OG 16

[songqianru]

Hi,

The remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region can,in part,be explained as a very rapid movement of people from one end of North America to the other.

A. The remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region can,in part,be explained as
B. Thule artifacts being remarkable similar throughout a vast region (no verb), one explanation is
C. That Thule artifacts are remarkable similar throughout a vast region, in part, explainable as
D. One explanation for the remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts through a vast region is that there was
E. Throughout a vast region Thule artifacts are remarkable similar, with one explanation for this being

The answer is D, but I failed to reject the answer A, can someone give me light about the choice A? According to the explanation from OG, the intended meaning of the sentence is that rapid movement of of people across North America is one explanation of the similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region. I feel that the choice A talks about the intended meaning, but the OG says that the sentence is illogical.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards.

[MartyMurray]

Choice A does talk about similarity of artifacts and of a rapid movement, but look at it carefully.

It doesn't say that the similarity can be explained BY a rapid movement. It says essentially, "The remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts can be explained AS a rapid movement of people."

Does explained as mean something similar to what described as means? Not really.

Anyway, even if it did, the sentence would be illogical.

[GMATGuruNY]

The answer is D, but I failed to reject the answer A, can someone give me light about the choice A?

A: The remarkable similarity...can be explained as a very rapid movement of people.
How can the remarkable similarity be explained?
It was a very rapid movement of people.
This meaning is nonsensical, implying that THE REMARKABLE SIMILARITY was a VERY RAPID MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE.
Eliminate A.

[songqianru]

If I change the sentence in the following way: That the remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region can,in part,be explained as a very rapid movement of people from one end of North America to the other. now should it be correct? Because the whole clause -the remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region- is a subject now by using That .

Thank you very much

[MartyMurray]

If I change the sentence in the following way: That the remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region can,in part,be explained as a very rapid movement of people from one end of North America to the other. now should it be correct? Because the whole clause -the remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region- is a subject now by using That .

No. That does not fix it.

The problem is the word AS. As soon as you say explained as rather than explained by, the sentence becomes illogical as described in the posts above.

Further, by adding that, you have changed the sentence into one long subject structure with no verb. So the construction is no longer a sentence even, or maybe you realized that?

[songqianru]

You are right, the modified version does not have a verb. I am wondering if A is explained as B, so A=B; If A is explained by B, so B explains A. Alright? I get a little bit confused.

Thank you for clarifying my doubt.

[bonetlobo]

I seem to remember reading an expert post that in GMAT the usage of auxiliary verb + that is incorrect. But here, in option D, this structure seems to be used: is that.

Can an expert please comment on this.

[thang]

the similarity can be explained as movement
is non sense.

regarding this point, all of us have enough grammar rules to solve this problem. and this problem is so hard and so simple that the logic is tested. we should USE OUR COMMON SENSE OF THIS WORLD to realize this illogic relation. it sounds like Englisng literature. but I am not a novelist, I am a person willing to beat gmat

[manihar.sidharth]

Had option A used "Explained By", then would it be correct

[Crystal W]

Can someone explain the Choice B? I believe that the one refers to the previous part is ok and the previous part is not an independent clause.
Thanks in advance!

[GMATGuruNY]

I seem to remember reading an expert post that in GMAT the usage of auxiliary verb + that is incorrect. But here, in option D, this structure seems to be used: is that.

Can an expert please comment on this.

Any construction that appears in an OA from GMAC is -- by definition -- CORRECT.
OA: One explanation...is that there was a very rapid movement of people.
Here, the portion in red indicates that the usage of is that is considered correct.

[GMATGuruNY]

Can someone explain the Choice B? I believe that the one refers to the previous part is ok and the previous part is not an independent clause.
Thanks in advance!

Check my post here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-2016-sc-31-t289706.html

[bubai800]

One explanation for the remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts through a vast region is that there was
a very rapid movement of people from one end of North America to the other.

If you closely look at option D -
We can rewrite:-
Explanation for similarity is that a very rapid movement of people from one end of North America to the other.

This sounds more logical comparison.

[MartyMurray]

I seem to remember reading an expert post that in GMAT the usage of auxiliary verb + that is incorrect. But here, in option D, this structure seems to be used: is that.

Can an expert please comment on this.

Here's another thing to consider. GMAT verbal is not a grammar test. So probably a little issue like the one you mentioned is not a key decision point for finding the correct answer to a sentence correction question.

The incorrect answers to this question are all rather clearly flawed.

The version created using C, for instance, has no main verb, and is therefore not even a sentence. Generally flaws like the one in C are what you have to look for to get SC questions right.

There are GMAT Prep resources out there that might be great if you were looking to get a PhD in grammar, but you can get every sentence correction question right without knowing half of what is discussed in those resources, IF you are good at seeing key details and using logic.

[[email protected]]

Hello Everyone!

Let's take a closer look at this question and narrow it down to the right answer. To get started, here is the question with any major differences between each option highlighted in orange:

The remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region can, in part, be explained as a very rapid movement of people from one end of North America to the other.

(A) The remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region can, in part, be explained as
(B) Thule artifacts being remarkably similar throughout a vast region, one explanation is
(C) That Thule artifacts are remarkably similar throughout a vast region is, in part, explainable as
(D) One explanation for the remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region is that there was
(E) Throughout a vast region Thule artifacts are remarkably similar, with one explanation for this being


After a quick glance over the options, we have a couple things we can focus on:

1. How each option begins
2. How each option ends

Right away, if we just read the orange parts in each option, we start to see some problems:

(A) The remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region can, in part, be explained as

This answer is INCORRECT because it's saying that the similarity of Thule artifacts IS a rapid movement of people from one end of North American to another, which doesn't really make logical sense. It should say that the similarity is CAUSED BY a rapid movement of people. It's also not clear that this is only ONE explanation of many - it just says that this partly explains the similarity of artifacts.

(B) Thule artifacts being remarkably similar throughout a vast region, one explanation is

This is INCORRECT because it's unclear what the subject of the sentence is. The phrase "Thule artifacts being remarkably similar throughout a vast region" needs a verb directly after it to work because it is acting like a subject here. "One explanation" is also acting as the subject. We can't have two subjects that are just stacked on top of each other like this, with nothing connecting them.

(C) That Thule artifacts are remarkably similar throughout a vast region is, in part, explainable as

This is INCORRECT for the same reason as option A. If you read carefully, it says that the phenomenon of similar artifacts IS the movement of people, not that it was CAUSED BY a sudden movement of people. This doesn't make logical sense, so let's toss this option aside.

(D) One explanation for the remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region is that there was

This is CORRECT because it conveys the proper meaning (the movement of people is one explanation for finding similar artifacts in several places), and this is absolutely clear to readers. This isn't to say this option is perfectly grammatically correct - many of you took issue with the phrase "is that there was" being overly wordy. However, this is the best answer because it conveys its meaning the clearest - even if you could argue that you could cut a few words out.

(E) Throughout a vast region Thule artifacts are remarkably similar, with one explanation for this being

This is INCORRECT because the first clause "Throughout a vast region Thule artifacts are remarkably similar" is missing a comma after the word region.

There you have it - option D is the correct answer!This was a difficult question, for sure!

Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.