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

Redeem

Toughest question in OG

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 12:31 am
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:690

Toughest question in OG

by rx_11 » Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:29 am
57. That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said that it is their fault: Alvin Toffler, one of the most prominent students of the future, did not even mention microcomputers in Future Shock, published in 1970.

(A) That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said that it is their fault
(B) That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said to be at fault
(C) It can hardly be said that it is the fault of educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology
(D) It can hardly be said that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology
(E) The fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said






































OA is D

So difficult this question that I can't choose from A B D E.

A:what if I change 'that it is their fault' to 'to be their fault'?
That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said to be their fault

B:why this one is wrong? Is 'at fault' wrong? Then why at fault in D is correct?

E:1.The fact that educators are at fault for doing......change the original meaning.
2. The subordinate clause 'The fact.....' is too long...

Anyone can help me why A and B is wrong? And plz say something about my interpretations... Thanks so much!
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:25 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by ashokkadam » Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:15 am
A and B are wrong because GMAT prefers sentences that are simple to read, i think.
Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:44 am
Thanked: 70 times
Followed by:6 members

by niksworth » Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:36 am
Okay. Let me rant on this.

A - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said that it is their fault

That something has happened can hardly be said that it is their fault.
something = educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

The second that is problematic.

If we change the construction to - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said to be their fault, I don't see any grammatical lapses, the construction is inelegant and awkward. I would look for a better construction.

B - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said to be at fault

That something has happened can hardly be said to be at fault.
something = educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

What does it even mean? Who is at fault? An event cannot be at fault.

C - It can hardly be said that it is the fault of educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology is just a modifier modifying educators. So the sentence in essence reads - [i]It can hardly be said that it is the fault of a certain kind of educators.[/i]

certain kind - those educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

Now what is the fault of educators? it has no referent.

E - The fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said.

Something can hardly be said - Okay

Something - The fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology

- Changes meaning. it is not a fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology. In fact this very thing is debatable.

D - It can hardly be said that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology - Perfect.

No grammatical errors. Meaning is clear. Delivery is smooth.
scio me nihil scire
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:39 pm

by novel » Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:35 pm
IMO D.One can clearly get the meaning after reading the sentence.While the others are confusing.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:30 am
Niksworth has given a very well reasoned explanation (certainly not a rant)....let me just pick up on a couple of points that will carry over to other sentences as this particular sentence will never appear on test day. That is the goal of studying, to find the lessons that carry over to other similar situations, since you will never see the exact problem again.

First, notice the semicolon. This is basically a shorter sentence with the entire sentence underlined, since the semicolon serves nearly the same purpose as a period. The portion about Alvin Toffler can be properly ignored.

When an entire sentence is underlined there are two things that you should be looking for every time = 1) misplaced modifiers and 2) intentional awkwardness. The normal errors such as singular vs. plural, verb tense, etc. could show up and if they do they can be used, but time and time again when the whole sentence is underlined modifiers and awkwardness are the ways to eliminate. For this reason, with this type of sentence I do not fight against the awkwardness but I look for it and I use it. Niksworth has pointed out why A, B, and C are awkward and unclear. That is enough to eliminate these choices.

Answer choice E is intentionally awkward as well. This is the standard I would use here. If you eliminate the modifier from the middle of E it reads "The fact ... can hardly be said." This is a very strange construction, especially when compared to D "It can hardly be said that..." You can really tell that someone wants you to eliminate this answer!

I don't put any faith in the "changes the meaning" reason for eliminating answer choices. As long as an answer choice is logical that should be enough. Could it be a fact that educators are at fault? Is this logical? If so then I would look for other, grammatical reasons for elimination. Now if they tried to tell you that fish are at fault for not anticipating that a dam would be built then you could eliminate based on logic.

So here are some take aways.

1) Colon means you basically can ignore everything on the side of the colon that is not underlined.
2) Entire (or nearly entire) sentence underlined means you should look for A) modifier error B) intentional awkwardness.
3) Use the standard of "is it logical?" rather than "it differs from the original."

Have fun!
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:44 am
Thanked: 70 times
Followed by:6 members

by niksworth » Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:33 am
David, this is one thing on which I do not have a clear answer yet. What is the place of "changing the meaning" on GMAT land?

I have seen good many questions where an option has been ruled out because it changes the meaning, even though the sentence in itself might be perfectly logical and grammatical. Perhaps these might be from unofficial sources, I don't really remember.

What does your research on official GMAC questions show? Do we have official questions in which 2 options have good grammar and logic? Is changing the meaning a valid reason for eliminating answer choices (considering that they are not awkward constructions)?
scio me nihil scire
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:06 am
I think that people are reaching for something when they say that they will eliminate a choice because it changes the meaning.

Let me be clear - there are not official GMAT questions that are perfect in Grammar and in Logic that can be eliminated because you change the meaning of the sentence.

Let's review:

In the Official Guide 12th edition and the Verbal Supplement I did not find instances where a choice was ruled out because it changed the meaning. Let me tell you what I did find as reasons to eliminate a choice other than grammar. So if the grammar is not obviously incorrect you can eliminate a choice for:

A) Wordiness
B) Awkwardness
C) Being indirect
D) Confusing
E) Lack of clarity

and a really important category
F) Not logical

This may be what people are referring to when they say "changing the meaning" -- However this does not account for the fact that even answer choice A can be illogical.

Take for example question #37 in the Verbal Review. The underlined part of the original sentence says "Some buildings that were destroyed and heavily damaged in the earthquake last year" the official explanation eliminates this choice because "The buildings are illogically said to be both destroyed and damaged."

For this example, the correct answer choice changes the meaning to "destroyed or damaged." So here we have the original meaning changed from something that was illogical to logical.

Bottom line answer to your question: changing the meaning of the sentence is not a reason to eliminate an answer choice. But if it is illogical then eliminate it - even if it is answer choice A.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:44 am
Thanked: 70 times
Followed by:6 members

by niksworth » Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:28 pm
Thanks! I'll definitely keep this in mind. This thing was bugging me forever.
scio me nihil scire
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 12:31 am
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:690

by rx_11 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:26 pm
David@VeritasPrep wrote:I think that people are reaching for something when they say that they will eliminate a choice because it changes the meaning.

Let me be clear - there are not official GMAT questions that are perfect in Grammar and in Logic that can be eliminated because you change the meaning of the sentence.

Let's review:

In the Official Guide 12th edition and the Verbal Supplement I did not find instances where a choice was ruled out because it changed the meaning. Let me tell you what I did find as reasons to eliminate a choice other than grammar. So if the grammar is not obviously incorrect you can eliminate a choice for:

A) Wordiness
B) Awkwardness
C) Being indirect
D) Confusing
E) Lack of clarity

and a really important category
F) Not logical

This may be what people are referring to when they say "changing the meaning" -- However this does not account for the fact that even answer choice A can be illogical.

Take for example question #37 in the Verbal Review. The underlined part of the original sentence says "Some buildings that were destroyed and heavily damaged in the earthquake last year" the official explanation eliminates this choice because "The buildings are illogically said to be both destroyed and damaged."

For this example, the correct answer choice changes the meaning to "destroyed or damaged." So here we have the original meaning changed from something that was illogical to logical.

Bottom line answer to your question: changing the meaning of the sentence is not a reason to eliminate an answer choice. But if it is illogical then eliminate it - even if it is answer choice A.




Hi, David,

Did you mean that we can change the original meaning if we can make it logical?

For example,
Original: "The drop in interest rates WILL create better investment opportunities"
Alternate:" The drop in interest rates MAY create better investment opportunities "

The two sentense are grammerly correct and they are both logical. However, the second sentence has changed the original meaning. Can we choose that?(Hypothesze that they are both logical in the context.)
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:49 pm
This is a very important question that you ask so I have spent time to go through the entire OG 12 edition to find instances where answer choices are considered wrong for reasons of meaning. This took some time but was very enlightening.

What I found was this: You can eliminate an answer choice based on changing or distorting the "intended" meaning. Interestingly, answer choice A does not always convey the intended meaning and I found that A was eliminated as often or more often than any other choice, because of changing the intended meaning. So you CANNOT eliminate a choice because it changes from answer choice A. You can eliminate if it changes from the intended meaning but you have to determine that meaning, which may not be the one in the original sentence.

In the OG 12 edition, the following questions had answers eliminated for being illogical, but no mention of changing the meaning. Numbers 8, 14, 17, 36, 39, 47, 51, 53, 98

The following questions do mention a change in meaning, however, that is not a change in meaning from Choice A, but a change in meaning from the "intended meaning." By the way, each of these answer choices also feature other errors: questions 37, 46, 55, 57, 64, 91.

To emphasize that the original sentence is not the standard by which meaning is measured, the following answers all feature an original sentence that was illogical or did not correctly convey the intended meaning. Let me restate, it is possible for Choice A to not convey the intended meaning. (Answer Choice A was described as "not conveying the intended meaning" or "illogical" or "does not make sense.") questions 19, 23, 31, 41, 78, 89, 97, 120, 132, 135, 137

In your example above, "will" and "may" are both quite logical, so you can only eliminate if there is a way for you to determine the "intended" meaning. Not to worry, there is almost always another way to eliminate an answer choice so you should not face the choice that you have listed above.

I have listed the question numbers that I found had some relation to this subject so that each person could investigate if they choose...

Hope that helps!
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 12:31 am
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:690

by rx_11 » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:15 pm
Oh!!Thank you David!!I will check them one by one!!!Thank you for your great jobs!!
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:48 am
You are very welcome! It was worth it to really be able to say what I have been indicating for a long time, which is that Answer Choice A is not special. A can just as easily as any other answer choice be illogical or stray from the meaning. You should do very well if you focus on grammar and logic first, then move to things like awkwardness and wordiness versus clarity and brevity. If it should be necessary to go with the "distorts the intended meaning" then we now know what to do!
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 8:57 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by divineacclivity » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:51 pm
niksworth wrote:Okay. Let me rant on this.

A - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said that it is their fault

That something has happened can hardly be said that it is their fault.
something = educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

The second that is problematic.

If we change the construction to - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said to be their fault, I don't see any grammatical lapses, the construction is inelegant and awkward. I would look for a better construction.

B - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said to be at fault

That something has happened can hardly be said to be at fault.
something = educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

What does it even mean? Who is at fault? An event cannot be at fault.

C - It can hardly be said that it is the fault of educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology is just a modifier modifying educators. So the sentence in essence reads - [i]It can hardly be said that it is the fault of a certain kind of educators.[/i]

certain kind - those educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

Now what is the fault of educators? it has no referent.

E - The fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said.

Something can hardly be said - Okay

Something - The fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology

- Changes meaning. it is not a fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology. In fact this very thing is debatable.

D - It can hardly be said that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology - Perfect.

No grammatical errors. Meaning is clear. Delivery is smooth.
Great explanation!
I just have one doubt here and that is:
Consider the following sentences:
A pen is for writing - CORRECT
I picked up the pen (in order) to write - CORRECT
I picked up the pen for writing - INCORRECT

for - specifies the purpose of an object and "in order to" specifies purpose of an action.

So, D choice also uses ".. for not anticipating the impact .." - wouldn't this be wrong? If not, are my above examples wrong? If they are, pls explain why. Thank you.

- Divine
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:46 am

by addictive0101 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:49 am
Thanks for such a good explanation.

Could you please help me with any advice how to handle this type of question in 1.5 mins?

Well I took more than 5 mins and eventually got it wrong...:(
niksworth wrote:Okay. Let me rant on this.

A - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said that it is their fault

That something has happened can hardly be said that it is their fault.
something = educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

The second that is problematic.

If we change the construction to - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said to be their fault, I don't see any grammatical lapses, the construction is inelegant and awkward. I would look for a better construction.

B - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said to be at fault

That something has happened can hardly be said to be at fault.
something = educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

What does it even mean? Who is at fault? An event cannot be at fault.

C - It can hardly be said that it is the fault of educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology is just a modifier modifying educators. So the sentence in essence reads - [i]It can hardly be said that it is the fault of a certain kind of educators.[/i]

certain kind - those educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

Now what is the fault of educators? it has no referent.

E - The fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said.

Something can hardly be said - Okay

Something - The fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology

- Changes meaning. it is not a fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology. In fact this very thing is debatable.

D - It can hardly be said that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology - Perfect.

No grammatical errors. Meaning is clear. Delivery is smooth.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:31 pm
Thanked: 42 times
Followed by:20 members

by sana.noor » Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:32 am
Use "Process of elimination" How?
you should know the right idiom...the right idiom is "at fault" so A and C are out
B is out because you dont know who is at fault "can hardly be said to be at fault" is awkward
E introduces "the fact" which isnt mentioned in real question, dont try to change the original meaning of the sentence..so E out

D wins
Work hard in Silence, Let Success make the noise.

If you found my Post really helpful, then don't forget to click the Thank/follow me button. :)
Top
Post new topic Locked