Reared apart from each other

[madhur_ahuja]

Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.

(A) Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.
(B) Reared apart from each other, striking similarities between identical twins that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior were shown in a recent United States study.
(C) A recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins reared apart from each other that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior.
(D) According to a recent United States study, identical twins reared apart from each other showed striking similarities, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.
(E) According to a recent United States study, identical twins showed striking similarities reared apart from each other, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.

[shilpi84]

IMO D

[geet]

yup ...D is the DRACULA!

[brick2009]

Answer is D:

The original sentence: reared apart---What/who? not the US study..so A is X

B--> Illogical

C--> The problem with C is its a Run-on sentence.. continuous and hard to understand

D & E:

Study (was related to) --> Identical twins --> (and the next logical part of the sentence should be related to the twins.).--> who were reared apart E violates this norm


PS: everyones though process is different.. ..and this is how i deciphered.. it

[hamxa]

A)-Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study ....(Misplaced mod.)
B)-same reason as above
C)-Use of 'that' is ambiguous.
D)-Right answer !
E)-striking similarities reared apart from each other. Suggesting that striking similarities were reared apart from each other.

[girish3131]

OA plz...

ta

[gmat800_]

I got E

OA ??

[pops]

D is d best !

[sumanr84]

+1 for D...its misplaced modifier question. hamxa expln holds good.

[akhpad]

One more vote for D

[ansumania]

Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.

(A) Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.
(B) Reared apart from each other, striking similarities between identical twins that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior were shown in a recent United States study.
(C) A recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins reared apart from each other that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior.
(D) According to a recent United States study, identical twins reared apart from each other showed striking similarities, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.
(E) According to a recent United States study, identical twins showed striking similarities reared apart from each other, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.

are 'reared' and 'including' used parallely? Not sure...pl. suggest.

[lunarpower]

Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.

(A) Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.
(B) Reared apart from each other, striking similarities between identical twins that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior were shown in a recent United States study.
(C) A recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins reared apart from each other that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior.
(D) According to a recent United States study, identical twins reared apart from each other showed striking similarities, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.
(E) According to a recent United States study, identical twins showed striking similarities reared apart from each other, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.

are 'reared' and 'including' used parallely? Not sure...pl. suggest.

they are not.

remember that the fundamental foundation of parallelism is parallel CONTEXT -- parallelism is not necessary, or even relevant, unless the two words/constructions are actually describing THE SAME KIND OF THING/SITUATION.

in this problem, "reared" is describing the twins themselves, while "including" modifies the striking similarities.
therefore, since these modifiers are not used in parallel contexts, they don't need to be parallel. (however, they don't need to be NONparallel, either.)

[lunarpower]

by the way, this is a poorly written question -- what's the source?

in choice (d), which is presumably intended to be the correct answer, the word "showed" should actually be "show" (i.e., present tense), since this study is showing things that are presented as universal generalities. when universal generalities are presented, they should be presented in the present tense, even if the studies that discovered them are in the past.

for instance:
a 17th-century study showed that human blood circulates through the veins and arteries.
even though the study was in the 17th century, we must still use "circulates" in the present tense, since this is a generality that still applies to humans today. (if we wrote "circulated", then we would be wrongly implying that human blood doesn't work this way anymore.)
the sloppy writing of the correct answer suggests that the twins showed these generalities at the time of the study (hence the past tense), but don't anymore.

[tomada]

by the way, this is a poorly written question -- what's the source?

in choice (d), which is presumably intended to be the correct answer, the word "showed" should actually be "show" (i.e., present tense), since this study is showing things that are presented as universal generalities. when universal generalities are presented, they should be presented in the present tense, even if the studies that discovered them are in the past.

for instance:
a 17th-century study showed that human blood circulates through the veins and arteries.
even though the study was in the 17th century, we must still use "circulates" in the present tense, since this is a generality that still applies to humans today. (if we wrote "circulated", then we would be wrongly implying that human blood doesn't work this way anymore.)
the sloppy writing of the correct answer suggests that the twins showed these generalities at the time of the study (hence the past tense), but don't anymore.

Hypothetically, if the words "According to" were replaced with the individual word "In", could "showed" be correct, since the sentence would be referring to a specific timeframe (the recent study)?

[lunarpower]

Hypothetically, if the words "According to" were replaced with the individual word "In", could "showed" be correct, since the sentence would be referring to a specific timeframe (the recent study)?

absolutely yes. nice.

if you say "according to", then the following discussion should represent the point or conclusion of the study, which should ideally be a general principle. if this general principle still applies, then it should be in the present tense.

however, yes, if you have "IN the study/studies", then you're talking about what actually happened in the study/studies. since the studies are not still ongoing, the past tense would be most appropriate in that case.

nicely done.