The single-family house

[GmatKiss]

The single-family house constructed by the Yana, a Native American people who lived in
what is now northern California, was conical in shape, its framework of poles overlaid
with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine, and banked with dirt to a height of three to four
feet.

A. banked with dirt to a height of
B. banked with dirt as high as that of
C. banked them with dirt to a height of
D. was banked with dirt as high as
E. was banked with dirt as high as that of

[gmatblood]

IMO: D

[rijul007]

Option A

[gummybear]

IMO A

[GmatKiss]

Please support your picks!

[queenisabella]

any other rationale for the right answer being a? i incorrectly chose D as well, but after re-reading the sentence, the "banked with dirt" clause looks like it's supposed to modify "framework of poles" vs. the "single-family house", thus A is correct? Can someone please confirm?

[Bill@VeritasPrep]

any other rationale for the right answer being a? i incorrectly chose D as well, but after re-reading the sentence, the "banked with dirt" clause looks like it's supposed to modify "framework of poles" vs. the "single-family house", thus A is correct? Can someone please confirm?

Correct. The framework of poles was "overlaid with..." and "banked with..." Our answer choice must be parallel to "overlaid with," so we can get rid of C.

We can eliminate D and E for using "was" unnecessarily. The "was" in front of "overlaid" controls "banked" as well: was (overlaid and banked).

A uses "to a height of," which is clearer and more direct than B's "as high as that of..."

[GmatKiss]

OA is A.

Bill has given a perfect explanation

[jassim.arif]

Hi Bill,

Can you please tell me why I am wrong....

I chose D because the answer choice has "was banked". I determined that "was" was necessary because it is parallel to "was conical in shape".

Secondly, in answer choice A - "to a height of" seems to state an exact height and not a range. Hence I chose D where "as high as" indicates a range.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best,

[Nina1987]

Experts:

If we strip the sentence to the bare minimum it will look like this (highlighted in red font) -

The single-family house constructed by the Yana, a Native American people who lived in
what is now northern California, was conical in shape, its framework of poles overlaid
with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine, and banked with dirt to a height of three to four
feet.

Hence I thought the following two parts should be parallel-
'was conical in shape' and 'and was banked with dirt'

Thus I thought a was was required after and

How to know which parts should be parallel?

Thakns

[DavidG@VeritasPrep]

Experts:

If we strip the sentence to the bare minimum it will look like this (highlighted in red font) -

The single-family house constructed by the Yana, a Native American people who lived in
what is now northern California, was conical in shape, its framework of poles overlaid
with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine, and banked with dirt to a height of three to four
feet.

Hence I thought the following two parts should be parallel-
'was conical in shape' and 'and was banked with dirt'

Thus I thought a was was required after and

How to know which parts should be parallel?

Thakns

The best way to see what parts of this sentence should be parallel is to use logic. There are two options. One, as you noted, is to write: The single-family house was conical in shape... and was banked with dirt. Think about this for a moment. Do we think the writer wishes to claim that the whole house was banked with dirt?

Alternatively, the parallel structure could be between participles functioning as adjectives.

its framework of poles overlaid with slabs of bark and banked with dirt to a height of three to four
feet. It makes more sense to claim that the framework of poles is banked with dirt, rather than the whole house.

(Note also that the phrase "as high as" seems odd here. "As high as" implies that the maximum height will follow, but that, elsewhere there are lower heights. But the following phrase is, in fact, a range: "three to four feet." If the intended meaning is that four feet is the maximum height, why not simply write "as high as four feet?")

[Nina1987]

Thanks David! That makes total sense.

Also, what are the rules that govern if an auxiliary verb such as was should be repeated after a conjunction such as and, but etc.?

Thanks again

[TheGraduate]

Why would the following construction be incorrect ? :
The single family house constructed by the Yana, a Native American people who lived in what is now northern California,
was conical in shape
, its framework of poles overlaid with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine,
and was banked with dirt to a height of three to four feet.

I am assuming the reader would not have any prior knowledge of Native American houses.

Could "its framework of poles overlaid with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine" not parenthetically modify the house?

[Ali Tariq]

Why would is the following construction be incorrect ? :
The single family house constructed by the Yana, a Native American people who lived in what is now northern California,
was conical in shape
, its framework of poles overlaid with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine,
and
was banked with dirt to a height of three to four feet

None of the answer choices matches the one quoted.
To spot the difference between this one and OA requires the information not provided in the question stem.

I am assuming the reader would not have any prior knowledge of Native American houses.

True!
No prior or outside knowledge is required to get to the correct answer choice in any GMAT verbal question.

Could "its framework of poles overlaid with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine" not parenthetically modify the house?

"its framework of poles overlaid with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine" modifies subject( house, or to be more specific The single-family house constructed by the Yana ).

[GMATGuruNY]

Why would is the following construction be incorrect ? :
The single family house constructed by the Yana, a Native American people who lived in what is now northern California,
was conical in shape
, its framework of poles overlaid with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine,
and was banked with dirt to a height of three to four feet.

I am assuming the reader would not have any prior knowledge of Native American houses.

Could "its framework of poles overlaid with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine" not parenthetically modify the house?

Proposed answer choice:
The single family house was conical in shape, its framework of poles overlaid with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine, and was banked with dirt to a height of three to four feet.
The portion in blue is an absolute phrase.
For a discussion of this type of modifier, check the following:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/sir-joseph-t59644-15.html (second post)
https://www.beatthegmat.com/sc-doubt-t283445.html
Here, the absolute phrase appears in the middle of the clause in red.
To my knowledge, there is no precedent for this structure on the GMAT.
Generally, an absolute phrase on the GMAT follows the end of an independent clause.
For this reason, the GMAT would be unlikely to offer the structure above as an OA.