A prep SC question: the Inuit people

[77044388]

Until recently, the Inuit people led a nomadic existence, sheltering in igloos, the ice-block domes that are peculiar to north-central Canada, and in structures made of stones, bones, driftwood, and skins.

A. Until recently, the Inuit people led a nomadic existence, sheltering
B. During recent times, the Inuit people lead a nomadic existence, sheltering
C. In the times that are recent, the Inuit people led a nomadic existence, sheltered
D. Up until recently, the Inuit people, leading a nomadic existence, have sheltered
E. Until recent times, leading a nomadic existence, the Inuit people were sheltered

OA is A，dear Ron, would you please explain why B is wrong?

[RonPurewal]

"Recent times" are in the past. The recent past, sure—but still the past. Not the present.

"Lead" (≠ "led") is the present tense. That's nonsense with a past timeframe.

[HemalT607]

What is wrong with D?

[RonPurewal]

What is wrong with D?

• "Up" is redundant, since "until" already carries this meaning.

• The sentence implies that the Inuit are no longer nomads.
If they were still nomads, the sentence wouldn't say "until recently"; it would say "until now" (or some equivalent). Remember that "recently", albeit not too long ago, is still a time in the past.
So, you need the past tense. In that choice, you'd want "sheltered". Not "have sheltered" (which implies "up to the present").

[gbyhats]

Hi Dear Manhattan Instructors,

(To ease reading I copy&paste a complete choice C in the bottom)

What's wrong with choice C?

Because we need a "and" before "sheltered..."? But, Can I interpret "sheltered..." as a modifier that has a "comma + Ved" structure?

--

In the times that are recent, the Inuit people led a nomadic existence, sheltered in igloos, the ice-block domes that are peculiar to north-central Canada, and in structures made of stones, bones, driftwood, and skins.

[RonPurewal]

Because we need a "and" before "sheltered..."? But, Can I interpret "sheltered..." as a modifier that has a "comma + Ved" structure?

you can read it that way ... but then it doesn't make sense.

if you read the modifier that way, the previous sentence (= the stuff that it's modifying) has to describe something that the inuit people do while sheltered in igloos.
e.g.,
Amaqjuaq was safe from the bitter Arctic cold, sheltered in an igloo for the night.

[RonPurewal]

also, it should be very, very clear that "In the times that are recent" is way too wordy.

wordiness is not actually an error, but, nonetheless, you can use BIG differences in wordiness / efficiency of expression to eliminate choices.
see, even though wordiness isn't technically an error, the correct sentences are NEVER unnecessarily wordy.

so, if you see "In the times that are recent" up against other versions that are much more economical ... you can eliminate it.

[gbyhats]

Hi Dear Ron! :)

you can read it that way ... but then it doesn't make sense.

Thank you for pointing this out, how didn't I realize!!! It sounds pretty funny and makes me laugh if this sentence is interpreted in my way

also, it should be very, very clear that "In the times that are recent" is way too wordy.

I share a same feeling! When I read through this part of the sentence, I was like "wait...I'm pretty sure that GMAT will never make this part of a correct answer"

[RonPurewal]

I share a same feeling! When I read through this part of the sentence, I was like "wait...I'm pretty sure that GMAT will never make this part of a correct answer”

this sort of intuition is an indispensable part of the SC game. if you had to think explicitly through EVERY issue… these problems would probably take too long.

try this:
• go through a decent # of official problems (say 40-50 of them)
• DO NOT think explicitly about ANYTHING in the sentences. no splits, no rules, no grammar, etc.
• instead, do this:
… read through each choice exactly once (including the non-underlined part, if there is one—i.e., read the entire sentence created by each answer choice)
… do not pause, and do not re-read anything. (if you do, then you’re thinking explicitly about something.)
… if you have a strong intuition that a choice is wrong … eliminate it.
… if you don’t, then do nothing.
… don’t solve the rest of the problems. (there may be problems on which you can eliminate only 2 choices. or even one … or perhaps even none at all.)

the point of this drill is that, if you don’t accidentally eliminate any correct answers, then you can trust your intuition.

[RonPurewal]

e.g.,
say jake and shelly do the above drill for 40 problems. then, theoretically, each of them could eliminate anywhere from 0 to 160 choices (can’t eliminate more than 4 choices per problem!).

• jake eliminates only 14 options, (this isn't much--only about one answer choice for every 3 problems), but all 14 of these are actually wrong answers.

• shelly eliminates 100 options, of which 4 are actually correct answers.

in this case, the point is that jake’s intuition can be trusted more than shelly’s.

it’s true that jake's intuition doesn’t work very often… but that’s not the point. the point is that, when it DOES work, it is very highly reliable.

[gbyhats]

Hi Dear Ron!!! :)

Wow! that's very interesting!!! I will definitely try this after I finish go through my 2rd round of GMAT SC review!

--

Accidentally, in my language, there is actually a slang devised to describe what you called "this sort of intuition":

"Sense of question" (translate directly)

PS. I hope I use quotation marks correctly this time :)

--

Having the "sense of question" means having the ability to distinguish the correct answers in multiply choice questions without working hard to understand the questions themselves.

Some people call it serendipity, but it is really about how familiar you are with those: After knowing something so well, you can tell what's wrong immediately it appears.

[gbyhats]

And thank you Ron, thank you so much for your long post!!! :)

It's such a pleasure to read through these thoughtful and interesting posts!!!

[RonPurewal]

thanks.

[AndyH539]

Dear Ron,
I have a question about option e).
Is it incorrect because using passive as "were sheltered" is wrong ?
Or, are there any other issues which make e) incorrect?

Always appreciate your help!
Regards
Andy

[RonPurewal]

the passive is not an error.

think about the meaning of this sentence. there are two ideas:

1/
they led a nomadic existence
(= how they LIVED THEIR WHOLE LIVES)

2/
they slept in certain types of housing
(= how ONE ASPECT OF THEIR LIVES worked)

now ask yourself... should #1 modify #2, or should #2 modify #1?
the answer should be clear. choice E is backward.