Sentence Correction

The presence of both plant impressions and phytoliths led researchers analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude there was habitual use of plants, and particularly of flowering and aromatic varieties, in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet.


A.researchers analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude there was habitual use of plants, and particularly of flowering and aromatic varieties, in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet


B.researchers who would analyze soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude there had been habitual use of plants, and particularly flowering and aromatic varieties, in the rituals in association with burial of the dead at Raqefet


C.researchers who had analyzed soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude that in the rituals associated with burial of the dead in Raqafet, there had been habitual plant use, and particularly flowering and aromatic varieties


D.researchers, analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude there was habitual use of plants, in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet, and particularly of flowering and aromatic varieties


E.researchers analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel in concluding particularly flowering and aromatic varieties of plants were in habitual use in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet

OA A

Hi, gmat_guy666,

Interesting name you have there.

I'm suspicious of the OA here.

In B), there should be an "of" after "particularly"; "rituals in association" is not idiomatic; and "would analyze" gives the impression that the presence "led them" before they even analyzed the soil.

In D), there are two superfluous commas, and the phrase "particularly..." is misplaced.

In E), "in concluding" is not idiomatic, and "particularly" should not modify "flowering." In addition, this adverb would have to be changed to "in particular" and moved behind "plants" to make any sense.

In C), I think the use of the past perfect "who had analyzed" is confusing because there is also a second past perfect used for an event that occurred ages ago, but not necessarily incorrect. However, the bigger problem is that "plant use" and "particularly flowering and aromatic varieties" are not parallel and thus don't match. However, adding an "of" after "particularly" would probably fix the problem.

OTOH, I don't see any obvious problems with A). It would probably be better to have "there had been habitual use" than "there was habitual use," but I wouldn't call the latter wrong either. So, I don't see how C) would be better than A).

i am finding all choices faulty in this question .
isn't the parallelism across "and" not oki .
choice C : .researchers who had analyzed soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude that in the rituals associated with burial of the dead in Raqafet, there had been habitual plant use, and particularly flowering and aromatic varieties
thanks

aditya8062 wrote:i am finding all choices faulty in this question .

Hi, aditya8062. What do you find wrong with A)?

isn't the parallelism across "and" not oki

Could you please translate that into English?

choice C : .researchers who had analyzed soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude that in the rituals associated with burial of the dead in Raqafet, there had been habitual plant use, and particularly flowering and aromatic varieties
thanks

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but "and particularly flowering and aromatic varieties" makes it seem as if the varieties themselves are a subset of "plant use." And that makes no sense. Also, "particularly" appears to modify "flowering." But adding an "of" after "particularly" would make things reasonably clear.

I do think it would be better to leave out the "and" before "particularly," but I'm not sure I'd actually call using "and" there wrong.

"and" is a parallel marker .Now in the sentence :researchers who had analyzed soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude that in the rituals associated with burial of the dead in Raqafet, there had been habitual plant use, and particularly flowering and aromatic varieties
after "and" we have adverb+noun construction.Nothing on the left of "and" is parallel to this construction .

this problem is sorted in option A :researchers analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude there was habitual use of plants, and particularly of flowering and aromatic varieties, in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet

neptune28 wrote:Hi, gmat_guy666,

Interesting name you have there.

I'm suspicious of the OA here.

In B), there should be an "of" after "particularly"; "rituals in association" is not idiomatic; and "would analyze" gives the impression that the presence "led them" before they even analyzed the soil.

In D), there are two superfluous commas, and the phrase "particularly..." is misplaced.

In E), "in concluding" is not idiomatic, and "particularly" should not modify "flowering." In addition, this adverb would have to be changed to "in particular" and moved behind "plants" to make any sense.

In C), I think the use of the past perfect "who had analyzed" is confusing because there is also a second past perfect used for an event that occurred ages ago, but not necessarily incorrect. However, the bigger problem is that "plant use" and "particularly flowering and aromatic varieties" are not parallel and thus don't match. However, adding an "of" after "particularly" would probably fix the problem.

OTOH, I don't see any obvious problems with A). It would probably be better to have "there had been habitual use" than "there was habitual use," but I wouldn't call the latter wrong either. So, I don't see how C) would be better than A).

Thanks neptune28 - I have edited the OA .

A: The presence of phytoliths led researchers to conclude there was habitual use.
Here, both verbs (led and was) are in the simple past tense.
As a result, a reader might construe that there WAS habitual use when the presence of phytoliths LED researchers to conclude.
Not the intended sequence.

Also, when the direct object of a verb such as to conclude is a CLAUSE, the GMAT will invariably introduce the clause with a relative pronoun such as that:
The presence of phytoliths led researchers to conclude THAT...

I would ignore this SC.
Instead, study the following official SC, which tests similar concepts:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/omission-t124110.html

Hi,

I do not understand why the use of past perfect in C is wrong because it is supported by the fact that -the presence of bla bla led the researchers conclude sth that they had previously analyzed-. Hence, there is a past event that occurs before another past event.

I can see the parallel issue in C but I also think that the use of ¨there¨in option A is ambiguous because it could refer to -Israel- or to -rituals-.

So, I did not know which answer to choose.

Can somebody help, please?

Thank you