Here it is, hope it helps, if you find my reasoning is worng pls correct.
First, undertsand that meaning of the sentence is that scientists are trying to accomplish something, second whenever you see the word and underlined ckeck for its usage. And is suupose join to actions, and when it does those two actions do not usually produce the same things...for example if the sentence said scientists at the lab are doing x and y to produce heat then use of and is correct. But it saying scientist are doing one action to do another....and is incorrect
SC GMAT Prep
This topic has expert replies
Source: Beat The GMAT — Sentence Correction |
-
poseidon344
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:36 am
- Location: New Jersey
-
gmat20092009
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:41 am
-
vaibhav.iit2002
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:07 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- GMAT Score:690
-
Beat-D-GMAT
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:58 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
If you try this way then it is very easy to check right answer.
enough for x and for y
this parallelism is missing and hence D is correct choice.
enough for x and for y
this parallelism is missing and hence D is correct choice.
-
sunnyjohn
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
- Thanked: 28 times
- Followed by:3 members
- GMAT Score:700
Hi,
There is an important concept here that GMAT likes to test a lot: Parrallelism.
Usage of Enough.
FYI:
there are ONLY two idiom possible for enough.
enough to : enough X to Y.
Here, more emphasis is given on Y than X.
when you have to give more emphasis on X, Please use
such...that, so much...that, so..that etc.
For ex: the earthquake was so destructive that building was collapsed in seconds.
Here "destructive" is actually telling u the strength of earthquake.
It is less efficient to use:
the earthquake was enough destructive to collapsed the building in seconds.
Because here FOCUS shifted to "collapsed..."
Correct Usage: water was enough hot to boil the vegetables.
or water was hot enough to boil the vegetable.
Here focus is "boiling of vegetables", not on the hotness of water. It more depend on sentence structure.
enough for:
water was hot enough for vegetables to be boiled.
I am not so sure about usage of 'enough for'.
The Question here is straight forward for parallelisma and Idiom.
First of all, ask your self, which one is correct:
in produce
or
to produce ??
When you choosed Option A:
first time in Mining heat from X and producing Y.
i think you compare Mining --- Producing.
But did u see whether "first time in producing" is correct or not ??
Parallelim can happen with "preposition phrase" also, that is what the case here..
in mining heat from X
and
to produce energy on Y.
also see the sense: Mining : doing some kind of work
Prodcue : doing some kind of work.
so on the base of first split:
A and B are out.
C: here parallelism origin is shifter from 'in' to 'for'.
but this means : scientist has succedid first time in mining and
producing energy (not first time) : I think this is not the intended meaning. But i will keep this in my pocket.
D: perfect parallelism, keep the original meaning and parallelism with enough also there
enough for X and for Y.
E: First parallelis is ok, now see at the end:
effificent generation of Electiricty and efficient generation of heat factories ?? <-- awkward.
OUT of C and D, I choose D because it keeps the original meaning intact.
Hope it helps.
There is an important concept here that GMAT likes to test a lot: Parrallelism.
Usage of Enough.
FYI:
there are ONLY two idiom possible for enough.
enough to : enough X to Y.
Here, more emphasis is given on Y than X.
when you have to give more emphasis on X, Please use
such...that, so much...that, so..that etc.
For ex: the earthquake was so destructive that building was collapsed in seconds.
Here "destructive" is actually telling u the strength of earthquake.
It is less efficient to use:
the earthquake was enough destructive to collapsed the building in seconds.
Because here FOCUS shifted to "collapsed..."
Correct Usage: water was enough hot to boil the vegetables.
or water was hot enough to boil the vegetable.
Here focus is "boiling of vegetables", not on the hotness of water. It more depend on sentence structure.
enough for:
water was hot enough for vegetables to be boiled.
I am not so sure about usage of 'enough for'.
The Question here is straight forward for parallelisma and Idiom.
First of all, ask your self, which one is correct:
in produce
or
to produce ??
When you choosed Option A:
first time in Mining heat from X and producing Y.
i think you compare Mining --- Producing.
But did u see whether "first time in producing" is correct or not ??
Parallelim can happen with "preposition phrase" also, that is what the case here..
in mining heat from X
and
to produce energy on Y.
also see the sense: Mining : doing some kind of work
Prodcue : doing some kind of work.
so on the base of first split:
A and B are out.
C: here parallelism origin is shifter from 'in' to 'for'.
but this means : scientist has succedid first time in mining and
producing energy (not first time) : I think this is not the intended meaning. But i will keep this in my pocket.
D: perfect parallelism, keep the original meaning and parallelism with enough also there
enough for X and for Y.
E: First parallelis is ok, now see at the end:
effificent generation of Electiricty and efficient generation of heat factories ?? <-- awkward.
OUT of C and D, I choose D because it keeps the original meaning intact.
Hope it helps.
