Sentence Correction

After more than four decades of research and development, a new type of jet engine is being tested that could eventually propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or help boost cargoes into space at significantly lower costs than current methods permit.

a/ tested that could eventually propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or help

b/ tested that could eventually have the capability of propelling aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or to help

c/ tested, eventually able to propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours, or helping

d/ tested, and it eventually could propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or helping

e/ tested, and it could eventually have the capability to propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or help


Answer is: A

I am wondering if there is anything grammatically incorrect about option D, besides being wordy?

melanie.espeland wrote:After more than four decades of research and development, a new type of jet engine is being tested that could eventually propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or help boost cargoes into space at significantly lower costs than current methods permit.

a/ tested that could eventually propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or help

b/ tested that could eventually have the capability of propelling aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or to help

c/ tested, eventually able to propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours, or helping

d/ tested, and it eventually could propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or helping

e/ tested, and it could eventually have the capability to propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or help


Answer is: A

I am wondering if there is anything grammatically incorrect about option D, besides being wordy?

Look at this, from choice D. "it eventually could propel......or helping"

For one thing, propel and helping are not parallel

Alternatively, look at how a simplified version sounds, it eventually could helping boost cargoes

What???

In general, this is the kind of thing one needs to see to score high on GMAT SC. Do rules matter? Well sort of. What probably matters more is skill in seeing that parts of the choice don't work with each other or with other parts of the sentence. Even without knowing any rules really, one could rule out D once one sees that thing, it could helping.

Oops, I made a typo. I meant to ask about option E. I agree that option D is obviously not correct because it is not parallel.

What are your thoughts on E? I think it is just wordy, or is there anything else I'm missing? Perhaps it would be better if worded as "capability to propel...or to help...".

melanie.espeland wrote:Oops, I made a typo. I meant to ask about option E. I agree that option D is obviously not correct because it is not parallel.

What are your thoughts on E? I think it is just wordy, or is there anything else I'm missing? Perhaps it would be better if worded as "capability to propel...or to help...".

This one actually got me too, I was really on the fence and in some ways liked E more than A.

So I just looked it up, and in some places it says the OA is E and in some the OA is A.

Wondering where you found it.

This is from an official practice test, they said answer is A (I thought it was E).

melanie.espeland wrote:This is from an official practice test, they said answer is A (I thought it was E).

A has issues too. Even GMAC seems capable of creating flawed verbal questions.

Maybe someone else has some insight, but I look at A and wonder about the way jet engine is separated from the modifier, that could eventually...

melanie.espeland wrote:After more than four decades of research and development, a new type of jet engine is being tested that could eventually propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or help boost cargoes into space at significantly lower costs than current methods permit.

a/ tested that could eventually propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or help

b/ tested that could eventually have the capability of propelling aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or to help

c/ tested, eventually able to propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours, or helping

d/ tested, and it eventually could propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or helping

e/ tested, and it could eventually have the capability to propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or help

In B and E, could and capability are redundant: if X is CAPABLE of doing Y, then X COULD do Y.
Eliminate B and E.

A conjunction such as or must serve to connect PARALLEL FORMS.
C and D: propel...or helping
Here, propel and helping are not parallel forms.
Eliminate C and D.

The correct answer is A.

OA: A new type of jet engine is being tested that could eventually propel aircraft anywhere in the world.
Here, the construction is SUBJECT + VERB + that-MODIFIER.
Since a that-modifier cannot serve to modify a verb but must refer to a preceding NOUN, only one interpretation is possible: that could eventually propel aircraft anywhere in the world (that-modifier) serves to modify a new type of jet engine (the preceding subject).

Here is a screen shot indicating the OA:

Implication of the OA:
On the GMAT, SUBJECT + VERB + that-MODIFIER is considered a viable structure.

I still find this question to be lame.

First, jet engine is being tested that is fine in a way, and at the same time not such a good structure.

Second, the could and have the capability of are not really redundant. Could is often used as a synonym of may, and that seems to be the case here. In other words, this sentence could legitimately be saying that the new type of jet engine may at some point be capable of doing certain things.

This would be similar to saying "If John studies tonight, he may be able to pass the test." Is this the best structure? Would it be better too say instead, "If John studies tonight, it's possible that he will be able to pass the test"? Maybe that's what is going on. Maybe GMAC is saying that the entire way of speaking that shows up as statements such as "I may do it later." or "He might show up eventually." is wrong, and should instead be "It's possible that I will do it later."

Hey that's an interesting point, but testing on that, or on some distinction between could and may, seems bizarre.

While Mitch may have the way to get this right on the test, sometimes the sentence correction questions made by GMAC are weak and flawed and the answers are way too debatable. This question seems to be an example of that.

Marty Murray wrote:could and have the capability of are not really redundant.

Since could and capable each imply an ABILITY to do something, they cannot be used together within the context of the same clause.

Could is often used as a synonym of may, and that seems to be the case here. In other words, this sentence could legitimately be saying that the new type of jet engine may at some point be capable of doing certain things.

Could and may are not true synonyms.
Whereas could implies an ABILITY to do something -- in fact, one purpose of could is to serve as the past tense form of can -- may implies only that a particular outcome is POSSIBLE.

John may be six feet tall.
Implication:
It is POSSIBLE that John is six feet tall.

John could be six feet tall.
Implication:
John has the ABILITY to be six feet tall.
Not the intended meaning.

sometimes the sentence correction questions made by GMAC are weak and flawed and the answers are way too debatable. This question seems to be an example of that.

This line of thought is counterproductive.
The purpose of BTG is to help students BEAT THE GMAT.
Questioning the quality of official problems is antithetical to this goal.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

sometimes the sentence correction questions made by GMAC are weak and flawed and the answers are way too debatable. This question seems to be an example of that.

This line of thought is counterproductive.
The purpose of BTG is to help students BEAT THE GMAT.
Questioning the quality of official problems is antithetical to this goal.

Nice stuff Mitch.

The only thing with which I might disagree is this last part. I don't find questioning the quality of the problems to be entirely antithetical to beating the GMAT. Seeing things for what they are is what it takes to beat the GMAT and if the questions themselves have flaws then there is nothing wrong with seeing that.

In fact seeing that could be conducive to beating the GMAT, because then one is prepared to deal with any flaws that might show up on the actual test. For instance, in this case, the structure of choice A is such that many find it flawed, and possibly legitimately so. At the same time, choice E also has a flaw, one that is maybe more clearly a flaw that can be used to eliminate a choice on the GMAT. So if one is prepared for this type of rock and a hard place flawed question, maybe one will be more likely to know which way to turn.

The following assertion is what I find problematic:

Marty Murray wrote:sometimes...the answers are way too debatable. This question seems to be an example of that.

Simply put, the correct answer is the OA.
There is no debate.
Our job is to determine WHY four of the answer choices are wrong and WHY the OA is correct.

E has at least three problems:

could eventually have the capability
Here, could and capability both imply an ability and thus are redundant.

have the capability to...help boost cargoes
This phrase implies that the goal is not to ACTUALLY help boost cargoes but merely to have the CAPABILITY to help boost cargoes.
Not the intended meaning.

A new type of engine is being tested, and it could eventually have the capability to help propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours.
Here, the clause after and does not logically follow from the clause that precedes and.
E employs a line of reasoning equivalent to the following:
Our new student John is being tested, and he could someday be president.
Here, as in E, the second clause does not logically follow from the first.

As for the OA:

Grammatical rules exist primarily to ensure clarity of meaning.
In the vast majority of cases, a that-modifier touches the noun being modified.
But this is not a hard and fast rule.
SC105 in the OG13:
a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone
Here, that could substitute touches conversation, but it serves to modify a tool.

OA to the SC above:
A new type of jet engine is being tested that could eventually propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or help boost cargoes into space at significantly lower costs than current methods permit.
Here, it is not possible for the that-modifier to touch the noun phrase being modified (a new type of jet engine).
The result would be the following:
A new type of jet engine that could eventually propel aircraft anywhere in the world within two hours or help boost cargoes into space at significantly lower costs than current methods permit is being tested.
This sentence is too hard to follow: there is simply too much distance between the subject (a new type of jet engine) and the verb (is being tested).
To ensure clarity of meaning, the OA places the that-modifier AFTER the verb.

While some readers might find this construction awkward, the conveyed meaning is sensical and crystal clear.
Awkwardness alone is never a sufficient reason to eliminate an answer choice.