Sentence Correction

Trying to mimic some of the pitch variations of a dolphin chattering is the same
as attempting to sing like a sick parakeet when one is intoxicated; the complete
lack of harmony and apparent randomness of the noise means the human vocal
chords are completely incapable of reproducing these sounds.

(A) the same as attempting to sing like a sick parakeet when one is intoxicated
(B) similar to an intoxicated person singing like a sick parakeet
(C) like singing like a sick parakeet as an intoxicated person
(D) the same as an intoxicated person singing like a sick parakeet
(E) like the intoxicated person is singing like a sick parakeet

Help me out someone....
Thanks

I have the answer but not the explanation......


try it and i will reveal the answer later.

Seems to be A. Also, please correct the underlining of the sentence, since it's creating confusion.

Also, what is the source of this question?

Thanks bonetolo answer is indeed A but can you explain that is the main problem....

akash singhal wrote:Trying to mimic some of the pitch variations of a dolphin chattering is the same as attempting to sing like a sick parakeet when one is intoxicated; the complete lack of harmony and apparent randomness of the noise means the human vocal
chords are completely incapable of reproducing these sounds.

(A) the same as attempting to sing like a sick parakeet when one is intoxicated
(B) similar to an intoxicated person singing like a sick parakeet
(C) like singing like a sick parakeet as an intoxicated person
(D) the same as an intoxicated person singing like a sick parakeet
(E) like the intoxicated person is singing like a sick parakeet

APPLES must be compared to APPLES.
Only LIKE things can be compared.

B: Trying...is similar to an intoxicated person...
D: Trying...is the same as an intoxicated person...
E: Trying...is like the intoxicated person...
These comparisons are illogical: an ACTION (trying) cannot be compared to a PERSON.
Eliminate B, D and E.

C: like a parakeet as an intoxicated person
This construction seems to imply that a PARAKEET is functioning AS A PERSON.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate C.

A: like a sick parakeet when one is intoxicated
Here, one seems to refer to parakeet -- the only available antecedent -- implying that a PARAKEET is intoxicated.
Not the intended meaning.

I would ignore this SC.
What is the source?

akash singhal wrote:Trying to mimic some of the pitch variations of a dolphin chattering is the same
as attempting to sing like a sick parakeet when one is intoxicated; the complete
lack of harmony and apparent randomness of the noise means the human vocal
chords are completely incapable of reproducing these sounds.

(A) the same as attempting to sing like a sick parakeet when one is intoxicated
(B) similar to an intoxicated person singing like a sick parakeet
(C) like singing like a sick parakeet as an intoxicated person
(D) the same as an intoxicated person singing like a sick parakeet
(E) like the intoxicated person is singing like a sick parakeet

Help me out someone....
Thanks

Hello akash singhal,

The sentence,as given, is correct. 'One' cannot possibly refer to sick parakeet, since parakeet is the object of preposition 'like' and is in the Accusative case and position. Whereas, 'one' is in the Nominative case and position and hence cannot refer to parakeet. The subject of the main clause is the Nominal clause (subject clause)" Trying to...chattering" and hence singular. 'One' in this case is the subject itself of its own clause and does not require an antecedent. However, the construction would have been better phrased if a comma was placed after parakeet. Also, generally, the GMAT avoids construction like this one in which indefinite pronouns are subjects. But, there are some constructions on the GMAT that seem to allow an indefinite pronoun as the subject. Check OG !

Aman verma wrote:
The sentence,as given, is correct. 'One' cannot possibly refer to sick parakeet, since parakeet is the object of preposition 'like' and is in the Accusative case and position. Whereas, 'one' is in the Nominative case and position and hence cannot refer to parakeet.

On the GMAT, a subject pronoun can serve to refer to the object of a preposition.

The OA to SC105 in the OG13:
Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation; instead, it has become precisely the opposite.
Here, it (subject pronoun) serves to refer to the radio (object of the preposition of).

The OA to SC44 in the OG13:
The plot of The Bostonians centers on the rivalry that develops between Olive Chancellor and Basil Ransom, when they find themselves drawn to the same radiant young woman.
Here, they (subject pronoun) serves to refer to Olive Chancellor (object of the preposition between) and Basil Ransom.

On the GMAT, a subject pronoun can serve to refer to the object of a preposition.

Then, we must admit that GMAT allows errors to perpetuate in its correct answers. I have a very obvious and general question to ask: On the GMAT, what rule to follow regarding pronouns in the Nominative case and their reference to the antecedent in the Accusative case e.g an object of a preposition ? Are such references valid on the GMAT ? The rule must be consistent; we cannot follow one rule in one question and another rule in another question. So,experts, suggest what rule we must follow on the test day in this regard ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

akash singhal wrote:Trying to mimic some of the pitch variations of a dolphin chattering is the same as attempting to sing like a sick parakeet when one is intoxicated; the complete lack of harmony and apparent randomness of the noise means the human vocal
chords are completely incapable of reproducing these sounds.

(A) the same as attempting to sing like a sick parakeet when one is intoxicated
(B) similar to an intoxicated person singing like a sick parakeet
(C) like singing like a sick parakeet as an intoxicated person
(D) the same as an intoxicated person singing like a sick parakeet
(E) like the intoxicated person is singing like a sick parakeet

APPLES must be compared to APPLES.
Only LIKE things can be compared.

B: Trying...is similar to an intoxicated person...
D: Trying...is the same as an intoxicated person...
E: Trying...is like the intoxicated person...
These comparisons are illogical: an ACTION (trying) cannot be compared to a PERSON.
Eliminate B, D and E.

C: like a parakeet as an intoxicated person
This construction seems to imply that a PARAKEET is functioning AS A PERSON.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate C.

A: singing like a sick parakeet when one is intoxicated
Here, one seems to refer to parakeet -- the only available antecedent -- implying that a PARAKEET is intoxicated.
Not the intended meaning.

I would ignore this SC.
What is the source?

Thanks for your explanation
still have some doubts on the pronoun as an subject referring to object of prepostion can u give some more examples.....

The source is
Manhattan Sentence Correction Guide 4th edition 2012...
Question no 2 page no 99

This question is quite tricky. It involves parallel structure. You have to look
carefully to figure out what form the comparison takes. The comparison is not
one of similarity, it is one of equality. Saying x is y is quite different from saying
x is like y or x is similar to y. Choices B, C and E all change the fundamental
underlying concept of the sentence. Choice D disrupts the parallel structure. The
parallel structure is "trying to mimic" and "attempting to sing". Choice A is the
correct answer.

above is its explanation...
can this be related to parallel structure too..

akash singhal wrote: Thanks for your explanation
still have some doubts on the pronoun as an subject referring to object of prepostion can u give some more examples.....

On the GMAT, the antecedent for a subject pronoun can be virtually ANY PRECEDING NOUN.
Other official examples in the OG13:

SC45 on page 45:
The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, ruling that it was a form of price-fixing.
Here, it (subject of the verb was) serves to refer to a minimum wage (direct object of the verb declared).

SC100 on page 690:
Being heavily committed to a course of action is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble when they do appear.
Here, they (subject of the verb do appear) serves to refer to signs (direct object of the verb miss).

Please be advised:
Pronoun ambiguity is a low-priority error on the GMAT.
If an answer choice on the GMAT seems to include an ambiguous pronoun, eliminate the answer choice only if one of the other answer choices avoids the ambiguity and is free of errors.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

akash singhal wrote: Thanks for your explanation
still have some doubts on the pronoun as an subject referring to object of prepostion can u give some more examples.....

On the GMAT, the antecedent for a subject pronoun can be virtually ANY PRECEDING NOUN.
Other official examples in the OG13:

SC45 on page 45:
The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, ruling that it was a form of price-fixing.
Here, it (subject of the verb was) serves to refer to a minimum wage (direct object of the verb declared).

SC100 on page 690:
Being heavily committed to a course of action is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble when they do appear.
Here, they (subject of the verb do appear) serves to refer to signs (direct object of the verb miss).

Please be advised:
Pronoun ambiguity is a low-priority error on the GMAT.
If an answer choice on the GMAT seems to include an ambiguous pronoun, eliminate the answer choice only if one of the other answer choices avoids the ambiguity and is free of errors.

Thanks again

But, in the above question apart from this reason can the parallel point of view still be useful???

In your first explanation i think u misunderstood
A) "is the same as attempting to sing......." is the actual line

you wrote
A) " singing........."

if we take the linking verb 'is' to differentiate the two lines theory says both sides of the linking verb must be parallel

Now only in option A "verb + 'ing' + infinitive" is present that is parallel to the main clause.....

So i wanna ask can this also be the reason for choosing A as the answer......
If not why????

akash singhal wrote: But, in the above question apart from this reason can the parallel point of view still be useful???

Yes, only PARALLEL FORMS can be compared.
B: Trying to mimic...is similar to an intoxicated person singing.
Here, trying to mimic and an intoxicated person singing are not parallel forms -- a valid reason to eliminate B.

The OA offers the most parallel comparison:
TRYING TO MIMIC...is the same as ATTEMPTING TO SING.