Sentence Correction

Hi All,

In the below question, the OA is E. I was able to narrow down to A and E. But could not decide which one is better ? Can some one please help ?

============================================
The first trenches that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia, in what is now southern Iraq.


A. that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but

B. that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, yields strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously with but also

C. having been cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously but

D. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, yields strong evidence of centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arising simultaneously but also

E. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose simultaneously with but

goelmohit2002 wrote:Hi All,

In the below question, the OA is E. I was able to narrow down to A and E. But could not decide which one is better ? Can some one please help ?

============================================
The first trenches that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia, in what is now southern Iraq.


A. that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but

B. that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, yields strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously with but also

C. having been cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously but

D. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, yields strong evidence of centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arising simultaneously but also

E. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose simultaneously with but

Evidence for societies that were arising or evidence that societies arose? I think the former is awkward.

3:2 split again.. yields vs have yielded.. We can strike out B and D.. a present perfect is required here as we are pointing to an action that happened at an unspecified time before now..

also we can strike out A and C for multiple reasons..

a] that were is redundant.. arising is incorrect.. need simple past..

c] having been and arising is incorrect.. simple past is required..

Option left is E

The above is OG-12 Q#68...for kicking out C...OG says "having been cut...." is unnecessarily wordy....can someone please tell why the same is wordy....why the same cannot be kicked out on the basis of wrong tense....i.e. "having been" it says that activity was already completed before some other activity started....

Please tell what i am missing here ?

goelmohit2002 wrote:The above is OG-12 Q#68...for kicking out C...OG says "having been cut...." is unnecessarily wordy....can someone please tell why the same is wordy....why the same cannot be kicked out on the basis of wrong tense....i.e. "having been" it says that activity was already completed before some other activity started....

Please tell what i am missing here ?

As far as i am concerned it is more of a tense issue rather than just wordy.. Because "having been cut" conveys that the cutting is going on ...

kyabe wrote:

goelmohit2002 wrote:The above is OG-12 Q#68...for kicking out C...OG says "having been cut...." is unnecessarily wordy....can someone please tell why the same is wordy....why the same cannot be kicked out on the basis of wrong tense....i.e. "having been" it says that activity was already completed before some other activity started....

Please tell what i am missing here ?

As far as i am concerned it is more of a tense issue rather than just wordy.. Because "having been cut" conveys that the cutting is going on ...

Hi Kyabe,

i guess...having been says activity completed.....

can you please tell what is the difference between
a) first trenches "having cut" blah blah
b) first trenches "having been cut" blah blah

please tell if any one of the above or both are wrong gramatically as per GMAT.

yes "having been" denotes a completed activity. it shows "y happened after x happened"

for eg: having been denied a promotion, the worker resigned (resignation after the denial)

so, the trenches after being cut, provided a strong evidence= makes sense but is too wordy

a) first trenches "having cut" => the trenches cut something by themselves. active voice. makes no sense

b) first trenches "having been cut" => the trenches were cut. passive voice. ok

scoobydooby wrote:yes "having been" denotes a completed activity. it shows because of x, y happened.

for eg: having been denied a promotion, the worker resigned (gives the reason for the workers resignation)

here, just by virtue of having been cut, the trenches couldnt provide a strong evidence. so it is awkward.

a) first trenches "having cut" => the trenches cut something by themselves. active voice. makes no sense

b) first trenches "having been cut" => the trenches were cut. passive voice

Thanks Scooby.

I guess....our way of kicking out based on completed tense looks to be better than OG way of wordiness...

what you guys think...of there is something that I am missing here...that additionally OG want to say ?

goelmohit2002 wrote:

scoobydooby wrote:yes "having been" denotes a completed activity. it shows because of x, y happened.

for eg: having been denied a promotion, the worker resigned (gives the reason for the workers resignation)

here, just by virtue of having been cut, the trenches couldnt provide a strong evidence. so it is awkward.

a) first trenches "having cut" => the trenches cut something by themselves. active voice. makes no sense

b) first trenches "having been cut" => the trenches were cut. passive voice

Thanks Scooby.

I guess....our way of kicking out based on completed tense looks to be better than OG way of wordiness...

what you guys think...of there is something that I am missing here...that additionally OG want to say ?

no, just edited my previous post. og explanation is correct. "having been" is not wrong in terms of tense or logic. its just not as concise as E

Thanks Scooby.

For kicking out A...OG says:

"that were .....that were arising" is wordy....

can you please tell why the same is wordy and how to find out the same that it is wordy....?

1) "trenches that were cut into x" is wordier than
"trenches, cut into x"

2) "regions....were arising simultaneously but independently" is wordier than "regions ....rose simultaneously". also the past continuous tense is not needed here. simple past tense explains the meaning just as well.