. Could it be written in a way to make it a little clearer? I suppose. But it's certainly the best of the available options.
There is simply no logical way to interpret 61E that is consistent with common usage.
Demographers would have to know a great deal more than now. You would need to insert a
full clause to make E sensible. This is an important distinction.
If this isn't clear, consider a simple sentence, such as
Tim has more money than Tom. Technically, I suppose one could claim that we don't know whether the sentence is asserting that Tim has more money than Tom has (logical) or asserting that Tim has more money than he has some fragment of Tom. (insane.)
The point is that
Tim has more money than Tom has a logical interpretation that is consistent with common usage. Moreover the ellipsis involves a single word.
Now consider a case in which the implied portion is a
full clause:
Tim has more money than now. You could argue that the ellipse here is "Tom has." But no reasonable English speaker would. And to argue that if you do not accept "Tim has more money than now" then you cannot accept "Tim has more money than Tom," is not terribly persuasive. One is consistent with common usage. The other is not.
Grammatical minutia aside, this is all to say that it's dangerous to simply assume that GMAC has made a mistake and that a type of usage we encounter in the Official Guide cannot appear on the actual exam. But if you really think they've made an error, why not simply ask them? (
[email protected]) or
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ask-the-test-maker-f71.html For an infallible organization, they're quite friendly and responsive.
