Sentence Correction

Isotopes in the recently excavated bones of a 14-year-old girl from the Jamestown archaeological site indicate she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant.

A) she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant.

B) that she ate a high protein diet, so probably had been the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant.

C) that she had eaten a high protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant's.

D) she ate a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and had not been a maidservant.

my doubt: i am not able to understand what is wrong with option C . i feel that C can be interpreted as follows : that she had eaten a high protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and not a [DAUGHTER OF] maidservant.

C) she was probably the daughter of a gentleman, and not a maidservant's.

Here, the portions in red are two CONTRASTING IDEAS.
and cannot serve to connect contrasting ideas.
Eliminate C.

Good Day Guru
Thanks for your reply . i agree that "AND" cannot be used to connect two contrasting ideas
but please tell me in option A is the interpretation as follows : she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a [DAUGHTER OF] maidservant

OR
does A mean : she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant [ ITSELF]

aditya8062 wrote:Good Day Guru
Thanks for your reply . i agree that "AND" cannot be used to connect two contrasting ideas
but please tell me in option A is the interpretation as follows : she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a [DAUGHTER OF] maidservant

OR
does A mean : she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant [ ITSELF]

Ignore this SC, which does not have a correct answer.
In A, the direct object of indicate is she had eaten.
On the GMAT, a clause serving as the direct object of indicate must be preceded by a relative pronoun such as that:
Wrong: Studies indicate she ate a vegetarian diet.
Correct: Studies indicate THAT she ate a vegetarian diet.

A: was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant
I am very skeptical of the modifier in red.
To my knowledge, no OA from GMAC has ever employed this sort of COMMA + not modifier.
The GMAT would probably use a structure like the following:
She was not a maidservant but was the daughter of a gentleman.

Thanks Guru

you said :In A, the direct object of indicate is she had eaten.
On the GMAT, a clause serving as the direct object of indicate must be preceded by a relative pronoun such as that:
Wrong: Studies indicate she ate a vegetarian diet.
Correct: Studies indicate THAT she ate a vegetarian diet.

i agree with the examples that you have quoted however i feel that at times "indicate" can also go without "that" , especially when the meaning demands.
for instance the following SC is from prep :Scientists say that each of the photographs taken of the Ares Vallis plain by the Mars Pathfinder indicates the overwhelming extent of the flooding on the planet billions of years ago and the degree to which rocks were scattered by its force----> here the "photographs" indicate the "overwhelming extent of the flooding".

can same logic be applied on the sentence under consideration?

A: was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant
I am very skeptical of the modifier in red.
To my knowledge, no OA from GMAC has ever employed this sort of COMMA + not modifier.
The GMAT would probably use a structure like the following:
She was not a maidservant but was the daughter of a gentleman.

thanks for this . but please tell me is your skepticism about the modifier in red because of the two different interpretations as asked by me in my previous post
meaning 1 : so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a [DAUGHTER OF] maidservant

meaning 2 : she had eaten a high-protein diet, so was probably the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant [ ITSELF]

thanks and regards

aditya8062 wrote:Thanks Guru

you said :In A, the direct object of indicate is she had eaten.
On the GMAT, a clause serving as the direct object of indicate must be preceded by a relative pronoun such as that:
Wrong: Studies indicate she ate a vegetarian diet.
Correct: Studies indicate THAT she ate a vegetarian diet.

i agree with the examples that you have quoted however i feel that at times "indicate" can also go without "that" , especially when the meaning demands.
for instance the following SC is from prep :Scientists say that each of the photographs taken of the Ares Vallis plain by the Mars Pathfinder indicates the overwhelming extent of the flooding on the planet billions of years ago and the degree to which rocks were scattered by its force----> here the "photographs" indicate the "overwhelming extent of the flooding".

can same logic be applied on the sentence under consideration?

The two sentences are not analogous.

In the first SC, the intended direct object of to indicate is a CLAUSE (she had eaten).
A clause includes both a subject and a verb.
A clause serving as the direct object of to indicate must be preceded by a relative pronoun such as that:
Studies indicated THAT she had eaten.

SC2: Each indicates the overwhelming extent of the flooding.
Here, the direct object of to indicate is a noun phrase (the overwhelming extent of the flooding).
A noun phrase serving as the direct object of to indicate should NOT be preceded by that.

is your skepticism about the modifier in red because of the two different interpretations as asked by me in my previous post

She was the daughter of a gentleman, not a maidservant.
Interpretation 1 : She was the daughter of a gentleman; she was not a maidservant.
Interpretation 2 : She was the daughter of a gentleman; she was not the daughter of a maidservant.

While I think most readers would construe Interpretation 1, Interpretation 2 is not unreasonable.
For this reason, I would look for an answer choice that makes the intended meaning crystal clear.

It is the 'and not' that is correct. The use of and is not proper when for a comparison of this type: We did X, not Y.

Thanks GURU
i will ignore this SC. i really appreciate the way you have put the following:

GURU wrote: In the first SC, the intended direct object of to indicate is a CLAUSE (she had eaten).
A clause includes both a subject and a verb.
A clause serving as the direct object of to indicate must be preceded by a relative pronoun such as that:
Studies indicated THAT she had eaten.

SC2: Each indicates the overwhelming extent of the flooding.
Here, the direct object of to indicate is a noun phrase (the overwhelming extent of the flooding).
A noun phrase serving as the direct object of to indicate should NOT be preceded by that.

i need to ask about one more sentence,which i got from "Thursday with Ron"

SC3: These old pictures show many men who were unemployed during the great depression -->correct
SC4: These old pictures show that many men were unemployed during the great depression --->wrong
presuming that "show" behaves in the same way as "indicate" can i say that in SC3 "show" does not precede "that" because after "show" we do not have clause in SC3 .but is "many men who were unemployed during the great depression" not a "who clause"?

Thanks and regards


PS : the SC3 and SC4 that i have quoted are from "Thursday from RON" dated "may 10 2012"