You are on page 1of 66

A Review of Grammar Basics

First of all, a review of a few grammar basics. An independent clause is a clause that could stand on its own as a complete sentence: it must
have a noun and a verb. Every sentence needs at least one independent clause as its core statement. We can join two independent clauses
with a coordinating conjunction (e.g. and, or, but, nor, for, yet, so, etc.) We can also take an independent clause and make it dependent
(a.k.a subordinate) by putting a subordinating conjunction in front of it; in this case, a different independent clause would have to remain
independent as the core statement of the full sentence. Folks sometimes use the mnemonic on a white bus to remember the subordinating
conjunctions in English:

O = only if

N = now that

A = although, after, as

WH = while, when, whereas, whenever, wherever, whether or not

I = if, in case

T = though

E = even though, even if

B = because, before

U = until, unless

S = since, so (that)

You can join independent clauses with coordinating conjunctions, and/or you can include one or more dependent clauses as long at the
sentence overall has an independent clause.

What Exactly is a Run-On Sentence?


A run-on sentence is the juxtaposition of two independent clauses without an appropriate conjunction. It need not be long. All you need for
an independent clause is two words, a subject + a verb. Therefore, all you need for a run-on sentence is four words; for example:

Fish swim birds fly.

That sentence is a classic run-on sentence: noun verb noun verb, with no conjunction of any kind. We could make it a correct not run-on
sentence either by adding a coordinating conjunction (Fish swim, but birds fly.) or a subordinating conjunction (While fish swim, birds fly.)

OK, so far, thats not too challenging: even if we didnt know the reason, we would also easily recognize Fish swim birds fly as a
grammatically incorrect sentence. The problem comes when this fundamental run-on structure (noun verb noun verb) is obscured by a host
of modifiers and other detail. For example:

Joyces novel Ulysses, loosely organized around the structure of Homers Odyssey, employs in each chapter a different language game, which
mirrors in an intimate way both the action of the chapter and its Homeric referent, his final novel Finnegans Wake, which took Joyce 20 years
to complete, abandons all conventions of plot, unfolding instead as a continuous 400-page dream-like river of imagery meant to evoke the
monomyth.
Beneath all the detail, that sentence is a run-on sentence. We have noun-verb-noun-verb (Ulysses employs Finnegans Wake
abandons) without any conjunction joining them. If we just put the word but before his final novel Finnegans Wake, or put the word
while at the beginning of the sentence, then Voila! - either alteration would make the sentence non-run-on and 100% grammatically
correct.
BTW, I am huge James Joyce fan, and I highly recommend both of those novels when you are no longer preparing for the GMAT!
Comparing tensile strength, spider's silk is much better at holding its own weight than
high-grade alloy steel, considerably lighter because the organic composition is less
dense than the metallic elements.

Comparing tensile strength, spider's silk is much better at holding its own weight
than high-grade alloy steel Comparing tensile strength, spider's silk is much better
than high-grade alloy steel at holding its own weight Comparable in tensile strength,
spider's silk is much better at holding its own weight than high-grade alloy steel
Comparable in tensile strength, spider's silk, much better than high-grade alloy steel at
holding its own weight Comparable in tensile strength, spider's silk is much
better than high-grade alloy steel at holding its own weight
Comparing means as if spider is comparing however thats not the case ....it cud have
been correct if it was ...................comparing the tensile strnegths , the profeessor .....

that is professor was comparing

Text Explanation
Split #1: comparing vs. comparable. If I say, comparing blah blah, X ...., then X
must be a subject performing the action of comparison. It would be grammatically
correct to say something like Comparing himself to Jefferson, the candidate said ...
--- in that sentence, the candidate is the one who performs the act of comparing. Here,
the sentence is drawing a comparison, but the target of the modifying phrase, spiders
silk, is not performing the act of comparison. Rather, spiders silk is merely a term
in a comparison --- therefore, it is comparable. Choices (A) & (B) incorrectly use the
participle comparing, but choices (C) & (D) & (E) use the adjective comparable.

Split #2: order of the than phrase vs. the at phrase. The subject, spiders silk, is
one term of the comparison. The other term, high-grade alloy steel is the other term
--- this is the object of the than phrase. The respect in which they are being
compared, holding its own weight, is the object of the at phrase. In what order
should these two phrases come?

Order #1: spider's silk is much better at holding its own weight than high-grade alloy
steel

Order #2: spider's silk is much better than high-grade alloy steel at holding its own
weight

In principle both of these are grammatical correct. It is possible that the first order
suggests an ambiguity --- is spider's silk better at holding its own weight than it is at
holding high-grade alloy steel? This is a potential problem for order #1. The big
determiner is what comes after the underlined section --- the modifying phrase
considerably lighter because the organic composition is less dense than the metallic
elements. Clearly that modifying phrase cannot modify high-grade alloy steel --- it
has to modify its own weight. Therefore, in consideration of the continuity of the
entire sentence, order #1 is incorrect, and choices (A) & (C) make this mistake.

Split #3: the missing verb mistake. Everything before the first comma is a modifier,
and everything after the second comma is another modifier. The main part of the
sentence is between the two commas. The main subject is spiders silk. Four of the
choices have a main verb, is, but choice (D) omits is and does not supply another
verb --- choice (D) commits the famous missing verb mistake, so it is incorrect.
The only possible answer is (E).

Benfords Law, stating that certain numbers appear more often in nature than do others,
is so counterintuitive thatwhen used as evidence in trials where financial fraud is
concerned, it is often construed as a desperate ploy on the part of the prosecution, even
if the numbers strongly point to malfeasance.

when used as evidence in trials where financial fraud is concerned, it is often


construed as a desperate ploy on the part of the prosecution, even if if used as
evidence in trials in which financial fraud is concerned, it is often construed to be a
desperate ploy by the prosecution, even when when used as evidence in financial
fraud trials, it is often construed to be a desperate ploy on the prosecutions part, even
if if used as evidence in trials in which financial fraud is concerned, the evidence is
often construed by the prosecution as a desperate ploy, even when when used as
evidence in trials concerning financial fraud, such evidence is often construed
as a desperate ploy used by the prosecution, even when

Text Explanation
This question is very subtle, and very deceptive. First off, its not testing an if/when
distinction. Either is fine, in this case. Next, the use of when twice, as in (A) and (E),is
not wrong, though it is not perhaps ideal. In other words, you cant eliminate
either(A) and (E) on the fact that they repeat if and when, respectively.
Now for the relatively more straightforward part: it in the original answer, illogically
refers to Benfords Law. It is not the law that as construed as a desperate ploy, but the
evidence that is construed as a desperate ploy. Therefore, we can
eliminate (A), (B),and (C) in one fell swoop.
Now for the real diabolical part: (D), which many who notice the it end up picking, and
which superficially seems right since it uses when and if (it doesnt end up repeating
either), actually changes the original meaning of the question. (D) say construed by
the prosecution as a desperate ploy, whereas the original sentenceand indeed all the
other answer choicesindicate that it is often construed to be a desperate ploy by the
prosecution. In other words, people (presumably the court) perceive the prosecution as
being desperate, not the other way around.
(E) correctly uses such evidence instead of it. Also, it does change the meaning of
the sentence the way that (D) did.
Answer: (E)

Related Lessons
n the "dead-ball" era of 1900-1919, Major League Baseball hitters in both leagues hit an
average total of 370 home runs each season, more than 60% percent less than those
in the 1920s.

less than those in the 1920s less than in the 1920s less than the 1920s
fewer than the 1920s fewer than that of the seasons in the 1920s

Text Explanation
Split #1: this is a very tricky "less"/"fewer" split. If we were comparing individual totals
of homeruns, something we could count for each person, then we would be comparing
something countable, and we would have to used fewer (e.g. "Ted Williams hit fewer
homeruns than Reggie Jackson.") Here, though, we are talking about comparing the
"average total" --- the average of several seasons is not guaranteed to be a whole
number: it could be a decimal. Therefore, we aren't really counting whole things
anymore, so we don't used "fewer" (used only for countable nouns), and instead, we use
"less." Choices (A) & (B) & (C) have this correct.
Split #2: the comparison. First of all, we don't want to compare the average HR total in
the dead ball era to the decade of the 1920s. We need to compare average to average.
The phrasing in (C) & (D), "than the 1920s", means we are comparing something to the
entire decade of the 1920's ---- this is not what the sentence means.
Choices (C) & (D) are incorrect. We are trying to compare the average HR total in the
dead ball era to the average HR total in the 1920s. It would be correct to say "than
that in the 1920s", because the singular pronoun "that" would be referring the
average HR total. BUT, the plural pronoun "those" is not correct: (A) makes this
mistake. Only choice (B) correctly drops all the common words ("Major League
Baseball hitters in both leagues hit an average total of home runs each season") and
economically states just the key words that make the difference: "in the 1920s." This is
a remarkably elegant and sophisticated way to convey this comparison, and it is 100%
correct. (B)is the only possible answer.

Related Lessons
At approximately 22 weeks, a fetus becomes fully covered by lanugo, or a fine, soft hair
that insulates the body until fat deposits accumulate in the wrinkles of the skin, often
remaining until birth.

a fine, soft hair that insulates the body until fat deposits accumulate in the
wrinkles of the skin, often remaining fine, soft hair insulating the body until
the accumulation of fat deposits in the wrinkles of the skin, and these often
remain fine, soft hair that insulates the body until the accumulation of fat deposits
in the wrinkles of skin that often remain a fine, soft hair, which insulates the body
until fat deposits accumulate in the wrinkles of the skin, and which often remain
fine, soft hair, which insulates the body until an accumulation of fat deposits in the
wrinkles of the skin, which often remains

Text Explanation
The meaning of the original sentence, as determined by (A), is important here. There is
a fine soft hair that insulates the body. Technically, we could have a which insulates the
body referring back to the lanugo, since the lanugo is the fine, soft hair in question
here.
Either is fine, so a good way to attack this question is by eliminating wrong answers.
The best way to do so is by focusing on those that change the original meaning of the
sentence. For instance, (C) shifts the focus from the lanugo remaining until birth to the
wrinkles remaining until birth. (E) does the same thing by stating .skin, which
remain
(B) also changes the meaning of the original sentence because these is a plural
pronoun pointing either to wrinkles of deposits.
Finally, the tricky one: answer (D). Notice, the which remain. Remain is consistent in
number with a plural noun. However, it is the hair that remains.
Answer: (A)

Related Le
If medical researchers are correct, then the human microbiome, made up of the
microorganisms in our body, may hold the cure to diseases that have long
plagued humanity, amounting to a major oversight in Western medicine that has, until
recently, all but ignored any such role of the microbiome.

humanity, amounting to a major oversight in Western medicine that has, until


recently, all but humanity, a discovery that amounts to a major oversight in
Western medicine, which, until recently, had all but humanity, a discovery
amounting to a major oversight by Western medicine: until recently, Western
medicine all but humanity, amounting to a major oversight made by Western
medicine, one that, until recently, all but humanity, which amounts to a major
oversight in Western medicine and until recently it all but
A mark of punctuation ( : ) used after a statement (usually an independent clause) that introduces
a quotation, an explanation, an example, or aseries. My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime,
cruelty, soft music."
(Vladimir Nabokov)
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious
things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."
(Mark Twain)
"The airplane plip-plopped down the runway to a halt before the big sign : WELCOME TO CYPRUS."
(Leon Uris, Exodus, 1958)
"A liberal arts education creates citizens: people who can think broadly and critically about themselves
and the world."

Text Explanation
A very subtle point that will come up on the harder GMAT SC questions is the idea of a
summative modifier: a word that encapsulates the action of the preceding clause.

To illustrate: the original sentence states that microbiomediseaseshumanity,


amounting. In this case, what does amounting refer to? Whichever of the three you
argue forassuming you argue for anynone amount to a major oversight in Western
medicine. The microbiome amounts to a major oversight is odd, though the least odd
of the three.

In order to clearly state what is doing the amounting, we use a word that
encapsulates or captures the preceding phrase. This word is known as a summative
modifier. In other words, it sums up what is being said. The good news here is you do
not need to come up with the summative modifier itself, but you will have to find an
answer choice that uses one.

Side note: the GMAT will never have multiple possible summative modifiers, asking you
to pick the word that best encapsulates the preceding clause.

In this question, a discovery is a perfect summative modifier since it captures the idea
of the preceding clause: the micribiome may hold cures to disease, a discovery

Just like that we can eliminate (A), (D) and (E).

The difference between (B) and (C) is somewhat similar. But instead of using another
summative modifier, which is stylistically off, the correct answer, (C), uses a colon.

As for (B), the which refers to the phrase a major oversight. It is not the major
oversight that has until recently been ignored. (C) cleans up this error by clearly
stating who has been doing the ignoring: Western medicine.

Finally, the until recently + verb tense is one of those faux errors that test takers can
get hung up. There is no hard and fast rule here. Either works.
What the GMAT does want you to know is how to correctly modify clauses. And knowing
how a summative modifier works will go a long way.

Related Lessons
hose who maintain that technology is negatively rewiring our brains have several
common targets: GPS devices eroding our ability to conceptualize space, the many
hyperlinks of the Internet driving us to distraction, and with our smartphones our
working memory is impaired when doing something as fundamental as recalling a string
of digits.

GPS devices eroding our ability to conceptualize space, the many hyperlinks of the
Internet driving us to distraction, and with our smartphones our working memory is
impaired GPS devices erode our ability to conceptualize space, the Internets many
hyperlinks drive us to distraction, and our smartphones impair our working memory
with GPS devices our ability to conceptualize space is eroded, with the
Internets many hyperlinks we are driven to distraction, and with our
smartphones our working memory is impaired GPS devices erode our ability to
conceptualize space, the Internets many hyperlinks driving us to distraction and our
smartphones impairing our working memory the conceptualization of space is eroded
with GPS devices, distraction is driven by the Internets many hyperlinks, and working
memory impairment results from our smartphones

Text Explanation
This question is very tricky, since two answer choices maintain
parallelism, (B) and (C),yet the one that is stylistically inferior, (C), is the one that is
actually correct. How can this be?
In the last clause of the underlined part in (B), it says our smartphones impair our
working memory. Smartphones are the subject of this clause, so when we continue on
to the non-underlined part, when doing something as fundamental as recalling, we
end up creating an absurd meaning: smartphonesnot our memoriesrecall a string of
digits. From the original sentence it is clear that it is our memories that recall the digits,
not the smartphones.

Related Lessons

Dante Rossetti and his colleagues, in calling their group the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood,
sought a return to the classical ideals of painting that held sway before Raffaello, to
what governed the work of 15th century artists such as Sandro Botticelli.
Raffaello, to what governed the work of 15th century artists such as
Sandro Botticelli Raffaello, artistic principles that would govern the work of 15th
century artists such as Sandro Botticelli Raffaello who governed the work of 15th
century artists like Sandro Botticelli Raffaello by which the work of 15th century
artists such as Sandro Botticelli was governed Raffaello that had governed the work
of 15th century artists like Sandro Botticelli

Text Explanation
Here, the sentence is constructing a parallel structure between "the classical ideals of
painting" and "what governed the work of 15th century artists."
In choice (A), both of those are objects of the same preposition, "to" . Here, "classical
ideals" is a noun, and "what governed the work of 15th century artists" is a substantive
clause, so that's legitimate for parallelism. None of the other four answer choices
execute the parallel structure correctly.
In addition, (B) has a verb with a funny awkward tense "would govern", which could be
the future from the perspective of the past, but the 15th century artists were BEFORE
Raffaello. The artists in the 15th century are the earliest participants in this sentence,
so they are not in the future of anyone discussed here. This tense is wrong.
Choice (C) changes the meaning: ideals governed the 15th century artists, not the
person Raffaello himself. Furthermore, this makes the mistake of using "like" for an
example, which is always wrong on the GMAT. This is incorrect.
Choice (D), because there is no comma follow Raffaello, is similar to (C) is suggest that
Raffaello himself was the governing force. This is incorrect.
Choice (E), lacking the comma, suggest that Raffaello, rather than "classical ideas" is the
object of reference for the clause that follows. Also, this choice makes the mistake of
using "like" for an example, which is always wrong on the GMAT. This is incorrect.
For a variety of reasons, (A) is the best answer

Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged experimentation
in Renaissance Italy: artisans who would have otherwise had no support were allowed to
develop their craft, yet, once under such a system, they were discouraged
from challenging the existing power dynamics.

ALL OF THE FANBOYS ACT AS IC JOINERS BUT MAY BE USED AS PARALLEL MARKERS
TOO...SEE YET USAGE IN ""A""

Italy: artisans who otherwise would have had no support were allowed to
develop their craft, yet, once under such a system, were discouraged from
Italy, providing artisans support they would not have had otherwise in developing their
craft, and discouraging them, once under such a system, from Italy, since artisans
who otherwise would not have not had any support in developing their craft were, once
under such a system, discouraged in Italy: artisans not otherwise having support in
the development of their craft, but once under such a system being discouraged from
Italy; artisans, having no support otherwise, were allowed to develop their craft,
yet, once under such a system they were discouraged from

Text Explanation
Important subtlety in the non-underlined part

Notice both encouraged and limited. The underlined must clearly show this contrast.
The use of and (see (B)) or a sentence that doesnt make this contrast clear (see(C))
makes for an incorrect answer choice.
(A) makes the contrast clear and maintains parallelism: were allowed
to...werediscouraged from.
(B) See above note on the subtlety. Also, the once under a system is missing the
pronoun they since we need to make it clear who was under a system.
(C) See above on the subtlety. Also, discouraged in is unidiomatic. We need
discouraged from
(D) is an absolute train wreck. First off the being should be they were. The clause
before the comma and the word but, needs to have a clear verb modifying the subject
artisans. The otherwise not having support is a phrase referring to the artisans. It does
not function as a verb.
(E) This one is really tricky. There is a missing comma between system and they.
Punctuation errors are not common on the GMAT, but might show up.

Related Lessons

Marijuana advocate: If marijuana were legalized in this state, the state could start
assessing tax on the drug, increasing state revenues. Since sales would be legal, the
criminal culture supporting the drug would vanish; as crimes ceased, the state would
save money on fighting crime. Overall, the state has a tremendous amount to gain by
making the drug legal.

Attorney General: Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries


suggests that criminals controlling the business will not be eager either to sacrifice their
profits or to play by the rules. Moreover, diverting money from crime-fighting after such
legalization gives those criminals more free rein.
The Attorney General uses which of the following techniques in responding to the
marijuana advocate?

calling into question the validity of the evidence cited pointing out that the
conclusion doesn't follow properly from the premises questioning the purported
relationship between cause and effect arguing that the same evidence could be
used to prove an opposing conclusion suggesting, by analogy, potential
drawbacks that might outweigh the predicted advantages

Text Explanation
The AG points out data from other countries, suggesting that things will not as rosy as
the marijuana advocate suggests.

The credited answer is (E). The most important point is that what the AG offers does not
constitute direct proof by any means, only an analogy to similar situations in other
countries. The AG doesn't deny that there might be advantages to legalizing marijuana,
but merely points out a host of problems what would also arise.
Choice (A) misses the mark. The marijuana advocate doesn't cite a whole lot of
evidence per se. Furthermore, it's not clear that the AG denies, for example, that the
state would receive some tax revenues from the legal sale of marijuana. The AG
doesn't so much dispute the positive possibilities, but introduces new negative
possibilities. The AG doesn't fundamentally question the evidence in the marijuana
advocate's argument.
The AG introduces new perspectives, new information. The AG doesn't directly attack
the structure of the marijuana advocate's argument. That's why (B) is incorrect.
In both arguments, legalizing marijuana causes all the other social effects --- obviously
none of them cause marijuana to become legal! That's why (C) is incorrect.
Similar to (B) --- the AG adds new info, rather than attacking anything about the
structure of the marijuana advocate's argument. Also, the word "prove" in (D) is too
strong: nothing here constitutes a "proof." That's why (D) is incorrect.

Related Lessons

Beginning in the 1970s, when oil prices soared due to a decrease in the global supply
with foreign automakers flooding the market, the automotive industry in the United
States suffered numerous setbacks from which, despite periodically resurging, it has
never fully recovered.

Beginning in the 1970s, when oil prices soared due to a decrease in the global
supply with foreign automakers entering the market, the automotive industry in the
United States suffered numerous setbacks from which, despite periodically resurging, it
has never fully recovered. Since the 1970s, when oil prices soared as a result of a
decreased global supply and foreign automakers flooding the market, the United States
automotive industry suffered numerous setbacks and despite periodically resurging, it
never fully recovered. Soaring prices of oil and foreign automakers flooding the
market in the 1970s, resulting from a decreased global supply, caused the automotive
industry in the United States to suffer numerous setbacks that, despite a periodic
resurgence, it has never fully recovered. Beginning in the 1970s, when, as a
result of a decreased global supply, oil prices soared and foreign automakers flooded
the market, the United States automotive industry suffered numerous setbacks that,
despite a periodic resurgence, it never fully recovered from. Despite periodically
resurging, the United States automotive industry has never fully recovered
from the numerous setbacks that began in the 1970s, when both oil prices
soared as a result of a decreased global supply and foreign automakers
flooded the market

ext Explanation
When the entire sentence is underlined, especially one of this length, it is a good idea to
go through each answer choice looking for mistakes. Often so much of the sentence will
be rearranged that there are not any clear splits. Thats the case here.

(A) implies that the U.S automotive industry began in the 1970s. Due to, though is
probably the most usual suspect here. Eliminate.
(B) The since implies present perfect tense. Instead, we have the past perfect, had
fully recovered.
(C) Two mistakes: it has never fully recovered changes the meaning AND foreign
automakers flooding the market did not result from a decreased global supply.
(D) Implies the U.S. automotive industry began in the 1970s. Present perfect, has
recovered, is needed.
(E) The answer.

Related Less

Because the People's Republic of China claims Taiwan as part of its "One China" territory
and refuses to have diplomatic relations with any nation that recognizes Taiwan as an
independent nation, most western nations do not have formal diplomatic relations with
Taiwan, though most unofficially consider that Taiwan is an independent state.

that Taiwan is an independent state Taiwan is an independent state Taiwan


as an independent state Taiwan as being an independent state Taiwan an
independent stat
ext Explanation
The correct idiom with the verb "consider" is consider A B. The constructions "consider that A
is B" or "consider A as B" are both incorrect. The only answer choice with the correct
idiom is (E), the best answer.

Related Lessons
Compared to regulations in other countries, those of the United States tends to be
narrower in scope, with an emphasis on manufacturing processes and specific
categories of pollution, and little or no attention to the many other factors that affect
environmental quality. An example is the focus on controlling pollution rather than
influencing decisions about processes, raw materials, or products that determine
environmental impacts. Regulation in the United States tends to isolate specific aspects
of production processes and attempts to control them stringently, which means that
some aspects of business are regulated tightly, although sometimes not cost-effectively,
while others are ignored. Other countries and several American states have recently
made more progress in preventing pollution at its source and considering such issues as
product life cycles, packaging waste, and industrial energy efficiency.

Environmental regulation in the United States is also more prescriptive than elsewhere,
in the sense of requiring specific actions, with little discretion left to the regulated firm.
There also is a great reliance on action-forcing laws and technology standards.

These contrasts are illustrated nicely in a 1974 book that used a hare and tortoise
analogy to compare air quality regulation in the United States and Sweden. While the
United States (the hare) codified ambitious goals in statutes that drove industry to
adopt new technologies under the threat of sanctions, Sweden (the tortoise) used a
more collaborative process that stressed results but worked with industry in deciding
how to achieve them. In the end air quality results were about the same. Similar results
have been found in other comparative analyses of environmental regulation. For
example, one study of a multinational firm with operations in the United States and
Japan found that pollution levels in both countries were similar, despite generally higher
pollution abatement expenditures in the United States. The higher costs observed in the
United States thus were due in large part, not to more stringent standards, but to the
higher regulatory transaction costs. Because agencies in different countries share
information about technologies, best practices, and other issues, the pollution levels
found acceptable in different countries tends to be quite similar.

Based on information in the first paragraph, which of the following best exemplifies how
America narrowly focuses on environmental regulation?
It places too much emphasis on decision making It overlooks decisions that
affect which raw materials are used It invariably limits the effects of pollution
instead of reducing pollution in the first place It allows firms too much judgment and
control of environmental processes It underestimates the impact of manufacturing
processes

Text Explanation
This question requires a close scrutiny of the passage more than anything. In the first
paragraph, An example israther than influencing decisions about processes, raw
materials The mention of raw materials leads us to (B).

(A) is the opposite of what the passage suggests.

(C) uses the extreme word invariably, which means always. Be careful of
such extreme words unless they are explicitly supported by the passage.

(D) is the opposite of what the passage indicates. Firms are given little to no control
of the process of regulation.

(E) is wrong because the passage states that America has an emphasis on
manufacturing.

Related Lessons
Recently, a team of scientists digging through a tar pit unearthed a jawbone fossil.
Initially, the team hypothesized that the jawbone came from a young gomphothere, a
now extinct distant relative of the elephant, since the teeth were those of a juvenile.
The gomphothere, however, is known for its large molars, and the teeth on the
jawbone would not allow enough room for the molars of an adult
gomphothere to fit. Based on this evidence, the scientists conclude that the jawbone
fossil provides evidence of a distinct species closely related to the gomphothere.

conclusion is flawed means its the gomphothere ...so now its bais needs to be
reconciled ......about teeths ...thats it ...DO NOT GET INTIMIDATED BY LARGE WORDS
GOMPHOTHERE ETC

Which of the following, if true, would best provide evidence showing that the conclusion
above is possibly flawed?

The manner in which teeth grow provide sufficient evidence for the accurate
classification of a bygone species. In order for the molars of an adult
gomphothereto emerge, several juvenile teeth are first forced out of the gums
to accommodate the molars. The molars of an adult mastodon, a close relative of
the gomphothere, are similar in size to those of an adult gomphothere. Many fossils
exist that have yet to be conclusively attributed to any one species. The juvenile
jawbone of a species related to a gomphothereis longer than the juvenile jawbone of a
gomphothere.

Text Explanation
Premise #1 Fossil of a jawbone is that of a juvenile animal (one theory is that it is the
remains of a gomphothere)

Premise #2 - Jawbone does not have enough space to accommodate big molars (the
gomphotheres are known for this).

Conclusion: Jawbone not that of a gomphothere.


(A) is tempting since it is an assumption upon which the argument rests. However, we
are looking for a weakener.
(B) provides evidence that the lack of space on the jawbone of a juvenile gomphothere
is not a reason to discount the theory that the jawbone is that of a gomphothere. Before
gomphotheres become adults, teeth are forced out of the jawbone and that allows room
for the massive molars to grow.
(C) provides information that, on the basis of the logic in the conclusion, discount sthe
mastodon as a viable candidate for the fossil. In other words, an adult mastodon also
has large molars that wouldnt be able to fit on the jawbone fossil. (C) would have been
correct had it said that the mastodon had much smaller molars than the gomphothere.
Since, the mastodon would be the distinct species.
(D) does not specifically address the connection between the jawbone and the molars.
(E) The conclusion is focused on the lack of space on the jawbone fossil for big molars.
A possible correct answer could be that there is a similar species that does not have as
large as molar as the gomphothere. That another species has an even longer jawbone
than the gomphothere does not point to the fossil at all. The fossil is discounted as
coming from a gomphothere, because there is not enough space for the molars not
because the jawbone is not longer enough.

Related Lessons

That the Fifth Lateran Council (1512 1517), had it addressed the growing concerns
of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up its own political
prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the
series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still causes regret among modern
Western Christian thinkers.

had it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic


Church rather than simply shoring up its own political prerogatives with
respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of
events that led to the Protestant Reformation still causes if it addressed the
growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up
their own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe,
could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still
cause if they addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic
Church instead of simply shoring up their own political prerogatives with respect to the
monarchies of Western Europe, they might have avoided the series of events that led to
the Protestant Reformation still cause if they addressed the growing concerns of
reformers within the Catholic Church instead of simply shoring up their own political
prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, they could have
avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still a cause of if
it had addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather
than simply having shored up its own political prerogatives with respect to the
monarchies of Western Europe, it might have avoided the series of events that led to
the Protestant Reformation, still a cause of

Text Explanation
This is a complicated sentence! There are at least three different layers of grammar of
which to keep track here. First of all, there is a gargantuan substantive clause,
That the Fifth Lateran Council the Protestant Reformation: this is the subject of
the whole sentence, and requires singular verb, the main verb of the entire
sentence.
Within this monstrosity of a substantive clause, theres a main subject of the clause
(the Fifth Lateran Council), a main verb of the clause (could have avoided), and two
subordinate clauses nested within it.

The first subordinate clause nested inside the substantive clause is the
largehypothetical clause (had it addressed . Western Europe). The second
subordinate clause is a relatively short adjectival clause (that led to the Protestant
Reformation), a restrictive clause, modifying the noun events.
First of all, in the overall sentence, the enormous substantive clause is the subject and
requires singular verb. Only (A) has the singular verb causes - (B) & (C) have the
plural verb cause, and in (D) & (E) theres actually no verb at all in the main
sentence.
Furthermore, within the hypothetical clause beginning with had or if, the subject is a
pronoun. The antecedent of the pronoun is the Fifth Lateral Council, which is
singular. This needs to take singular pronouns: it and its. This is a mistake the GMAT
loves using plural pronouns (they, their) for a singular collective noun. Yes, there
were many people participating in the Fifth Lateral Council, but the entity itself, the Fifth
Lateral Council, was a singular event. GMAT loves to bait test-takers with this
mistake. (B) & (C) & (D) make this mistake.
Also, within the epic substantive clause, the main subject of the clause is the Fifth
Lateral Council, followed by a long if clause, followed by the main verb of the clause.
Answer choices (C) & (D) & (E) all make another classic GMAT mistake, a pattern of the
form:

This is the "double subject" mistake. The main subject of the clause (the Fifth Lateral
Council) is directly the subject of the main verb of the clause (could have avoided)
we dont need the extra pronoun (they or it) in front of that verb. The GMAT loves
to stick a large modifying clause between the subject and the verb because, with so
many words intervening, people not reading carefully will not see the connection
between the subject and the verb, and will mistakenly think the verb needs a pronoun
subject directly in front of it. Beware of this common GMAT SC mistake.

For a variety of reason, (B) & (C) & (D) & (E) are all wrong. Answer =(A).

Related Lessons
Practice Question
First, give these two SC questions a try.

1) Why the various Generals of the Army of the Potomac before Ulysses S. Grant were so singularly unsuccessful against Robert E Lee are
debated about in no less than five hundred historically oriented journals.
(A) are debated about in no less than
(B) are debated in no less than
(C) is debated about in no fewer than
(D) is debated in no fewer than
(E) is debated in no less than

2) That the Fifth Lateran Council (1512 1517), had it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than
simply shoring up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events
that led to the Protestant Reformation, still causesregret among modern Western Christian thinkers.
(A) had it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up its own political prerogatives
with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still causes
(B) if it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up their own political prerogatives
with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still cause
(C) if they addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church instead of simply shoring up their own political
prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, they might have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant
Reformation still cause
(D) if they addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church instead of simply shoring up their own political
prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, they could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant
Reformation, still a cause of
(E) if it had addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply having shored up its own political
prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, it might have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant
Reformation, still a cause of

You may well be wondering: what on earth are the subjects of these sentences?
Subordinate Clauses
First, a bit of review. Every sentence has at least one independent clause a main noun subject plus a main verb. (Subject in purple, verb
in green).

A coordinating conjunction (e.g. and, or, but, yet, etc.) can join (i.e. coordinate) two different independent clauses, each with its
own main subject and main verb. Each one is independent, and could be a stand-by-itself full sentence. This is grammatically legal way of
having two full sentences glued together.

In addition to one or more independent clause, a sentence can also have adependent or subordinate clause. These typically begin with a
subordinating conjunction (see the on a white bus rule in this post.) The dependent clause has its own subject & verb inside it: its like a
mini-sentence within the sentence. The subordinate clause can play many roles in the sentence. It often acts as an adjectiveor
an adverb (see those two posts for example sentences).

Substantive Clauses
In a complex sentence, a subordinate clause can act as an adjective or an adverb - or as a noun! When a subordinate clause acts as a
noun, it is called either a noun clause or a substantive clause (as I will call it) or a nominal clause. A substantive clause typically begins
with a relative pronoun or relative adverb who, what, where, when, why, how, whoever, whatever however, wherever, whether, that the
familiar interrogative set plus a few more. The substantive clause acts as a noun and can take the place of any noun-role in a sentence: it
can be a subject, a direct object, an indirect object, the object of a preposition, the subject of an infinitive phrase, etc. etc. This can be
confusing, because the substantive clause, like any clause, has a noun & verb inside of it, but the entire clause is acting as a noun in the
larger sentence. Heres an example of a substantive clause as the subject of the sentence. The substantive clause is in blue.

That entire blue part is the subject in the main clause of the sentence. The main verb does not seem, is singular. As a general guideline, a
substantive clause, regardless of content, typically counts as a singular noun, and thus takes a singular verb. Thats the rough-and-ready
rule for noun clauses and subject/verb agreement. (Exceptions will be discussed below.) Inside the substantive clause, the clause has its
own subject (Freds wife) and own verb (approves).
A substantive clause can also act as a direct object:

The main clause has a subject (you) and a verb (do understand), and the direct object of that verb is the substantive clause. Of course,
within the substantive clause is its own subject (Hamlet) and verb (treated).

Similarly, a substantive clause can be an indirect object (#7), the object of a preposition (#8), or the subject of an infinitive (#9).

In each of these, the entire substantive clause acts as a noun and fulfills some noun role in the main sentence; furthermore, inside each
substantive clause is the clauses own subject and verb. (The relative pronouns whoever and whatever are the subjects of the substantive
clauses in #7 and #9, respectively.)
Substantive clauses and subject-verb agreement
Above, I cited the rough-and-ready rule when a substantive clause is the subject of a sentence, it is generally construed as singular and
takes a singular verb. Its unlikely you will see substantive clause used as subject at all on the real GMAT, and if even you do, you probably
could just ignore the exception, choose the singular verb automatically, and you would be right 99% of the time. Yes, there is an exception
the grand clarification of noun clauses and subject-verb agreement - and yes, I will discuss this, but first of all be aware: it is
exceedingly unlike that a SC question on a live GMAT would ever stray into this territory. For all intents and purposes, the discussion of this
exception is grammar beyond the GMAT.

Heres the exception. If the substantive clause begins with a relative pronoun -who, whom, what, where, whoever, whomever, whatever,
wherever then whether the clause is singular or plural depends on whether the relative pronoun itself is understood as singular or plural.
10) What annoys me is all the noise during the movie.
11) What annoy me are all the people who talk during the movie.
In #10, the relative pronoun is understood as singular, and thus the entire substantive clause is construed as singular: thats why both verbs
(annoys, is) are singular. In #11, the relative pronoun is understood as plural, and thus the entire substantive clause is construed as
plural: thats why both verbs (annoy, are) are plural.

12) Whoever broke into your house in broad daylight ____ incredibly brazen.

Should this question have the singular was or the plural were? That depends on whether we think one person or multiple people
participated in this daylight break-in. There absolutely no clue in the sentence that would help us to determine this (hence, this absolutely
could not be a GMAT SC question!) We would have to know or infer from context in order to determine the correct verb to use.

Once again, this exception, while fascinating in and of itself, is far beyond anything you are even remotely likely to see on the GMAT.

Summary
You dont need to remember the terminology, such as substantive clause, but you do need to recognize the grammar and sort it out on
GMAT Sentence Correction. Having read this article, take another look at those two practice questions before reading the solutions below.

Practice question explanations


1) The entire first part of the sentence Why the various . against Robert E. Lee is a giant substantive clause. This clause is the subject of
the sentence, and as such, requires a singular verb - is instead of are. (A) & (B) are out right away. The phrase debated about is
awkward and not idiomatic, so (C) is wrong. This comes down to a less vs. fewer distinction - one of my favorites! We are talking
about historically oriented journals, and journals are discrete countable items. One can count how many journals one is reading, or how
many feature this ongoing Civil War debate. We would say how many journals using how much instead of how many would clearly be
wrong. For countable nouns, nouns for which we would ask how many? instead of how much?, we have to use fewer. The phrase no
fewer than five hundred historically oriented journals is perfectly correct, and the phrase no less than five hundred historically oriented
journals, while it may sound correct, is dead wrong. The answer must be (D).
2) This is a complicated sentence! There are at least three different layers of grammar of which to keep track here. First of all, there is a
gargantuan substantive clause, That the Fifth Lateran Council the Protestant Reformation: this is the subject of the whole sentence, and
requires singular verb, the main verb of the entire sentence.

Within this monstrosity of a substantive clause, theres a main subject of the clause (the Fifth Lateran Council), a main verb of the clause
(could have avoided), and two subordinate clauses nested within it.

The first subordinate clause nested inside the substantive clause is the large hypothetical clause (had it addressed . Western Europe).
The second subordinate clause is a relatively short adjectival clause (that led to the Protestant Reformation), a restrictive clause, modifying
the noun events.
First of all, in the overall sentence, the enormous substantive clause is the subject and requires singular verb. Only (A) has the singular verb
causes - (B) & (C) have the plural verb cause, and in (D) & (E) theres actually no verb at all in the main sentence.

Furthermore, within the hypothetical clause beginning with had or if, the subject is a pronoun. The antecedent of the pronoun is the Fifth
Lateral Council, which is singular. This needs to take singular pronouns: it and its. This is a mistake the GMAT loves using plural
pronouns (they, their) for a singular collective noun. Yes, there were many people participating in the Fifth Lateral Council, but the entity
itself, the Fifth Lateral Council, was a singular event. GMAT loves to bait test-takers with this mistake. (B) & (C) & (D) make this mistake.

Also, within the epic substantive clause, the main subject of the clause is the Fifth Lateral Council, followed by a long if clause, followed by
the main verb of the clause. Answer choices (C) & (D) & (E) all make another classic GMAT mistake, a pattern of the form:

The main subject of the clause (the Fifth Lateral Council) is directly the subject of the main verb of the clause (could have avoided) we
dont need the extra pronoun (they or it) in front of that verb. The GMAT loves to stick a large modifying clause between the subject and
the verb because, with so many words intervening, people not reading carefully will not see the connection between the subject and the verb,
and will mistakenly think the verb needs a pronoun subject directly in front of it. Beware of this common GMAT SC mistake.

For a variety of reason, (B) & (C) & (D) & (E) are all wrong. Answer = (A).

GMAT Grammar: Adjectival Phrases and Clauses

BY MIKE MCGARRY ON MARCH 23, 2012 IN GRAMMAR, PHRASES AND CLAUSES, SENTENCE CORRECTION, VERBAL

Deepen your comprehension of these complex grammatical forms so you use them effectively on GMAT Sentence Correction

What is an adjectival phrase? What is an adjectival clause? Whats the difference between them?

Points of Grammar:

An adjective is a word that modifies a noun. They are the colorful emotional words that spice up the language. For example, the quartet of

adjectives based on the ancient medical theory of humors sanguine, choleric, bilious, and phlegmatic span the range of human

dispositions.

A phrase can be either a prepositional phrase (preposition + noun-object) or a participial phrase (participle form of a verb, with possible a

direct object and/or adverb). If it modifies a noun, then its an adjectival phrase.

The independent clause of the sentence main subject and main verb will not be an adverbial clause. A dependent (a.k.a. subordinate)

clause also has its own subject and verb, and if it modifies a noun, then its an adjectival clause.

Examples of Adjectival Phrases:

1) The book on my desk is by Tolstoy.

The preposition phrase on my desk is an adjectival phrase. It modifies the noun book it specifies which book.

2) Diogenes is remembered as the man carrying a lantern in broad daylight.

The participial phrase carrying a lantern in broad daylight is an adjectival phrase. It modifies the noun man it specifies which man.
Incidentally, within that participial phrase, the prepositional phrase in broad daylight is an adverbial phrase. It modifies the verb participle

carrying it specifies whenhe carried the lantern.

3) The Lone Ranger riding into the sunset is a vivid memory for an older generation of Americans.

The participial phrase riding into the sunset is an adjectival phrase. It modifies the noun Lone Ranger it specifies the setting/activity of

the Lone Ranger at that moment.

Examples of Adjectival Clauses:

4) Any man who hates dogs and children cant be all bad. W.C. Fields

The dependent clause who hates dogs and children is an adjectival clause. It modifies the noun man it specifies what kind of man.

5) I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the

content of their character. the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This is a double-whammy. The gigantic dependent clause that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be

judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character is a big adjectival clause. It modifies the noun dream it

specifies what kind of dream.

Furthermore, the clause where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character is also an adjectival

clause. It modifies the noun nation it specifies what kind of nation.

Thus, this famous sentence has one adjectival clause nested inside another. Notice, also, the powerful use of parallelism. Such a high level of

grammatical sophistication, conveying lofty moral ideals, is not at all surprising from one of the finest orators this nation has ever seen.

Why Are Adjectival Phrases & Clauses Important for the GMAT?

Like adverbial phrases, adjectival phrases are one of the marks of sophisticated writing. I guarantee you will see them all over the GMAT

Sentence Correction section. Learning them now, you will be forearmed. Furthermore, the more fluent you become with adjectival phrases,

the more effectively you can use them in your own writing, including in the Analytical Writing Assessment of the GMAT; a well-chosen

adjectival phrase will color a sentence with a vivid sense of tone, the perfect enhancement for any argument.

For free, heres a practice GMAT SC question, involving these ideas: http://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/1140
GMAT Grammar: Adverbial Phrases and Clauses

BY MIKE MCGARRY ON MARCH 19, 2012 IN GRAMMAR, PARTS OF SPEECH, PHRASES AND CLAUSES,SENTENCE CORRECTION, VERBAL

Understand these complex grammatical forms so you can master them on GMAT Sentence
Correction
What is an adverbial phrase? What is an adverbial clause? Whats the difference between them? Do they have to contain adverbs?

Points of Grammar:

An adverb is a word that modifies a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. We can form a boatload of adverbs by taking adjectives and

adding the suffix -ly (e.g. joyously, readily, magnanimously, bouncingly etc.) Other common single word adverbs include very,

too, well, now, then, here, there etc.

A phrase can be either a prepositional phrase (preposition + noun-object) or a participial phrase (participle form of a verb, with possible a

direct object and/or adverb). If it modifies a verb, an adjective, or adverb, then its an adverbial phrase.

The independent clause of the sentence main subject and main verb will not be an adverbial clause.

A dependent (a.k.a.subordinate) clause also has its own subject and verb, and if it modifies a verb, an adjective, or adverb, then its an

adverbial clause.

Examples of Adverbial Phrases:

1) He drives like a maniac.

The prepositional phrase like a maniac is an adverbial phrase. It modifies the verb drives it describes how he drives.

2) He walks dragging his left foot.

The participial phrase dragging his left foot is an adverbial phrase. It modifies the verb walks it describes how he walks.

3) He is scornful with no mercy.

The prepositional phrase with no mercy is an adverbial phrase. It modifies the adjective scornful it describes how scornful.

Examples of Adverbial Clauses:

4) She sings when she sees the Sun in the morning.


The dependent clause when she see the Sun in the morning is an adverbial clause. It modifies the verb sings it describes when she

sings.

5) She is so happy that she skips everywhere.

The dependent clause that she skips everywhere is an adverbial clause. It modifies the adjective happy it describes how happy.

Doesnt Necessarily Contain an Adverb

Notice that sentences #1-4 contain phrases & clauses that act like adverbs, by they themselves do not contain an adverb. The adverbial

clause in sentence #5 happens to contain the adverb everywhere. An adverbial phrase may or may not contain an adverb itself.

Why Are These Important for the GMAT?

First of all, adverbial phrases are one of the marks of sophisticated writing. I guarantee the GMAT Sentence Correction section you see will be

littered with them, so its good to be well acquainted with them beforehand. Also, the more comfortable you are with adverbial phrase, the

more likely you are to use them in your own writing, including in the Analytical Writing Assessment of the GMAT; a well-chosen adverbial

phrase will give that sentence a touch of sophistication, which can only help your AWA performance.

For free, heres a practice GMAT SC question, involving these ideas: http://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/1164

More from Magoosh

People associate global warming with temperature, but the phrase is misleadingit fails to mention the relevance of water.
Nearly every significant indicator of hydrological activityrainfall, snowmelt, glacial meltis changing at an accelerating pace (one
can arbitrarily pick any point of the hydrological cycle and notice a disruption). One analysis pegged the increase in precipitation at
2 percent over the century. In water terms this sounds auspicious, promising increased supply, but the changing timing and
composition of the precipitation more than neutralizes the advantage. For one thing, it is likely that more of the precipitation will fall
in intense episodes, with flooding a reasonable prospect. In addition, while rainfall will increase, snowfall will decrease. Such an
outcome means that in watersheds that depend on snowmelt, like the Indus, Ganges, Colorado river basins, less water will be stored
as snow, and more of it will flow in the winter, when it plays no agricultural role; conversely, less of it will flow in the summer, when
it is most needed. One computer model showed that on the Animas River an increase in temperature of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit
would cause runoff to rise by 85 percent from January to March, but drop by 40 percent from July to September. The rise in
temperature increases the probability and intensity of spring floods and threatens dam safety, which is predicated on lower runoff
projections. Dams in arid areas also may face increased sedimentation, since a 10 percent annual increase in precipitation can
double the volume of sediment washed into rivers.

The consequences multiply. Soil moisture will intensify at the highest northern latitudes, where precipitation will grow far more than
evaporation and plant transpiration but where agriculture is nonexistent. At the same time, precipitation will drop over northern mid-
latitude continents in summer months, when ample soil moisture is an agricultural necessity. Meanwhile the sea level will continue
to rise as temperatures warm, accelerating saline contamination of freshwater aquifers and river deltas. The temperature will cause
increased evaporation, which in turn will lead to a greater incidence of drought.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, the hydrologic cycle is becoming increasingly unpredictable. This means that the last centurys
hydrological cyclethe set of assumptions about water on which modern irrigation is basedhas become unreliable. Build a dam
too large, and it may not generate its designed power; build it too small, and it may collapse or flood. Release too little dam runoff in
the spring and risk flood, as the snowmelt cascades downstream with unexpected volume; release too much and the water will not
be available for farmers when they need it. At a time when water scarcity calls out for intensified planning, planning itself may be
stymied.

The passage is primarily concerned with

arguing how the worlds hydrological cycle is irrevocably changing highlighting the inadequacy of relying on last

centurys hydrological cycle discussing the consequences of decreased water supply in dams warning against the

unrestrained exploitation of natural resources describing how the Earths water will be affected by global warming

Text Explanation
Answer: (E)

(E) succinctly expresses the main idea of the passage, which can be found at the very beginning, People associate global warming
with temperature, but the phrase is misleadingit fails to mention the relevance of water.

(A) is very tempting, but note that the passage does not say irrevocably. Sure, we may be guided by our own thoughts on global
warming, but there is nothing in the passage to say that the change is irrevocable.

(B) and (C) are too specific. (D) is too general and does not match with the tone of the passage.

The idea that all mental functions are derived from the brain originated with Hippocrates, but it was largely neglected until the late
18th century, when Franz Gall attempted to link psychology and brain science. Gall took advantage of what was already known
about the cerebral cortex. He was aware that it was bilaterally symmetrical and subdivided into four lobes. However, he found that
these four lobes were, by themselves, inadequate to account for the forty-odd distinct psychological functions that psychologists
had characterized by 1790. As a result he began to analyze the heads of hundreds of musicians, actors, etc., relating certain bony
elevations or depressions under the scalp to the predominant talent or defects of their owners. Based on his skull palpation, Gall
subdivided the cortex into roughly forty regions, each of which served as an organ for a specific mental function.

While Galls theory that all mental processes derive from the brain proved to be correct, his methods for localizing specific functions
were deeply flawed because they were not based on what we would now consider valid evidence. Gall did not test his ideas
empirically by performing autopsies on the brains of patients and correlating damage to specific regions with defects in mental
attributes; he distrusted the diseased brain and did not think it could reveal anything about normal behavior. Instead, he developed
the notion that as each mental function is used, the particular area of the brain responsible for that function
becomes enlarged. Eventually, a given area may become so bulky that it pushes out against the skull and produces a
bump on the head.

According to the passage, Gall believes that bumps on the surface of the skull result from

defects in a persons thinking a psychological function becoming more pronounced a natural physiological

progression underuse of a specific skill or ability processes of change within only one of the four cranial lobes

As foreign-language learning moves online, the paradigm that, to speak a foreign language, we need to converse with a native
speaker is becoming swiftly obsolete.

As foreign-language learning moves online, the paradigm that, to speak a foreign language, we need to converse

with a native speaker is becoming With the learning of a foreign language moving online, the paradigm that we need to

converse with a native speaker to speak a foreign language becomes With foreign-language learning moving online,

conversing with a native speaker to speak a foreign language, which is the paradigm, is becoming Because the learning of a
foreign language moves online, the need to converse with a native speaker to speak a foreign language is the paradigm, which has

become As foreign-language learning moves online, the paradigm, which is we need a native speaker in order to speak a
foreign language, has become

Text Explanation
(A) This question is an example of how the GMAT will sometimes choose an OA that is less than ideal. (A) is an example of such an
imperfect sentence. Typically, a comma doesnt follow that. Here it is okay because we are reversing the clause, we need to
converse with a native speaker to speak a foreign language, becomes to speak a foreign language, we need to converse with a
native speaker.
(B) The phrase beginning with with should logically modify the subject the paradigm. In this case, the beginning clause, which
explains how foreign language is moving online, is illogically describing the noun phrase, "the need to converse".
(C) A clause beginning with with is always suspect on the GMAT, since it usually illogically modifies what comes after the comma.
This case is no different. Does the action of foreign-language moving online describe the act of conversing with a native speaker?
The two are clearly independent. Also, the which does not have a clear referent.
(D) implies that the paradigm has become swiftly obsolete.
(E) After a long beginning adverbial clause, separating the subject paradigm from the verb with a long relative clause is a no-no.
The more obvious error, however, is the paradigm, which. We are describing a specific paradigm, not all paradigms in general.
Therefore, we want that. Finally, there is a slight change in meaning. The original sentence says the paradigm is becoming
obsolete. (E) implies the paradigm has already become obsolete.
Answer: (A)

Related Le
Anselm of Canterbury (1033 1109) was a medieval theologian. According to the Anselm's ontological argument for the existence
of God, "accidental beings" are all those things --- essentially all sense object ---- whose non-existence could be imagined without
inherent contradiction, and "necessary beings" are those things whose existence is guaranteed precisely by what they are. Because
accidental beings could not have guaranteed that they ever would come into existence, there must be a necessary being upon
whom all the accidental beings depends to bring them into existence; and this necessary being Anselm identifies with God, who
therefore clearly must exist.

In our modern analysis, this eleventh century argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?

It establishes an effect that must exist well before its cause. It completely depends on a definition of a term that stands

in stark contrast to the everyday understanding of the term. The conclusion supports facts that directly contradict the

evidence given to support it. It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusions that is to be

established. It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in
support of the same claim.

Text Explanation
This question addresses the Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. The argument hinges on a distinction:
"accidental being" vs. "necessary beings." To our modern ears, this is a strange distinction: everything we can see or imagine,
concrete objects as well as abstract ideas (e.g. money, democracy, health, etc.) are "accidental beings", and it's not clear that
anything discussed in the modern world would be a "necessary being" in the sense described by the argument. The argument
makes this distinction, positing the existence of this hypothetical "necessary being", and then proceeds to use this distinction to
prove the existence of a "necessary being." In other words, the very distinction it makes presupposes what it is trying to prove.
(D) is the credited answer. In making the distinction between "accidental" and "necessary" beings, the argument presupposes that
"necessary beings" exist, and then proceeds to prove that one exists. To our modern sensibilities, this argument assumes what it is
trying to prove.
(A) is wrong. The argument has nothing to do with time sequences. If anything, the "cause" discussed is God, who (according to
the Christian understanding) existed well before anything that God caused.
(B) is a tempting answer, because indeed both words, "accidental" and "necessary" are using in a technical philosophical sense, not
in their everyday sense. Nevertheless, both words are used consistently in this philosophical sense, and no resort is made to their
common understanding, so that difference doesn't play any role in the argument.
(C) is wrong. The argument makes reference to no "facts" in any modern sense. Furthermore, it doesn't deduce any further
consequences from the main conclusion.
(E) is wrong. The only "evidence" presented is a philosophical distinction. There's nothing else presented in the argument that
could contradict this.
Related Lessons
STRATING TEN OF 2 AUGUST LEFT !!!

In the 1860s, the German philologist Lazarus Geiger proposed that the subdivision of color always follows the same hierarchy. The
simplest color lexicons (such as the DugermDani language of New Guinea) distinguish only black/dark and white/light. The next color
to be given a separate word by cultures is always centered on the red part of the visible spectrum. Then, according to Geiger,
societies will adopt a word corresponding to yellow, then green, then blue. Lazaruss color hierarchy was forgotten until restated in
almost the same form in 1969 by Brent Berlin, an anthropologist, and Paul Kay, a linguist, when it was hailed as a major discovery in
modern linguistics. It showed a universal regularity underlying the apparently arbitrary way language is used to describe the world.

Berlin and Kays hypothesis has since fallen in and out of favor, and certainly there are exceptions to the scheme they proposed. But
the fundamental color hierarchy, at least in the early stages (black/white, red, yellow/green, blue) remains generally accepted. The
problem is that no one could explain why this ordering of color exists. Why, for example, does the blue of sky and sea, or the green
of foliage, not occur as a word before the far less common red?

There are several schools of thought about how colors get named. Nativists, who include Berlin and Kay argue that the way in
which we attach words to concepts is innately determined by how we perceive the world. In this view our perceptual apparatus has
evolved to ensure that we make sensiblethat is, usefulchoices of what to label with distinct words: we are hardwired for
practical forms of language. Empiricists, in contrast, argue that we dont need this innate programming, just the capacity to
learn the conventional (but arbitrary) labels for things we can perceive.
In both cases, the categories of things to name are deemed obvious: language just labels them. But the conclusions of Loreto and
colleagues fit with a third possibility: the culturist view, which says that shared communication is needed to help organize
category formation, so that categories and language co-evolve in an interaction between biological predisposition and culture. In
other words, the starting point for color terms is not some inevitably distinct block of the spectrum, but neither do we just divide up
the spectrum in some arbitrary fashion, because the human eye has different sensitivity to different parts of the spectrum. Given
this, we have to arrive at some consensus, not just on which label to use, but on what is being labeled.

Physiology aims to understand the mechanisms of living - how living things work. Human physiology studies how our cells, muscles and
organs work together, how they interact. Physiology, sometimes referred to as the "science of life", looks at living mechanisms, from the
molecular basis of cell function to the whole integrated behavior of the entire body

The passage implies that the empiricists believe that the way humans go about ordering color is arbitrary because

the range of colors that humans can perceive is circumscribed by their physiology some cultures describe colors along

the spectrum that most other cultures fail to name there are certain cultures that do not strictly adhere to fundamental color

hierarchy without an innate capacity to learn the ordering of colors, humans would be unable to identify a vast majority of

colors humans do not have a biological predisposition towards any specific color but simply the ability to describe
different colors

Text Explanation
Empiricists maintain that we do not need innate programming to learn colors; we simply need the capacity to put labels on the
things we perceive. This matches up best with (E).

(A) is consistent with the culturist and nativist school. That is physiology (another way of saying wiring) plays a large part.
Circumscribed means set or limited.

(B) is not mentioned in relation to the empiricist view.

(C) is wrong. Though the passage implies this, (C) does not answer the question.

(D) is more consistent with the nativist and culturist schools of thought.

(E) The answer.


Related Les

Five-star General John Pershing had such a sweeping command in World War I as no single WWII general is a correspondence to him.

such a sweeping command in World War I as no single WWII general is a correspondence to such a sweeping command

in World War I that no single WWII general would be a correspondence with so sweeping a command in World War I as no

single WWII general would be corresponding to so sweeping a command in World War I that no single WWII general

corresponds to such a sweeping command in World War I because no single WWII general corresponds with

Text Explanation
Split #1: noun vs. verb. The noun correspondence appears in choices (A) & (B), and the verb forms corresponding and corresponds
appear in choices (C) & (D) & (E). This is not conclusive, but we suspect the correct answer will be among these latter three.
Split #2: the idiom with correspond. Both the verb to correspond and the noun correspondence take the preposition to when
we are talking about a correspondence in the sense of a pattern of matching, as we are here. (We would speak of a
correspondence with someone if we were talking about an exchange of communication.) Here, we need the preposition to
choices (A) & (C) & (D) have this correct preposition, but choices (B) & (E) make the mistake of using with, so these two are
incorrect.
Split #3: the such & so construction. One correct idiom is such a [noun] that here, the construction such a
sweeping command in WWI that - only choice (B)has this version correct. Another correct idiom is so [adjective]
that or so [adjective] a [noun] that here, we would need the construction so sweeping a command in WWI
that - only choice (D) correctly follows this idiom. The other three choices dont follow either of these idioms
correctly.
The only possible answer is (D).

Related Lessons

The FDA enacted these recent restrictions both to prohibit individual physicians from forming financial partnerships with
pharmaceutical companies and to forbid the companies to advertise directly to the physicians.

both to prohibit individual physicians from forming financial partnerships with pharmaceutical companies and to forbid the

companies to advertise both to prohibit individual physicians to form financial partnerships with pharmaceutical companies

while forbidding the companies to advertise to both prohibit individual physicians from forming financial partnerships with

pharmaceutical companies and also to forbid the companies from advertising both to prohibit individual physicians from

forming financial partnerships with pharmaceutical companies as well as to forbid the companies from advertising to prohibit
both individual physicians to form financial partnerships with pharmaceutical companies and to forbid the companies from
advertising

Prepositions are perhaps the most versatile and powerful words in the English language. What English does with prepositions is notoriously
hard for non-native speakers to learn. In this first preposition idiom article, we will look at the preposition from.

Text Explanation
This is a tricky one. We have the "both X and Y" parallel construction. Notice that the variants "both X while Y", "both X and also Y",
and "both X as well as Y" --- choices(B), (C), and (D) respectively ---- are all incorrect on the GMAT. The two infinitive verbs, "to
prohibit" and "to forbid" must match in parallel form, and they do in all five. What follows those two verbs does not have to be
parallel; furthermore, each of those verbs has its own idiomatical requirements. As this blog discusses, the proper idiom for "forbid"
is "to forbid A to do X" the verb "forbid" must take the infinitive. By contrast, the proper idiom for "prohibit" is "to prohibit
A from doing X" the verb "prohibit" must take the preposition "from" followed by a gerund. The two verbs, "forbid" and "prohibit"
have similar meanings, so it's ironic that they have starkly different idiomatic requirements. The only answer that fulfills the
idiomatic requirements of both verbs is (A).

She explained she both wants a large house in the city, so that she can make visits the museums regularly, and also a cottage in the
mountains, to which she can go on free weekends.

both wants a large house in the city, so that she can make visits the museums regularly, and also a cottage in the mountains,

to which wants both a large house in the city, for the purpose of visiting the museums regularly, and a cottage in the

mountains, where wants both a large house in the city, from which she can visit the museums regularly, and a

cottage in the mountains, to which wants both a large house in the city, so that she can make visits the museums

regularly, and as well a cottage in the mountains, where both wants a large house in the city, from which she can visit the
museums regularly, and a cottage in the mountains, to which

Related Lessons
Text Explanation
Split #1a: the idiom "both X and Y" is very simple, and the GMAT doesn't like adding garnish to this --- "both X and also Y" or "both X
and Y as well" --- choices (A) and(D), respectively, make these mistakes.
Split #1b: where should the word "both" fall? If the underline section begins with "both wants", this implies "wants" is the first verb,
and that a second verb will appear after the "and", but this is not the case. The word "wants" is the only main verb, and she wants
two things, so we need the construction "wants both X and Y." Choices (A)& (E) have the incorrect order of the first two words.
Split #2: some of the answers are unnecessarily wordy and indirect. For example, in(B), the long phrase "for the purpose of
visiting" is overblown and much too long. Choice (D) has "she can make visits" instead of simply "she can visit."
Split #3: the split at the end, "to which"/ "where". The place concerned is "a cottage in the mountains" and the action is "can go."
Colloquially, it would certain pass in spoken English to say "the cottage where I go", but in the formal language of the GMAT, we
need to be careful. We can only use the construction [place] "where" [X happens] only if the place is itself the location of the action,
if the action is happening at the place. Technically, the "going" is not happening at the cottage, so "where" would be technically
incorrect. Choice (B) & (D) make this mistake.
Split #4: the sentence has the structure "both" X [modifier] "and" Y [modifier]. It's not absolutely necessary, but a nice stylistic
touch would be to have a contrast in the structure of those two modifying clauses. Only (C) contrasts "from which" with "to which",
creating a kind of balance in the sentence.
Choice (C) is stylistically preferable, and it is the only answer completely free of mistakes. Choice (C) is the only possible answer.

Related Lessons
The downtown area of the city of Stannicton is bustling during the work day, but when all the downtown workers (many of whom live
in outlying suburbs) go home, the downtown area, now relatively empty, becomes a haven for crime. Many citizens have reported
being attacked in the downtown area in the evening; typically, the assailants do not live downtown but rather come from other
neighborhoods. The mayor of Stannicton has charged the city police to reduce the evening downtown crime rate. Police cars patrol
the downtown area in the evenings, and the police can monitor any suspicious individual they see, but they can't possibly be on
every block at once. In order to extend their "range", the police have established a crime-watch phone number so that downtown
residents can report to the police any suspicious looking individual not from the downtown neighborhood, allowing the police to
monitor this individual. The police chief feels the establishment of the crime-watch number will play an important part in reducing
the evening downtown crime rate.

Which of the following, if true, would provide most support for the prediction that the establishment of the crime-watch number will
have its intended effect?

Most of the would-be assailants themselves have mobile phones, and are able to make calls as they move around the

downtown neighborhood. The economic cost of car thefts throughout the city, day and night, is considerably greater than the

costs associated with street crimes downtown in the evening. During the day time, police patrols seldom go downtown, which

is bustling with traffic, and instead cruise the other neighborhoods of Stannicton. Many of the citizens of downtown work
during the day and must shop and do laundry at night, so they have a vested interest in seeing the crime rate drop.

While almost all would-be assailants look suspicious and are not from the downtown neighborhood, not everyone who fits that
description on the downtown streets in the evening is a would-be assailant
THIS IS A LARGE QUESTION BUT MEDIUM DIFFICLUTY ...WHEN THE QUESTION DESCRIBES THE CONCLUSION AND WHATS TO BE DONE
VERY CLERALY THEN BREEZE THRU THE FLUFF OGF THE LARGE CR AND GET NEAR CONCLUSION WHRE U NEED TO READ AND THEN
ELIMINATE USUSLALLY SUCH QUESTION WILL NOT HAVE VERY CLOSE ANSWERES AS GMAT IS TESTING UR CONFIDENCE HERE AND
FAST AND SELCT READING FOR TIME SAVING ...

Text Explanation
Lots of crime in downtown Stannictown at night. More police are patrolling, but they can't be everywhere at one. To solve this
problem, police establish a crime-watch phone number, and believe this will genuine help. We are asked: which most convinces us
that the crime-watch phone number will help in fighting crime in this situation?

(D) is the credited answer. If the citizens of downtown have a vested interest in the success of the plan, they will use the crime-
watch line. Moreover, these citizen are most likely to notice someone who is an outsider, which makes it even more likely that the
folks they report are potential criminals.

(A) is irrelevant. Yes, the criminals have cell-phones, but obviously, they will not call the crime-watch number, so whatever calls
they do make are irrelevant to the success of this program.

(B) is also irrelevant. Car theft may be a greater concern in the big picture, but this plan is specifically about fighting street-crime
downtown at night. We have no idea what other steps the police many be taking to combat auto theft, but clearly it would be
something very different that wouldn't have a direct effect on the success of this program.

(C) is also irrelevant. The problem we are addressing is about street crime at night. The prompt already suggests that the problem
does not exist in the daytime, so what the police do in the day time is not directly relevant to solving this problem.

(E) is undeniably true. If the citizens report every single suspicious looking stranger, then undoubtedly some number of perfectly
innocent folks would be stopped and questioned. While that's an inconvenience, this is not a big problem for the success of the
plan. If, in response to calls from the crime watch number, the police stop several people, some of whom are criminals who wind
up being charged with, for example, carrying a gun, and others are innocent and quickly released, over time, the number of
criminals will decline noticeably. More to the point, while it potentially describes a hindrance, it most certainly does not provide a
compelling reason that the plan will be successful.

Related Lessons

The preposition from


The word from is a preposition. This means, it must be followed by a noun or by something playing the role of a noun. This latter
category includes gerunds andsubstantive clauses.
1) The SEC prohibits folks with inside information about a company from trading that companys stocks and options.
2) The state senator strove to distinguish his partys nuanced position on immigration from what the controversial fringe group advocates.
In sentence #1, the object of from is a gerund phrase, and in sentence #2, the object is a substantive clause. Incidentally, both of these
are exemplary of idioms involving the word from.

Demotic Greek (language of the people) is the modern vernacular form of the Greek language,
and refers particularly to the form of the language that evolved naturally from ancient
Greek, in opposition to the artificially archaic Katharevousa, which was the official standard
until 1976. The two complemented each other in a typical example of diglossia, or the existence
of two forms of a language (usually a high and a low) employed by the same speaker
depending on the social context, until the resolution of the Greek language question in favor of
Demotic.

Demotic is often thought to be the same as the modern Greek language, but these two terms are
not completely synonymous. While Demotic is a term applied to the naturally evolved colloquial
language of the Greeks, the modern Greek language of today is more like a fusion of Demotic and
Katharevousa; it can be viewed as a variety of Demotic which has been enriched by "educated"
elements. Therefore, it is not wrong to call the spoken language of today Demotic, though such a
terminology ignores the fact that modern Greek contains - especially in a written or official form -
numerous words, grammatical forms and phonetical features that did not exist in colloquial
speech and only entered the language through its archaic variety. Additionally, even the most
archaic forms of Katharevousa were never thought of as ancient Greek, but were always called
"modern Greek", so that the phrase "modern Greek" applies to Demotic, Standard Modern Greek
and even Katharevousa.

The passage supports which of the following regarding Demotic Greek?

It shares many common features with Katharevousa It can be traced back to ancient

Greek It does not represent an example of diglossia It does not relate to the social

context It is synonymous with modern Greek

Text Explanation
Answer: (B)

Demotic Greek refers to the formevolved naturally from ancient Greek. Therefore, we can
conclude that it can be traced back to ancient Greek. Answer (B).

(A) is incorrect because Katharevousa refers to an artificial construction, whereas Demotic Greek
refers to the colloquial form of the language. Nowhere does it say that the two overlap
significantly. Together they form the modern Greek language.

(D) is wrong because the passage mentions that the use of Demotic Greek depends on the social
context.

(E) is wrong because Modern Greek is a combination of Demotic Greek and Katharevousa,
Demotic Greek and Modern Greek are not the same thing.

Related Lessons
Demotic Greek (language of the people) is the modern vernacular form of the Greek language,
and refers particularly to the form of the language that evolved naturally from ancient Greek, in
opposition to the artificially archaic Katharevousa, which was the official standard until 1976. The
two complemented each other in a typical example of diglossia, or the existence of two forms of
a language (usually a high and a low) employed by the same speaker depending on the
social context, until the resolution of the Greek language question in favor of Demotic.

Demotic is often thought to be the same as the modern Greek language, but these two terms are
not completely synonymous. While Demotic is a term applied to the naturally evolved colloquial
language of the Greeks, the modern Greek language of today is more like a fusion of Demotic and
Katharevousa; it can be viewed as a variety of Demotic which has been enriched by "educated"
elements. Therefore, it is not wrong to call the spoken language of today Demotic, though such a
terminology ignores the fact that modern Greek contains - especially in a written or official form -
numerous words, grammatical forms and phonetical features that did not exist in colloquial
speech and only entered the language through its archaic variety. Additionally, even the most
archaic forms of Katharevousa were never thought of as ancient Greek, but were always called
"modern Greek", so that the phrase "modern Greek" applies to Demotic, Standard Modern Greek
and even Katharevousa.
According to the passage, describing Demotic Greek as modern Greek, while common, is not
entirely accurate because

modern Greek is also infused with elements of Katharevousa Demotic Greek also

contains educated aspects not found in modern Greek modern Greek also shares certain

grammatical forms with ancient Greek certain aspects of Demotic Greek are more common to

Katharevousa than to modern Greek Demotic Greek has some colloquial forms found in
ancient Greek

Text Explanation
The passage says that modern Greek is afusion of Demotic and Katharevousa. This leads us
to (A).

(A) The Answer

(B) is tricky because it reverses the order of Demotic Greek and modern Greek.

(C) is wrong because the passage never says that modern Greek shares grammatical
forms with ancient Greek. It says that modern Greek shares grammatical features with
the archaic Katharevousa, which was never thought of as ancient Greek.

(D) Nowhere does the passage mentions the great similarities between Katharevousa and
Demotic Greek. The two are very different, though together they make up modern Greek.

(E) is tempting because Demotic Greek evolved naturally from ancient Greek. Indeed, Demotic
Greek is the colloquial side of modern Greek. But from this fact alone we cannot infer that some
colloquial forms of ancient Greek and Demotic Greek are similar.

Related Lessons
he Seventh Symphony (1812) was, at the time, Beethovens last and vibrant word on the big
style he had cultivated in the previous decade. In the Eighth Symphony (1814) he does
something new by seeming to return to something old. He writes, that is, a symphony shorter
than any since his First. It is almost as though he wanted to call his entire development
throughout that decade into question. Indeed, over the remaining years of his life he would
confidently explore in opposite directions, writing bigger pieces than before and ones more
compressed, his most rhetorical music and his most inward, his most public and his most
esoteric, compositions that plumb the inexhaustible possibilities of the sonata style and those
that propose utterly new ways of organizing material, music reaching extremes of the centered
and the bizarre.

If, however, we think of the Eighth as a nostalgic return to the good old days, we misunderstand
it. To say it is 1795 revisited from the vantage point of 1812 is not right either. What interests
Beethoven is not so much brevity for its own sake and certainly not something called
classicism as concentration. It is as though he were picking up where he had left off in the
densely saturated first movement of the Fifth Symphony to produce another tour de force of tight
packing. He had already done something like this two years earlier in one of his most
uncompromising works, the F-minor String Quartet, Op. 95. But a symphony is not a private
connoisseurs music like a string quartet; by comparison, the Eighth Symphony is Opus 95s
friendly, open-featured cousin, even though its first and last movements bring us some of the
most violent moments in Beethoven.
Which of the following does the author imply about Beethoven's Eighth Symphony?TOUGH LOT
OF FACTS JOIINING AND IMPLICATIONN NOT VERY CONVINCING

It is compromising, and not vibrant like a piece typical of classicism In it, for the first
time, Beethoven explored concentration as an organizing principle for an entire

symphony It was more inwardly focused, less rhetorical than the F-minor String Quartet,

Op. 95 It rejected the sonata style used in the Seventh Symphony, exploring completely new

ways to organize music. Compared to his other symphonies, it is a particularly esoteric public
work, having both friendly and violent tendencies.

Text Explanation
The credited answer is (B). The passage makes a big point of saying that, after the Seventh
Symphony, Beethoven explored a new organizing principle. The First Symphony was short, but for
a different reason. The first movement of the Fifth was concentrated, but in isolating the first
movement of that work, the author implies that concentration is not the principle of the entire
work. It is the principle of the entire Eighth Symphony, so this is the first time.
In Choice (A), the word "compromising" has a derogatory connotation, but the author clearly has
a high opinion of the Eighth symphony. The passage says the Seventh Symphony was the "last
and vibrant word on the big style ", so the Seventh Symphony is vibrant, but we have no idea
whether any piece typical of classicism would be, nor is it implied that the Eighth is not vibrant.
Choice (A) is not correct.
The first paragraph mentions the contrast of "rhetorical" vs. "inward-focused", without explaining
it, and it's unclear which the Eighth Symphony occupies. We know that the Quartet was called
"private", and the Symphony wasn't "private" --- if it's not "private", that sounds like it would not
be "inward-focused". Choice (C) is not correct.
The first paragraph mentions the contrast of "sonata style" vs. "new ways of organizing music",
but we have no evidence on which side the Eighth Symphony (or the Seventh Symphony!!) would
fall. Choice (D) is not correct.
The first paragraph mentions the word "esoteric", but we have no idea how "esoteric" the Eighth
Symphony is, and no idea how "esoteric" any other symphony is. Choice (E)is not correct.

The Seventh Symphony (1812) was, at the time, Beethovens last and vibrant word on the big
style he had cultivated in the previous decade. In the Eighth Symphony (1814) he does
something new by seeming to return to something old. He writes, that is, a symphony shorter
than any since his First. It is almost as though he wanted to call his entire development
throughout that decade into question. Indeed, over the remaining years of his life he would
confidently explore in opposite directions, writing bigger pieces than before and ones more
compressed, his most rhetorical music and his most inward, his most public and his most
esoteric, compositions that plumb the inexhaustible possibilities of the sonata style and those
that propose utterly new ways of organizing material, music reaching extremes of the centered
and the bizarre.
If, however, we think of the Eighth as a nostalgic return to the good old days, we misunderstand
it. To say it is 1795 revisited from the vantage point of 1812 is not right either. What interests
Beethoven is not so much brevity for its own sake and certainly not something called
classicism as concentration. It is as though he were picking up where he had left off in the
densely saturated first movement of the Fifth Symphony to produce another tour de force of tight
packing. He had already done something like this two years earlier in one of his most
uncompromising works, the F-minor String Quartet, Op. 95. But a symphony is not a private
connoisseurs music like a string quartet; by comparison, the Eighth Symphony is Opus 95s
friendly, open-featured cousin, even though its first and last movements bring us some of the
most violent moments in Beethoven.
The passage provides support for which of the following?

Beethoven's Eighth Symphony would not be appreciated by connoisseurs. The Fifth

Symphony is the shortest symphony between the First and the Eighth. In 1795, Beethoven
composed works that contained less development than the majority of pieces over the

next 15 years. The F-minor String Quartet, Op. 95 is one of Beethoven's most esoteric

works. Later in life, Beethoven developed significant misgivings about the big development
characteristic of Symphonies of his middle period.

Text Explanation
The passage implies that the short First Symphony and other pieces exemplifying "classicism"
were written before 1795, but after that, he wrote pieces in the "big style", at least up until 1812.
Therefore, most of the pieces from 1795-1810 would be bigger, and thus have more
development, than pieces from before 1795. Choice (C) is the credited answer.
The author calls the Eighth Symphony a "tour de force", which is high praise. This seems to
indicate that it would be appreciated by connoisseurs. Choice (A) is not correct.
We know the First Symphony was short, and we know the Eighth was the shortest since the First.
We know the first movement of the Fifth is "tightly packed", which presumably means a little
shorter, but we have no idea about the rest of that symphony. We know thing about the other five
symphonies in that stretch, so we have no basis on which to drawn this conclusion. Choice (B) is
not correct.
We know the Op. 95 Quartet is "uncompromising" and an example of "concentration" in
organization, but we have no basis on which to decide whether it is "esoteric." Choice(D) is not
correct.
Choice (E) is misleading. The passage uses the phrase: "It is almost as though [Beethoven]
wanted to call his entire development throughout that decade into question." This is a metaphor.
It does not say Beethoven actually thought anything bad about what he had previous done. It just
emphasizes how radically different the new direction was. There is no evidence in the passage
that Beethoven actually called any of his work into question. Choice (E) is not correct.

Related Lessons
There aren't any related lessons for this question. Feel free to use the Help tab to ask our
experts if you have questions.
Anselm of Canterbury (1033 1109) was a medieval theologian. According to the Anselm's
ontological argument for the existence of God, "accidental beings" are all those things ---
essentially all sense object ---- whose non-existence could be imagined without inherent
contradiction, and "necessary beings" are those things whose existence is guaranteed precisely
by what they are. Because accidental beings could not have guaranteed that they ever would
come into existence, there must be a necessary being upon whom all the accidental beings
depends to bring them into existence; and this necessary being Anselm identifies with God, who
therefore clearly must exist.

In our modern analysis, this eleventh century argument is most vulnerable to what
criticism? these are difficult as there is hidden inference asked ????

It establishes an effect that must exist well before its cause. It completely depends on a

definition of a term that stands in stark contrast to the everyday understanding of the term.

The conclusion supports facts that directly contradict the evidence given to support it. It
makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusions that is to be

established. It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent


with other evidence presented in support of the same claim

Text Explanation
This question addresses the Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. The
argument hinges on a distinction: "accidental being" vs. "necessary beings." To our modern ears,
this is a strange distinction: everything we can see or imagine, concrete objects as well as
abstract ideas (e.g. money, democracy, health, etc.) are "accidental beings", and it's not clear
that anything discussed in the modern world would be a "necessary being" in the sense
described by the argument. The argument makes this distinction, positing the existence of this
hypothetical "necessary being", and then proceeds to use this distinction to prove the existence
of a "necessary being." In other words, the very distinction it makes presupposes what it is trying
to prove.
(D) is the credited answer. In making the distinction between "accidental" and
"necessary" beings, the argument presupposes that "necessary beings" exist, and
then proceeds to prove that one exists. To our modern sensibilities, this argument
assumes what it is trying to prove.
(A) is wrong. The argument has nothing to do with time sequences. If anything, the "cause"
discussed is God, who (according to the Christian understanding) existed well before anything
that God caused.
(B) is a tempting answer, because indeed both words, "accidental" and "necessary" are using in
a technical philosophical sense, not in their everyday sense. Nevertheless, both words are used
consistently in this philosophical sense, and no resort is made to their common understanding, so
that difference doesn't play any role in the argument.
(C) is wrong. The argument makes reference to no "facts" in any modern sense. Furthermore, it
doesn't deduce any further consequences from the main conclusion.
(E) is wrong. The only "evidence" presented is a philosophical distinction. There's nothing else
presented in the argument that could contradict this.
Related Lessons
Your Notes
Related Le

Verbs + from
Some verbs require the word from. Some of these verbs involve some kind of spatial separation, at least in their literal sense:

isolate from
separate from
descend from
For other verbs, the separation is not literal and spatial, but conceptual

differ from
prevent A from B
prohibit A from B
For both prevent and prohibit, the object of from is almost always a gerund - to prevent someone from talking, to prohibit citizens
of one state from suing a another state.
Another unusual from idiom involves the verb to choose. When a person chooses an action, we say that person chooses to do X the
action is expressed as an infinitive. When we are discussing the various options available to the person choosing, we use the idiom:
choose from
Here, the object of from is the set or list of available options.

3) Congress balked when President Reagan chose Robert Bork from all available federal judges.
Here, the phrase all available federal judges gives the array of options from which the choice was made.

More about spatial relationships


The words to and from are used for approach and receding, from A to B, both literally and figuratively.
4) General Sherman marched from Atlanta to Savannah, destroying everything along the way.
5) Whereas a modern American feast is said to go from soup to nuts, an ancient Roman banquet went ab ovo usque ad pomo (from the
egg to the apple).
6) Sviatoslav Richters repertoire ranged from works by eighteenth century Baroque composers, such as Bach and Handel, to contemporary
compositions, by Sovietcomposers such as Shostakovich and Prokofiev, some of whose works Richter premiered.
Notice, in that last sentence the idiom to range from A to B, a way of talking about the literal or figurative extent of something.

More about differences


Above, I cited a verb idiom involving the preposition from:

to differ from
The adjective form different also follows this form:

different from
7) Few can say whether a chaconne is truly different from a passacaglia.
Sometimes a root word retains the same idiom as it changes from one grammatical form to another.

Another idiom the verb differ follows is


to differ in
Here, we are not describing the two parties who differ, but rather the field or discipline in which they differ

8) Representative Hostettler and Representative Frank differ in their position on gay marriage.
The noun form difference shares this latter idiom with the verb and follows its own idioms:

difference in
difference between
difference with respect to
8) The president and prime minister have no difference in standing on the proposed trade bill.

9) Ethicists ordinarily underscore the difference between white lies, designed to protect the feelings of others, and lies of malice motivated
by venal self-interest.

10) Since the Senators reelection, political commentators have remarked on subtle differences with respect to his portrayal of the tax reform.

The between idiom indicates the parties that differ, while the in or with respect to describe the subject or field of the difference: either
one of these latter can be combined with the between idiom:

11) The difference in hitting technique between Babe Ruth and Ted Williams is the subject of endless debate.
12) Between the original 1937 movie and the current remake, critics have noted differences with respect to the murderers motivations.

Summary
As always with idioms, read, read, read! Search for these from idioms and other bold idioms in this post in context. You understand
English best when you understand it in context.

GMAT Prepositions and Idioms: for

BY MIKE MCGARRY ON JANUARY 14, 2013 IN GRAMMAR, IDIOMS, PARTS OF SPEECH, SENTENCE CORRECTION, VERBAL

UPDATE: You can find this blog and others about idioms in our new GMAT Idiom eBook!

Prepositions in English display a powerful diversity of uses. In previous preposition article, we talked about the proposition of. Here, we will

look, at the preposition for.

The preposition for

The word for is a preposition. This means, it must be followed by a noun or by something playing the role of a noun. This latter

category includes gerunds andsubstantive clauses.

1) Someone who doesnt understand baseball well is likely to mistake running as part of a hit-and-run play for stealing a base.

2) The teachers chaperoning the dance are not responsible for whatever may happen on the way home afterwards.

In sentence #1, the object of the preposition for is a gerund phrase, and in sentence #2, the object is a substantive clause. Incidentally,

both of these are exemplary of idioms involving the word for.

Fundamental uses of for


First of all, the word for can be used in an indirect object construction, and so one can do a favor for someone, say a prayer for

someone, bake a cake for someone, etc. This construction tends to arise in either narrative or in informal day-to-day conversation, so it is

unlikely to appear in the academic and professional passages on the GMAT. Nevertheless, this structure gives a hint to some of the core

meanings of its uses. If one is for a cause, then one supports that cause and is in favor of it. Many of the uses of for carry this

supporting or favorable connotation.

Verbs requiring for

Two verbs with idioms that require a for prepositional phrase are

argue for

allow for

The structure argue for is very much in line with the for a cause idiom mentioned above. If I argue for X, that X is some position or

perspective or opinion or point-of-view that I support.

3) The senator argued for naming the new veterans hospital in his state after Omar Bradley.

The opposite idiom if one person argues for X, then his opponent may argueagainst X. The prepositions for & against form a

natural pair of opposites.

The structure allow for is far more complicated and subtle. One use is the structureP allows for Q, where P is a law or set of rules and Q

is some activity or specific case consistent with these rules .

4) The First Amendment allows for free speech, even speech critical of the government.

5) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation allows for momentary violations of fundamental laws of Physics, such as Conservation of Energy.

A second use is to allow X for Y, where X is some resource (time, money, room, etc.) needed to accommodate Y.

6) The county budget does not allow any additional funds for unemployment services.

7) After beginning construction, the developer discovered that the states water allocation system would not allow sufficient drinking water for

his planned housing development.

8) Baseballs unique structure allows essentially unlimited time for the resolution of events at the end of a game.

A more abstract use of this idiom to allow for J has the meaning: to acknowledge extenuating conditions, to give consideration to

contingencies. In this construction, J is the quality or characteristic that would excuse or provide mitigating conditions for someone.

9) Allowing for the young persons rash judgment, the police decided to drop all charges.

10) The career numbers Ted Williams produced are even more extraordinary when we allow for his two long stints in the armed services

during his prime.

Three further verbs form a set of related idioms involving for

substitute A for B

mistake A for B

sacrifice A for B
In all three, A is someone or something that takes the place of B. When we say we are going to substitute A for B, we are saying that, in

some context, we will replace B with A. This is precisely how we use the terminology in math: substitute (2x + 7) for y. We use it with the

very same meaning in any one of a number of other contexts:

11) On the World Series roster, the manager substituted a rookie for the injured veteran.

12) She substitutes maple syrup for cane sugar in her muffin recipes.

13) Critics of the Soviet Union argued that the Bolsheviks merely substituted one oppressive despotic system for another.

Notice, incidentally when we substitute A for B, B is gone and A is part of the final product, but when we replace A with B, A is gone

and B is part of the final product.

The idiom to mistake A for B is like a substitution that happens entirely in one persons head. If I mistake A for B, then A is the real

person or situation at hand, and through my mistake, I dont recognize A for whatever reason, I instead am under the mistaken impression

that B is at hand, rather than A.

14) The students, seeing an image of Henry David Thoreau, mistook him for Lincoln.

15) The inexperienced investors mistook a short-covering rally for a major upturn in the market.

The idiom to sacrifice A for B also is like a kind of substitution. In this idiom, A is the resource or asset that one gives up, with the specific

intention of attaining B, some desired condition or result.

16) The executive was not willing to sacrifice his integrity for the lucrative deal.

17) In the hindsight of history, Neville Chamberlain is seen as having sacrificed the Sudetenland for what he naively thought would be peace

for our times.

18) The think tanks paper argued that the federal debt, in effect, sacrifices the prosperity of future generations for our own unbridled

consumption.

Responsibility

This idiom is an example of the same root word taking the same preposition in different forms. Both the noun responsibility and the adjective

responsible take the preposition for

responsibility for

responsible for

In both cases, the agent who is responsible or who has responsibility is the person/thing on whom events depend, and the object of the

preposition for is the process or event or person or thing that the subject controls or influences.

19) The President is ultimately responsible for the actions of the entire Executive Branch of the government.

20) While the Moons gravitation is responsible for the overall cycle of the tides, the Suns gravitation is responsible for the difference

between spring tides and neap tides.

21) Patients rights groups complained that the proposed medical malpractice reform essentially would absolve doctors of any responsibility

for their professional decisions.


For every A, B

This idiom is unique. In a way, this is a grammatical idiom that derives from formal logic. When we say For every A, B, we are saying that

A is some category with multiple members, and for some reason (legal or mathematical or scientific or ), we know that for each member in

this category, B is true. Sometimes it is used to express ratios in a population (For every 3 people who do X, 7 people do Y.)

22) For every high school baseball player who eventually rises to a career in theMajor League, more than 360 other high school baseball

players never go so far.

23) Because of the dominance of matter over antimatter, at least in our Solar System, some theoretical physicists doubt that there truly is

a positron for every electron.

24) The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic states that for every natural number, the numbers prime factorization is unique.

Summary

Know the idioms given in bold in this post. As always with idioms, read, read, read! Search for the idioms in this post in context. You

understand English best when you understand it in context.

MAT Prepositions and Idioms: Against

BY MIKE MCGARRY ON JANUARY 25, 2013 IN GRAMMAR, IDIOMS, PARTS OF SPEECH, SENTENCE CORRECTION, VERBAL

UPDATE: You can find this blog and others about idioms in our new GMAT Idiom eBook!

Prepositions in English display a powerful diversity of uses. In previous preposition article, we talked about the proposition for. Here, we

will look, at the prepositions against.

Prepositions

A preposition must be followed by a noun or by something playing the role of a noun. This latter category

includes gerunds and substantive clauses.

1) Charles Lindbergh argued against entering World War II on the side of the Allies.

2) The CEO state he was prejudice against whoever thought his predecessors Seven-Point Plan was a sound way to run the corporation.

In sentence #1, the object of the preposition against is a gerund phrase, and in sentence #2, the object is a substantive clause.

Incidentally, both of these are exemplary of idioms involving these prepositions.


Against

The preposition against has connotations of conflict and opposition. The most important idioms associated with against are:

prejudiced against

protect from/ against

argue with/against

fight with/against

victory over/against

Prejudice against

Etymologically, the word prejudice simply means to pre-judge, and that pre-judging could be favorable or unfavorable, but in modern

English, the word prejudice carries the connotation of having pre-judged in a way that is unfavorable. The most discussed kind of prejudice

is racial prejudice, though of course one could be prejudice about many other issues. Because of the negative connotation, we use the

preposition against with prejudice.

3) Prejudiced against short term securities, she only invested in options with more than a year before expiration.

Protect from/against

The direct object of protect is the item protected - the police officer protects the public, the clear plastic adhesive protects the face of the

cell phone, etc. For everything that is protected, there is some threat or risk or danger which is the occasion of the protecting. Whether

there is any difference between protect from and protect against is debatable, as is what that difference might be. For the purpose of

the GMAT Sentence Correction, they are interchangeable.

4) Pure aluminum quickly forms a thin coat of aluminum oxide which protects the metal from corrosion.

5) The city of Venice was formed when residents of the Italian peninsula fled to a series of tiny islands off the coast, to protect themselves

against the invading Huns.

Argue with/against

The pair of idioms argue with vs. argue against is tricky. If we are speaking about the manner of ones arguing, then we always use

with:

6) The charismatic lawyer always argued his case with tremendous persuasive powers.

If we are discussing the idea or cause one opposes, then we always use against.
7) Glenn Gould argued against the strict necessity for using original instruments in performance of Baroque music.

8) Athanasius spent his life arguing against the Arian interpretation of Christianity.

If the object of the preposition is a person, then the difference between argue with [person] vs. argue against [person] is subtle. In

general, if the affiliation or bond between two people is stronger than their conflict - the relationship is ongoing, and the conflict is

temporary by comparison - then we would use with husband & wife argue with one another; brother argues with sister; student argues

with teacher. In general, if the conflict is the essential defining feature of the relationship if A didnt have an argument with B, then A

would not be have any relationship at all with B - then we would use against. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, and in some contexts,

either would be correct.

9) In the famous Scope trial, conservative Christian William Jennings Bryan argued against progressive libertarian lawyer Clarence Darrow.

Fight with/against

The distinction between these two is very much like the distinction between argue with vs. argue against. We certainly would use with

to describe either a quality of the fighting (he fought with dignity) or a physical tool used in fighting (he fought with brass knuckles). We

use against for any idea or cause or movement one opposes.

10) The Song of Roland depicts Rolands enemies as Muslims, but in reality, at theBattle of Roncevaux Pass, Roland fought against Basque

Christians.

11) Tycho Brahe hoped to use his extensive observational data of planetary positions to fight against the Copernican system.

As with argue, we tend to say fight with [a person] if the ongoing relationship is more enduring and/or more essential than the nature of

the conflict; we tend to say fight against [a person] if the conflict is the primary mode of relating. Again, this is not a strict rule, and in

some contexts, either would be correct.

12) In the Thrilla in Manila, on October 1, 1975, Muhammad Alis fought with Joe Frazier for the third and final time.

13) Behind closed doors, the CFO argued with the head of the corporations legal team about potential impact of the new policy, but publicly,

they presented a united front of support.

14) In 1942, General Montgomery was assigned to North Africa to fight against Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox.

15) After the Second Triumvirate collapse, Octavian fought against Marc Antony andCleopatra, defeating them decisively at the Battle of

Actium.

Victory Over/Victory Against

These two are virtually identical the latter seems somewhat more common in sports journalist. For the purposes of GMAT Sentence

Correction, both victory overand victory against are correct and imply no discernible difference in meaning. Both are used to describe the

party or thing defeated in the victory.

16) The passage of the Twenty First Amendment, repealing the Eighteenth, was a decisive victory against the temperance movement.
17) Arising from highly controversial ideas about the physical world, Quantum Mechanics consolidated a clear victory over Classical

Mechanics in the 1920s.

Summary

Know the idioms given in bold in this post. As always with idioms, read, read, read! Search for the idioms in this post in context. You

understand English best when you understand it in context.

More from Magoosh


GMAT Prepositions and Idioms: for
GMAT Prepositions and Idioms: On
GMAT Prepositions and Idioms: from
GMAT Preposition with

By the way, sign up for our 1 Week Free Trial to try out Magoosh GMAT Prep!

About Mike McGarry


Mike creates expert lessons and practice questions to guide GMAT students to success. He has a BS in Physics and an MA in Religion, both from Harvard, and over 20 years of
teaching experience specializing in math, science, and standardized exams. Mike likes smashing foosballs into orbit, and despite having no obvious cranial deficiency, he insists on
rooting for the NY Mets.

Previous

Next

No comments yet.

Magoosh blog comment policy: To create the best experience for our readers, we will only approve comments that are relevant

to the article, general enough to be helpful to other students, concise, and well-written! Due to the high volume of
comments across all of our blogs, we cannot promise that all comments will receive responses from our instructors.

We highly encourage students to help each other out and respond to other students' comments if you can!

If you are a Premium Magoosh student and would like more personalized service from our instructors, you can use the Help tab on
the Magoosh dashboard. Thanks!

More from Magoosh

GMAT Prepositions and Idioms: On

BY MIKE MCGARRY ON JANUARY 28, 2013 IN GRAMMAR, IDIOMS, PARTS OF SPEECH, SENTENCE CORRECTION, VERBAL

UPDATE: You can find this blog and others about idioms in our new GMAT Idiom eBook!
Prepositions in English display a powerful diversity of uses. Your preposition knowledge will most certainly be tested in the GMAT. In previous

preposition article, we talked about the proposition against. Here, we will look, at the preposition on.

Prepositions on the GMAT

A preposition must be followed by a noun or by something playing the role of a noun. This latter category

includes gerunds and substantive clauses.

1) The CEO refused to expend any more capital on saving the failing divisions.

2) Washington well understood that his long-term success in the War of American Independence might well

depend on whether Franklin would be able to persuade the French to join as allies.

In sentence #1, the object of the preposition on is a gerund phrase, and in sentence #2, the object is a substantive clause. Incidentally,

both of these are exemplary of idioms involving these prepositions.

The Preposition On

The preposition on literally denotes the surface supporting something (the book is on the table), and metaphorically, it can refer to a

circumstance or the topic of a talk.

3) On formal occasions, the general wore his ceremonial saber.

4) An acknowledged authority on eighteenth century literature, the professor was asked to lead a seminar on post-modern poetry.

The three most important idioms involving on are

based on

expend (time/money/energy) on

depends on (whether)

Idiom: Based on

First of all, the idiom P is based on Q means would literally mean that Q is the physical foundation on which P sits. This idiom is rarely used

in its strictly literal sense. More often, Q is the evidence or philosophical underpinning that supports P.

5) The schema of punishments described in Dantes Inferno is based on the theology of Thomas Aquinas.

Similarly, the idiom based on Q, P is a perfectly valid participial modifier construction. Again, Q is the thing doing the supporting, and P is

the thing supported.

6) The doctors hunch, based on 25 years of research in the field, was that the new medicine would be successful.
Here, the participial phrase based on 25 years of research in the field modifies the noun it touches, the noun hunch the doctors hunch

is supported by his many years of research. This is perfectly correct.

This idiom, though, is wantonly abused in colloquial speech.

Both of these might be said colloquially, both are 100% WRONG. In #7, the team is not supported by its losing record last year it would

be far more accurate to say something like Because the team had a losing record last year, we suspect that . The authoritarian speaker

of #8 is certain not supported by his interlocutors bad behavior. Again, a because clause would be far more accurate.

Idiom: Expend on

The verb to expend means, in essence, the same thing as the verb to spend. When we spend or expend, we are giving away a resource

(money, time, energy, etc.) and thereby acquiring some good. In the idiom to expend P on Q, P is the price, the resource spent in this

interaction, and Q is the good purchased with this expenditure. The noun form of this same idiom is the expenditure of P on Q. (For

more on verb-forms vs. noun-forms, see this post.)

9) The United States has expended over eight-hundred billion dollars on the post-9/11War in Iraq.

10) Having already won a Nobel Prize and garnered international fame, Einsteinexpended the last three decades of his life on an apparently

fruitless search for aUnified Field Theory.

11) In the late rounds of a match, a skilled boxer will be parsimonious with powerful punches, preferring not to expend valuable energy on

blows that dont substantially damage his opponent.

Idiom: Depends on

If P depends on Q, then Q is the condition or circumstance that either will allow P to happen or will affect the quality of P. In other words,

knowing Q will answer some vitally important question about P.

12) The location of their wedding reception will depend on the weather.

13) A baseball players hitting prowess depends more on his visual abilities than on anything else.

In more complex sentences, either P or Q or both! from this structure could be asubstantive clause, most typically beginning with the

word whether.

14) Lincoln felt that issuing the Emancipation Proclamation should depend on whether the Army of the Potomac would be able to drive the

Confederate forces out of Maryland.

15) Whether any individual particle decay sequence occurs depends on whether all relevant conversation laws permit it.

16) How easily a name is remembered does not depend on the qualities of that person.

17) What a person fundamentally believes depends surprisingly little on how much that person has in her bank account.
18) How soundly a person sleeps on any given night depends on what that person eats in the hours immediately before retiring.

Substantive clauses galore! This idiom lends itself well to them.

Summary

Know the idioms given in bold in this post. As always with idioms, read, read, read! Search for the idioms in this post in context. You

understand English best when you understand it in context.

More from Magoosh

GMAT Prepositions and Idioms: of

BY MIKE MCGARRY ON JANUARY 10, 2013 IN IDIOMS, PARTS OF SPEECH, SENTENCE CORRECTION,VERBAL

UPDATE: You can find this blog and others about idioms in our new GMAT Idiom eBook!

Prepositions in English display a powerful diversity of uses. In previous preposition article, we talked about the proposition to. Here, we will

look, at the preposition of.

The preposition of

The word of is a preposition. This means, it must be followed by a noun or by something playing the role of a noun. This latter category

includes gerunds andsubstantive clauses.

1) No amount of talking about issues facing the homeless will satisfy their most basic needs in the short term.

2) We are now absorbing the unfortunate consequences of what last years county administration thought would benefit us all.

In sentence #1, the object of the preposition of is a gerund phrase, and in sentence #2, the object is a substantive clause. Incidentally,

both of these are exemplary of idioms involving the word of.

Verbs requiring of

There are three very different verb idioms involving of:

consist of

accuse A of B

think of A as B
In the idiom A consists of B, A is the complete object or the finished product, and B is the material of which this product is composed. It

can be used literally, for the actual physical material making up an object, or it can be used metaphorically for the content of something.

3) Atomic Theory states that all material objects consist of atoms and that the macroscopic properties of objects depend on the microscopic

interactions of these atoms.

4) The candidate argued that his opponents New Horizons program consisted of no more than a revision of the former governors

discredited ideas.

Notice that, idiomatically, we would use the present participle for this verb, consisting of, but the past participle for two verbs with the

same meaning: made of and composed of.

Now, a totally different idiom. When someone accuses A of B, A is the person accused, and B is the crime or infraction.

5) Javert accused Valjean of various crimes.

6) The Inquisition never formally accused Galileo of heresy, only finding him vehemently suspect of heresy.

The final idiom is particularly difficult: think of A as B. Here, A is the person or thing under consideration, and B is a role or a rank or a

metaphor for A.

7) I think of my friend Chris as a walking dictionary and thesaurus.

8) Many Chinese think of Li Bai as the single greatest poet in their three-thousand year old civilization.

9) Some feminists think of chivalry as an outmoded set of behaviors and values that, despite their patina of gentility, promote

damaging gender inequities.

10) Fundamentalist Christians in the US think of Evolution as merely an opinion held by some scientists, whereas most scientists writing in

peer-reviewed journals think of it as established truth beyond any doubt.

A potpourri of idioms

The diversity of idioms involving of is mind-boggling. One collection has to do with the composition or constituency of things:

consisting of

made of

composed of

a collection of

a number of

an amount of

The first three were discussed in the previous section. Most other collective nouns (organization, association, crowd, team, herd, flock, etc.)

follow this pattern. The object of the preposition of are the people or items or material that compose the group or the whole. Remember

to use number for things you can count, and amount for uncountable bulk.

11) A large number of coal miners develop pneumoconiosis.

12) The amount of revenue that the United States government collects from payroll taxes in the US is approximately equal to the amount of

revenue from personal income taxes.


Another closely related idiom:

chance of

probability of

When we speak of a chance of A or a probability of A, A is the event whose probability we are discussing. This event A may be an

ordinary noun, or even agerund or gerund phrase, but the GMAT does not like the construction

[preposition][noun][participial phrase]

If you want to talk about that much action, you need a full that clause with a [noun] + [verb]. Dont try to wedge a full action into a

preposition phrase using a noun & a participial phrase: chance that or probability that

13) On a five card draw from a full deck, the chance of drawing a royal flush is 649,740 to 1.

14) The probability that a player will hit four homeruns in a single baseball game is very low: this feat has happened only sixteen times in the

history of Major League Baseball.

If this last sentence had been phrased The probability of a playing hitting , that would be the form to which the GMAT objects.

One idiom metaphorically related to the constituency idiom above is:

capable of

Here, when we say A is capable of B, A is the person and B is an action. Metaphorically, A contains or is made of the capacity to do B.

Often, this plain statement, A is capable of B, can be rephrased more concisely using can. Nevertheless, this flexible idiom can appear in

a number of other guises:

15) The detective considered the culprit capable of cold-blooded murder.

16) The swan, capable of flying long distances, is much more frequently depicted on water than in the air.

Two words follow a very different idiom with of

result of

consequence of

Whether we say A is a result of B or A is a consequence of B, we are saying B is the cause and A is the effect.

17) Skin cancer is often the result of many years of sunbathing.

18) Unemployment is often an unintended consequence of raising interest rates.

Once again, its fine to have a gerund or gerund phrase, but if the case involves both a noun and a verb, we could no longer use the

preposition of we would have to change around the entire sentence.


GMAT Idiom: because vs. because of

BY MIKE MCGARRY ON DECEMBER 4, 2012 IN IDIOMS, SENTENCE CORRECTION, VERBAL

UPDATE: You can find this blog and others about idioms in our new GMAT Idiom eBook!

First, a practice GMAT Sentence Correction question:

1) Because of Elnath Industries posting a second consecutive quarter of losses, its stocks tumbled 20% in the last three days.

(A) Because of Elnath Industries posting

(B) Because of Elnath Industries having posted

(C) Because Elnath Industries posting

(D) Because Elnath Industries posted

(E) Because Elnath Industries had been posting

Because

By itself, the word because is a subordinate conjunction. What does that mean? It means, this word opens a subordinate clause. A subordinate

clause, like any clause, must have a complete [noun] + [verb] structure within it, like a mini-sentence: in fact, if you drop the subordinate conjunction,

the rest of the subordinate clause should be able to stand alone as a sentence. Furthermore, the fact that this clause is subordinate (i.e. dependent)

means there must be another main, independent clause providing the meat-and-potatoes of the sentence.

The general outline of a sentence involving the word because might be:

Because + [sub. noun] + [sub. verb], [main noun] + [main verb].

Of course, all kinds of adjectives, adverbs, and other modifies can be added to this structure. The [sub. noun] + [sub. verb] provide the structure of the

subordinate clause and could stand on their own as a complete sentence. The sentence as a whole depends on the [main noun] + [main verb] as its

core structure. For example,

2) Because teenagers are insatiably hungry, their parents are always buying food.

Notice that the [noun] + [verb] within the subordinate clause, teenagers are insatiably hungry, could work as its own sentence: thats a great trick to

test a clause on the GMAT Sentence Correction. Nevertheless, in this context, their parents is the main subject and are buying is the main verb.
Because of

The words because of are a compound preposition. Prepositions are designed to be followed by only a noun - because of the rain, because of the

parade, because of the childs temper tantrum, etc. The object of this or any preposition can be agerund or gerund phrase - because of waiting for

the senator, because of limited parking, because of having eaten out every night this week, etc. That last example is getting to the limit of how

much action, how much story, the GMAT likes to pack inside a prepositional phrase. On the Sentence Correction, the GMAT finds the following structure

problematic:

[preposition] + [noun] + [participle]

when this structure contains an action word participle. Even though this could be grammatically correct in a technical sense, many

would be likely to find this in poor taste, and for GMAT Sentence Correction purposes, this is 100% wrong.

Example Because of the President going to Myanmar = WRONG!

As far as the GMAT is concerned, this is just too much action, too much story, for a preposition to handle. If you are going to have both an action and

the person/agent performing the action, then what you need is a clause, not merely a prepositional phrase.

Consider this Popular GMAT Idiom

BY MIKE MCGARRY ON NOVEMBER 30, 2012 IN GRAMMAR, IDIOMS, SENTENCE CORRECTION, VERBAL

UPDATE: You can find this blog and others about idioms in our new GMAT Idiom eBook!

What is the proper way to use the word consider? Considering that this very word may appear on the GMAT Sentence Correction, you should be

prepared for its related idioms!

Idiom #1: consider + noun + noun

1) Many Magoosh users consider my friend Chris an authority on the GRE.

2) I consider Ted Williams the greatest baseball hitter of all times.

Both of those use this idiom correctly. The structure of this idiom is

[subject] considers A B

The noun A is the person or thing you are evaluating, and B is the rank or level or station or etc. to which you are assigning them. In sentence #1:

A = my friend Chris

B = an authority on the GRE

In sentence #2

A = Ted Williams
B = the greatest baseball hitter of all times

Idiom #2: consider + noun + adjective

3) I consider Margarette very intelligent.

4) Many unfairly consider New York City unfriendly.

5) The analysts considered tech industry stocks unlikely to rise before the new year.

This idiom is similar to the first, and all three of those use this idiom correctly. The structure of this idiom is

[subject] considers A B

Again, the noun A is the person or thing you are evaluating, and B is the adjective, the quality, which the subject ascribes to A. In sentence #3:

A = Margarette

B = very intelligent

In sentence #4:

A = New York City

B = unfriendly

In sentence #5:

A = tech industry stocks

B = unlikely to rise before the new year

Keep it simple

Notice, this is a very clean, simple idiom. On the Sentence Correct, the GMAT loves to give incorrect version of the form:
All of those are wrong. All of those may sound more dignified, more formal, than the simplicity of someone considers A B, but in this case, the

simple answer is 100% correct, and all these variants with extra words always will be incorrect on the GMAT Sentence Correction. Keep it simple!

Compound prepositions

Many prepositions consist of only one word, but in a few instances, two words together function as a single preposition. Four of these involve

of:

because of

instead of

as of

out of

For the first two, again it is important to remember: a preposition can have as its object either an ordinary noun or (more likely on the GMAT)

a gerund phrase, but if we want to put a full noun + action phrase, the GMAT frowns on having a [noun] + [participle] follow a preposition.

This latter structure demands a full subordinate clause. In fact, this is precisely the difference between because of and because.

19) Because of the uncertainty surrounding the new tax law being debated in Congress, the stocks dropped for a third consecutive day.

20) Instead of invading the Italian peninsula by sea, as all previous aggressors had done, Hannibal travelled over the Alps to invade by land

from the north.

The idiom as of is particular tricky: it is used to denote the precise time of a particular transition. The object of as of is

always either a time or an event whose time is well known.

21) As of next Wednesday, Phophon Stores will no longer accept the competitors coupons.

22) As of the enactment of the 26th Amendment in June, 1971, all citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 have been eligible to

vote in all elections.

The idiom out of can be used for the physical movement from a place - think ofIsak Dinesens memoir Out of Africa but more often it is

used metaphorically for the source material of some creation:

23) Out of innumerable Slavic folk melodies, Tchaikovsky fashioned some of the finest masterpieces of the classical repertoire.

24) Out of the seemingly intractable contradictions between Newtonian andMaxwellian physics, Einstein created the Theory of Relativity.
Three special combination idioms

Finally, here are three particular combinations of terms with prepositions that you need to know:

in danger of

in violation of

on account of

In the idiom in danger of A, A is some penalty or unfortunate consequence.

25) The sophomore who hosted all the keg parties was in danger of failing all of his classes.

26) If the government of Greece defaults on its national loans, the country will be in danger of losing its Eurozone membership.

In the idiom in violation of A, A is the law or principle that the agent is violating.

27) Republicans have argued that the PPACA is in violation of the Commerce Clause.

28) The cultural critic pointed out that the behavior depicted on prime-time television is in violation of most of the Commandments.

29) In Euclidean Geometry, a triangle whose angles had a sum other than 180 would be in violation of the Parallel Postulate.

Finally, a very tricky case: the idiom on account of is roughly synonymous to the idiom because of. The latter is more natural in

most cases, and usually lends itself to a more concise phrasing. The former is more pretentious and verbose, which makes it

appropriate, say, for legal-ese, but not particularly appropriate for the GMAT.

30a) On account of the stock markets sudden and precipitous rise, the bond market has rallied over the past few days .

30b) Because of the stock markets sudden and precipitous rise, the bond market has rallied over the past few days .

Technically, both versions of the previous sentence are correct. Nevertheless, I have never seen the idiom on account of part of a correct

answer on the GMAT Sentence Correction. On the one hand, be suspicious if you see Sentence Correct answer choices involving on account

of, but on the other hand, know that it is technically correct.

Summary

Know the idioms given in bold in this post. As always with idioms, read, read, read! Search for the idioms in this post in context. You

understand English best when you understand it in context.

oosh GMAT BlogEverything you need to know about the GMAT


Search...

All Posts

Quant

Verbal

IR

Study Plans
eBooks

Flashcards

Video Lessons

Book Reviews

Testimonials

Blogs

GMAT Preposition with

BY MIKE MCGARRY ON DECEMBER 17, 2012 IN GRAMMAR, IDIOMS, PARTS OF SPEECH, SENTENCE CORRECTION, VERBAL

Prepositions in English display a powerful diversity of uses. In the previouspreposition article, we talked about the proposition to. Here, we

will look, at the preposition with.

The preposition with

The word with is a preposition. This means, it must be followed by a noun or by something playing the role of a noun. This latter

category includes gerunds andsubstantive clauses.

1) Despite an earlier attempt by Chancourois, historians of science general creditDmitri Mendeleev with formulating the Periodic Table of the

Elements.

2) The Federal Judge argued that his recent controversial ruling was consistent with what the framers of the US Constitution thought about a

right to privacy.

In sentence #1, the object of with is a gerund phrase, and in sentence #2, the object is a substantive clause. Incidentally, both of these

are exemplary of idioms involving the word with.

The proposition with, as an ordinary preposition, can carry a variety of connotations:

3) I fixed the table with hammer and nails. (indicates means)

4) I fixed the table with haste. (indicates manner)

5) I fixed the table with my friend Chris. (indicates accompaniment)

The idioms below reflect this diversity of usages.

Verbs + with
Some verbs require the word with. Heres a list of the most common verbs that require with.

agree with

collaborate with

comply with

credit A with B

enamored with

provide with

sympathize with

The idioms involving agree, collaborate, and sympathize are most like the accompaniment use of with, in #5 above: in all three of

these, the object of with is a person with whom some has some kind of affiliation or affinity, or that persons view.

6) The Human Resources Director does not agree with the CFOs plans for redesigning the employee retirement options.

7) Brahms collaborated with the famous violinist Joseph Joachim in composing hisViolin Concerto.

8) Despite a lifetime of opposition, the nun sympathized with her gravely ill opponent.

Similar to these is the idiom involving enamored. To be enamored with someone or something is to really like it: it has a connotation of

something like romantic infatuation or passionate enthusiasm.

8) For many years, Yeats was enamored with Maud Gonne, who rejected Yeats marriage proposals on four different occasions.

9) Although Jefferson was enamored with the idea of liberty and equal rights for all, the Southern delegates to the Continental Congress were

successful in demanding that phrases condemning slavery be removed from the Declaration of Independence.

The idiom involving provide is most like the means example, #3 above. Here, the object of the proposition with is a physical or

metaphorical support given to someone.

10) The resupply station provided the hungry soldiers with much-needed food.

11) A young Reagan secretly provided the HUAC with damning information about his fellow actors.

12) Aquinas Summa Theologica provided Dante with a vast philosophical system within which to frame his famous drama.

The idiom involving both credit and comply is somewhat analogous to themanner example, #4 above, only insofar as the object of

with is necessarily something abstract. In the idiom to credit A with B, A is the person who receives the credit, and B is the quality or

accomplishment attributed to the person.

13) Even his political foes credit the prime minister with exceptional integrity.

14) Although Gregor Mendel enjoyed scant scientific recognition, current biologists universally credit him with the discovery of genetics.

In the idiom to comply with X, the X is a law, a rule, or some other abstract authoritative principle.

15) The CEO fired the vice president for repeatedly failing to comply with company policy.
Comparisons and other relationships

Here are three idioms that, in one way or another, are used in how we would compare or relate two things.

compare A with B

contrast A with B

consistent with

One of the many ways to construct a grammatically correct comparison is to use the verb compare with the preposition with.

16) Early in his career, Darryl Strawberrys swing was compared with Ted Williams.

17) Compared with most Old World wines, California wines are simpler and more fruit dominant.

This latter form, using the participle compared + with, is common on the GMAT Sentence Correction Compared with A, B and

of course, A and B must be in parallel.

For the word contrast, we need to be careful. If we are actively discussing a person who is performing the contrast, then we can say this

person contrasts A with B.

18) In the novel Puddnhead Wilson, Mark Twain contrasts the utter privilege enjoyed by the aristocracy in the antebellum South with

arbitrary and dismal fate of slaves.

Many times, especially on GMAT Sentence Correction, the sentence forms a contrast and who is doing the contrast is not important. By

idiom and unlike with compare, we do not use the participle form of the verb

Contrasted with A, B

That will always be wrong. The correct idiom is In contrast with A, B

19) In contrast with the single-book scriptures of each of the three great Western Religions, the Pali Canon, the standard collection of the

scriptures of TheravadaBuddhism, easily would fill a large bookcase, although ironically, Buddhism is much less text-based than are its

Western counterparts.

The idiom involving the adjective consistent is similar, although discussion of consistency differs from comparisons per se.

When we say A is consistent with B, we generally mean that B is some larger system or set of rules, and A is something that fits

into this larger system.

20) In Brown vs. the Board of Education, the Supreme Court found that legally enforced segregation was not consistent with

the Equal Protection Clause of theFourteen Amendment.

21) Euclids fifth postulate, the notorious Parallel Postulate, is consistent with the other four postulates, although it cannot be deduced

independently from them.

Summary
Know the idioms given in bold in this post. As always with idioms, read, read, read! Search for the idioms in this post in context. You

understand English best when you understand it in context.

More from Magoosh


GMAT Prepositions and Idioms: On
GMAT Prepositions and Idioms: for
GMAT Prepositions and Idioms: Against
GMAT Prepositions and Idioms: to

GMAT Prepositions and Idioms: to

BY MIKE MCGARRY ON DECEMBER 13, 2012 IN IDIOMS, PARTS OF SPEECH, SENTENCE CORRECTION,VERBAL

UPDATE: You can find this blog and others about idioms in our new GMAT Idiom eBook!

Prepositions in English display a powerful diversity of uses. In previous preposition article, we talked about the proposition from. Here, we

will look, at the preposition to.

The preposition to

The word to is a preposition. This means, it must be followed by a noun or by something playing the role of a noun. This latter category

includes gerunds andsubstantive clauses.

1) I attribute my lack of acumen to staying up late every night for the past five nights.

2) He acknowledges no responsibility to whoever may use the room after him.

In #1, the object of to is a gerund phrase, and in #2, the object of to is a substantive clause. Both of these sentences follow idiomatic

structures we will examine below.

The preposition to also begins infinitive. An infinitive is something very different from a prepositional phrase. This blog article is discussing

preposition phrases involving to, including words and phrase that idiomatically demand this preposition. Theres a whole other post

on verbs that idiomatically require infinitives, another topic necessarily for performing well on GMAT Sentence Correction.

The preposition to generally connote motion toward something, and many of its uses retain something of that connotation.

Verbs + to

Again, just to be perfectly clear: this section is about verbs that require a prepositional phrase beginning with to see the link above for

verbs that require infinitives. The following two verbs require a prepositional phrase beginning with to:

attribute to
conform to

contribute to

When we attribute something (A) to someone (B), we are saying that we think person B has the quality or skill or talent of A; that

something, A, can also be a real-world achievement or accomplishment. The credit for the talented or achievement, as it were, travels to

the person to whom the attribution was made: this is why the preposition to is used.

3) Despite initial controversies, mathematicians now universally attribute the proof ofFermats Last Theorem to Andrew Wiles.

When we contribute something (A) to someone (B), we are giving (A) a gift or donation to B. In most contexts including the GMAT, when

the object contributed is otherwise unspecified, it is assumed to be money. The gift or whatever is contributed moves toward the one who

receives it.

4) Warren Buffet contributes substantially to philanthropic and charitable organizations.

5) In one of the remarkable collaborations of music history, Paul McCartney would contribute more complex and interesting harmonies

to John Lennons songs, and in turn, Lennon would contribute mind-bending phrases to McCartneys lyrics.

The idiom involving the verb conform is a little more unusual. When I say Iconform A to B, then A is usually something under my control

(my behavior, my habits, etc.), and B is some kind of more universal standard or set of rules. The connotation is that B is based in some sort

of authority, and A is something which should be governed by this authority.

6) Professor Higgins argued that status of the various races, with respect to the American legal system, still does not conform to

the Fourteenth Amendments lofty idea of equal protection under the law.

7) The CFO estimated that Fomalhaut Corporation would have to spend more than $7 million in order to conform completely to the full

panoply of EPA regulations.

Adjectives + to

Two adjectives that idiomatically take a prepositional phrase beginning with the preposition are:

responsible to

subject to

The very idea of being responsible implies someone to whom one is accountable, the person to whom one is responding (the root

meaning of responsible). That authoritative person is the object of the preposition to. This relationship with the proposition carries over

to the noun form, responsibility.

8) The CEO of most corporations is responsible to the board that hired him.

9) The senior military leaders on the Joints Chiefs of Staff are responsible to theSecretary of Defense, and through this Secretary, to

the President of the United States.

10) After the state intervened to save the city from bankruptcy, the mayor asked the state senators to clarify and delineate his responsibility

to them.

The adjective subject implies being controlled by something else, either in a legal sense, or in the sense of a natural law, or experiences

the consequences of something. A is subject to B if B is the controller or actor having influence on A.


11) Even the President is subject to the law of the land.

12) The former politician, no longer subject to vituperative attacks in the press, was considering the possibility of a new campaign.

13) The New York City Subway System, simply because of its gargantuan scale, is subject to a relatively high rate of delays.

14) Since the electron is not composed of quarks, it is not subject to the laws ofQuantum Chromodynamics.

Comparisons with to

Of course, the GMAT Sentence Correction loves comparisons. The following comparative forms use the preposition to

compare A to B

compare to

compared to (or compared with)

in contrast to A, B

Here are some exemplary sentences to demonstrate proper usage.

15) In The Crucible, Arthur Miller compared the activities of the HUAC to the Salem witch trials.

16) Warren G. Harding won one of the largest landslide victories in American presidential history, but in retrospect, his administration does

not compare well to those of virtually all other presidents.

17) Compared to/with California, New Jersey has a relatively small coast.

18) Compared to/with other writers of the early 20th century, James Joyce may seem to have produced a limited output, if one judges purely

by number of books.

19) In contrast to politics throughout Europe, politics in America are influenced much more heavily by religion.

20) In contrast to the numerous theorems of Geometry readily accessible to high school students, most of the theorems of Number

Theory are so sophisticated that only those with advanced degrees in mathematics can understand them.

The GMAT does not like the words compared to or compared with combined with other comparative words:

Also, adding the word when before the word compared is always 100% wrong.

Summary

Know the idioms given in bold in this post. As always with idioms, read, read, read! Search for the idioms in this post in context. You

understand English best when you understand it in context.


attribute compare A with B because [subject] Example based on in result of consist

to contrast A with B of consider Becaus expend (time/m danger consequen of

conform consistent with instead of s A B e of the oney/energy) on of ce of accuse

to agree with as of Idiom Presiden depends on in Whether we A of B

contribut collaborate with out of # t going (whether) violatio say A is a think

e to comply with 2 to n of result of of A as

responsib credit A with B : Myanma on B or A is a B

le to enamored with c r = accoun consequen If P

subject to provide with o WRONG! t of ce ofB depend

sympathize with n s on Q

s
i
d
e
r
+

n
o
u
n

a
d
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

This idiom, though, is wantonly abused in colloquial speech.


Both of these might be said colloquially, both are 100% WRONG. In #7, the team is not supported by its losing record last year it would be

far more accurate to say something like Because the team had a losing record last year, we suspect that . The authoritarian speaker of

#8 is certain not supported by his interlocutors bad behavior. Again, a because clause would be far more accurate.

Prepositions are designed to be followed by only a noun because of the rain

The object of this or any preposition can be agerund or gerund phrase - because of waiting for the senator, because of limited parking
to differ from isolate from on a white bus
prejudiced against substitute A for argue for different from separate from O = only if
to differ in descend from
protect from/ against B allow for difference in differ from N = now that
difference prevent A from
argue with/against mistake A for B between B
difference prohibit A from A = although, after, as
fight with/against sacrifice A for B
with respect B
to
victory over/against WH = while, when, whereas,
whenever, wherever, whether or
not

I = if, in case

T = though

E = even though, even if

B = because, before

U = until, unless

S = since, so (that)
Z