BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Whiskey Emerging

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:10 am
Thanked: 13 times

Whiskey Emerging

by shekhar.kataria » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:17 pm
When whiskey first emerges from a still, and before it has been aged in oak with an extremely high alcohol content, it would be about 185 proof, which is strong enough to fuel an internal combustion engine.

a.oak with an extremely high alcohol content, it would be about 185 proof, which is strong enough to fuel an internal combustion engine

b.oak with an alcohol content that would be about 185 proof, it is strong enough to fuel an internal combustion engine

c.oak, it has an alcohol content of about 185 proof, which is strong enough to fuel an internal combustion engine

d.oak, if it were used to fuel an internal combustion engine, it would have an alcohol content of about 185 proof

e.oak, it has an alcohol content of about 185 proof, which would be as strong as that of an internal combustion engine

Source:- Princeton
OA : C

I got this one correct. I want to understand whether my eliminations were correct or not. Please read my explanations below and correct me if you think it is wrong.

A and B :- It is not clear what is "with an extremely high content" modifying. Here it is attached with Oak but this can modify whiskey also. AMBIGIOUS.

In A , What is It referring to. I think it can nonly refer to whisky because the other singular noun is placed in a non restrictive modifier.

Thanks in advance.
Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress.--Thomas A. Edison

If you find this post helpful, let me know by clicking thanks above :-)
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:02 pm
shekhar.kataria wrote:I got this one correct. I want to understand whether my eliminations were correct or not. Please read my explanations below and correct me if you think it is wrong.

A and B :- It is not clear what is "with an extremely high content" modifying. Here it is attached with Oak but this can modify whiskey also. AMBIGIOUS.

In A , What is It referring to. I think it can nonly refer to whisky because the other singular noun is placed in a non restrictive modifier.

Thanks in advance.
IMO its not ambiguous - it clearly modifies OAK but that is not the correct noun that this prep ph should modify. From the meaning, if A were correct, we cannot say that WHISKEY after emerging from still and oak is very strong - esp when oak has extremely high alcohol. If oak has high alcohol content, then after emerging Wishkey should become even more stronger. But that is not sentence intends to say - sentence says whiskey is very strong after emerging from still and oak - and therefore, "with an extremely high alcohol content" should not modify oak.

Secondly, IT in the main clause refers to WHISKEY but 185 proof is not for Whiskey rather for alcohol content on Wishkey.

Thirdly, IMO use of WOULD in A/B is not correct - as time frame of EMERGING and WOULD (VERB INDICATED by WOULD) IS SAME and therefore we need present tense.

IMO C
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:15 am
Thanked: 149 times
Followed by:32 members
GMAT Score:760

by avik.ch » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:44 am
shekhar.kataria wrote: A and B :- It is not clear what is "with an extremely high content" modifying. Here it is attached with Oak but this can modify whiskey also. AMBIGIOUS.
With phrase is quiet flexible - at times it doesn't make much difference whether we consider it as an adjective or an adverb.

but here, we can safely deduce that the with phrase is modifying the oak and not the action.
shekhar.kataria wrote:In A , What is It referring to. I think it can nonly refer to whisky because the other singular noun is placed in a non restrictive modifier.
pronoun ambiguity is not an absolute rule - at least to eliminate an answer choice.

here,

When .... ,and before... - is an adverb of time - hence should be separate, if placed at the begining of the sentence, with comma. this is the exact construction c,d and e have. Eliminate A and B.

Hope this helps !!
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1