pingu wrote:Following is a sentence from a news article.

For a man who once smashed the windscreen of a car parked well outside the playing field, Valthaty's physical attributes understates his ability to hit big. When though, has being tall and bulky ever defined a genuine power-hitter in any form of cricket?

1) understates - should be understate
2) When though, has being tall and bulky ever defined - I am not sure about When though, but I think has being tall and bulky ever defined looks fine.

Correct me If I am wrong.

I don't like anything in the above written sentence, and i don't think, this kind of sentences (even closer to this one) appear on GMAT.

1) understates - should be understate----> you are right

I don't think the use of WHEN is correct here....

Moreover, i'm doubtful about the pronoun HIS also...its a possessive pronoun...seems like this pronoun referring to "MAN" but if this word "Valthaty" is also a MAN (i don't know what it is) in that case i think HIS can refer to "Valthaty's" also...

A suggestion: If u are learning some English tips from newspaper then read "The Economist" online, the best written newspaper so far. The way they put articles is amazing, u find a proper use of comparison indicators plus idioms and grammer.
The newspapers like "The times of India" and "Hindusthan Times" unfortunately have many mistakes.

Thanks

Following is a sentence from a news article.

For a man who once smashed the windscreen of a car parked well outside the playing field, Valthaty's physical attributes understates his ability to hit big. When though, has being tall and bulky ever defined a genuine power-hitter in any form of cricket?

1) understates - should be understate
2) When though, has being tall and bulky ever defined - I am not sure about When though, but I think has being tall and bulky ever defined looks fine.

Correct me If I am wrong.

First, you should definitely stop reading that newspaper!

You're right about your first point, no doubt.

The second underlined part is definitely missing a comma. When, though, has ... Then the sentence would be okay.

Reading such poorly written articles will likely DECREASE your score on the GMAT once you give those writers credit they don't deserve.

jaymw wrote:

Following is a sentence from a news article.

For a man who once smashed the windscreen of a car parked well outside the playing field, Valthaty's physical attributes understates his ability to hit big. When though, has being tall and bulky ever defined a genuine power-hitter in any form of cricket?

1) understates - should be understate
2) When though, has being tall and bulky ever defined - I am not sure about When though, but I think has being tall and bulky ever defined looks fine.

Correct me If I am wrong.

First, you should definitely stop reading that newspaper!

You're right about your first point, no doubt.

The second underlined part is definitely missing a comma. When, though, has ... Then the sentence would be okay.

Reading such poorly written articles will likely DECREASE your score on the GMAT once you give those writers credit they don't deserve.

With the extra comma it's fine.

Personally, I think reading lower-level journalism is good and fun SC exercise IF you have reached a certain comfort level and ability with grammar and SC; the amount and variety of poor and/or unclear writing in the world shows you why b-schools and the GMAT value SC: they want their MBAs to better than what you're seeing. It can boost your confidence, to find yourself better at grammar and writing than published writers, and give you new sources of sentences to improve.

If you are still finding your way through SC, though, this stuff can kill you, because you may have a bunch of incorrect examples rolling around in your head.

@amit,jay, jim - Thanks for your inputs.

I will definitely stop reading that newspaper and move on to something more standard. I usually read online news editions e.g.BBC and Guardian. These are British,So not sure If they are good for GMAT. Do you guys suggest any other sources for reading, apart from The Economist?