-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
Hi Ron,
Teratomas are unusual forms of cancer because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears.
A. because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone
B. because they are composed of tissues like tooth and bone that are
C. because they are composed of tissues, like tooth and bone, tissues
D. in that their composition , tissues such as tooth and bone, is
E. in that they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone, tissues
E is the correct answer.
Quoting Ron
But its important for me to understand why the cause and effect relation is not acceptable here . I read through another of your replies on the same BTG Thread , which spkoe about the difference between in that and because . I understood it well but why is the cause and effect relation not correct and why should we eliminate it because it implies a causative effect . I apologize for circumlocuting on the same idea but i am trying my best to make clear my question.
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/bec ... t3399.html
Teratomas are unusual forms of cancer because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears.
A. because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone
B. because they are composed of tissues like tooth and bone that are
C. because they are composed of tissues, like tooth and bone, tissues
D. in that their composition , tissues such as tooth and bone, is
E. in that they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone, tissues
E is the correct answer.
Quoting Ron
Whats wrong with saying Teratomas are unusual forms of cancer because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone . I mean whats wrong with implying cause and effect relationship here . I noticed another thread existing on MGMAT and i am aware that the issue has been discussed exhaustively .i found this sentence interesting:
However, in the OG I remember reading that "in that" is a conjunction meaning 'inasmuch as' which is considered stilted and overly formal.
it appears that you're conflating the following 2 ideas:
(1) 'in that' has the same meaning as 'inasmuch as'
(2) 'inasmuch as' is apparently considered stilted/formal by the o.g. people
even if taken together, these 2 statements definitely don't imply that 'in that' is too formal / stilted.
analogy: 'you' means the same as 'thou', which is considered archaic. this of course doesn't mean that 'you' is also archaic.
--
do you understand the difference between 'because' and 'in that'?
'because' is used to state a cause-effect relationship between 2 phenomena.
'in that' is used to circumscribe a statement. if a sentence says 'X is exceptional in that it does Y', then the implication is that doing Y is pretty much the only thing that's exceptional about X.
--
by the way, you mean insight, not incite. (incite is a verb, meaning, roughly, 'to initiate or stir up some sort of bad behavior or undesirable event')
But its important for me to understand why the cause and effect relation is not acceptable here . I read through another of your replies on the same BTG Thread , which spkoe about the difference between in that and because . I understood it well but why is the cause and effect relation not correct and why should we eliminate it because it implies a causative effect . I apologize for circumlocuting on the same idea but i am trying my best to make clear my question.
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/bec ... t3399.html
