Before scientists learned how to make a synthetic growth

[RonPurewal]

I think the incorrect choice (D) distorts the meaning.

Choice (D) reads:
Before learning how to make a sythetic growth hormone, scientists had to remove it painstakingly in small amounts from the pituitary glands of human cadevers.

As per Ron's lecture, "v-ing" form ("learning") may express the meaning of "process-oriented", i.e. focus on the "learning" process. I think this sentence illogically means that scientists had to remove it painstakingly before they were able to learn it.
Analogy:
Before eating meals, I have to wash my hands.

Dear instructors, am I correct?

correct; this sentence implies that the same scientists did both things. i.e., it implies that the people who learned to make the hormone were exactly the same people who previously had to extract it from human cadavers.
that's not a reasonable meaning, so you are absolutely right about eliminating on those grounds. nicely done.

[thulsy]

Thanks Ron for your confirmation. crystal clear now :)

[tim]

glad to hear it!

[soul-seeking-truth]

I have a question regarding the use of adverb painstakingly. In all the answer choices, painstakingly is used either before or after the verb remove. Does the placement of this adverb after the verb remove in the correct answer will lead to a change of meaning ?

Regards
Tarun

[RonPurewal]

I have a question regarding the use of adverb painstakingly. In all the answer choices, painstakingly is used either before or after the verb remove. Does the placement of this adverb after the verb remove in the correct answer will lead to a change of meaning ?

Regards
Tarun

since it's impossible to insert "painstakingly" between "remove" and "it", both placements are ok. one option is the closest possible placement to the left; the other is the closest possible placement to the right.

on the other hand, this adverb doesn't appear in isolation——its effects on other neighboring constructions must be considered as well.
this is what's problematic about "remove it painstakingly": while not problematic itself, it puts an awkward and unnecessary distance between "remove it" and "in small amounts".

by contrast, in the correct answer both "painstakingly" and "in small amounts" directly abut "remove it". this setup is unquestionably superior.

[RonPurewal]

(don't forget—placement is a "beauty contest". don't try to conjure an 'ideal' arrangement; just compare the choices, and eliminate the objectively inferior ones.)

[NaiwuH656]

My dear instructors, I am wondering if there is a rule that the pronoun and its referent are parallel. I was thinking that in the choice C, "it" is more likey to refer to the subject "scientists," while in choice D, there is no such problem.

[redacted]

[RonPurewal]

the OG is a banned source on this forum. do not reproduce OG problems, either in whole or in part. thank you.

[RonPurewal]

My dear instructors, I am wondering if there is a rule that the pronoun and its referent are parallel.

there's definitely no such rule.

this sort of parallelism sometimes exists, but certainly not always—especially when we're talking about the subject of a sentence.

if the same subject performs the actions of two different verbs, then, in the vast majority of sentences, there's no need to repeat the subject.

e.g.,

*Mr. Saarinen submitted blueprints for the proposed building and he suggested the materials with which to build most of its parts.
bad writing.
no need for "he", since the subject is already Mr. Saarinen.

Mr. Saarinen submitted blueprints for the proposed building and suggested the materials with which to build most of its parts.
good writing.

so, if you're talking about the subject, then a "parallel" pronoun will almost always be unnecessary, as in the example here.

such a pronoun would be needed ONLY if (a) the sentence were extraordinarily long—so long that the reader would become disoriented without the added pronoun—and/or (b) the meaning would somehow become ambiguous without the pronoun.
if neither of these things is true, then the use of a "parallel" pronoun as subject is just bad writing, because the pronoun is simply clutter, with no useful function.

[RonPurewal]

I was thinking that in the choice C, "it" is more likey to refer to the subject "scientists," while in choice D, there is no such problem.

"it" is singular. "scientists" is plural. therefore, there is no 'problem'.

there are two possibilities here:

1/
you actually thought "it = scientists" was a valid interpretation, creating ambiguity:
if this is the case, then your understanding of pronouns is seriously lacking. the singular/plural distinction is the single most basic feature of pronouns! accordingly, you should go back and study pronouns again from the very beginning.

2/
you thought the problem was something else:
please clarify.

[NaiwuH656]

I was thinking that in the choice C, "it" is more likey to refer to the subject "scientists," while in choice D, there is no such problem.

"it" is singular. "scientists" is plural. therefore, there is no 'problem'.

there are two possibilities here:

1/
you actually thought "it = scientists" was a valid interpretation, creating ambiguity:
if this is the case, then your understanding of pronouns is seriously lacking. the singular/plural distinction is the single most basic feature of pronouns! accordingly, you should go back and study pronouns again from the very beginning.

2/
you thought the problem was something else:
please clarify.

So Sorry, Ron, I didn't know that OG is banned here... : I am fully aware that "it" is single and cannot refer to scientists, it's obvious. But in this kind of sentence structure, XXX do sth and they do sth, (if we don't talk about whether "they" is necessary here, )
XXX have to be the things that "THEY" refer!!! I always believed there was a rule like that and I have used the rule in many questions. Have I always been wrong ?? If you said there is a rule like that but it's not absolute, then I can accept , but you said there isn't a rule like that We all know that the "pronoun" is often falling into the error that the pronoun cannot clearly refer to its antecendent, but if the pronoun refers to the noun whose grammar role is the same as that of the pronoun,( say they all act as subjects ) then they are parallel and make the sentence a perfect structure.... here are some examples:

Many writers of modern English have acquired careless habits that damage the clarity of their prose but they can break these habits if they are willing to take the necessary trouble. in this sentence, if we changed the subject "Many writers", the whole sentence would be confused. we don't know what "they " refers to

Mountain yellow-legged frogs of the Sierra Nevada take three to four years to reach adulthood, and so they are restricted to deeper bodies of water that do not dry up in summer or freeze solid in winter. in this sentence, if we changed the subject "frogs", the whole sentence would be confused. we don't know what "they " refers to


Offical answer is always right I accept that. in this question what if we change the answer like: Before scientists learned how to make a synthetic growth, they have to remove it .... maybe it's about the logical meaning that makes the other answer wrong and makes us no choice: logical meaning is more important than the style issue I talked about above.

[tim]

Is there actually a question here? If so I can't find it. What I'll do then is give you the quick 15-second approach to pronouns on the GMAT:

1) Locate the pronoun.
2) Decide what the pronoun is supposed to refer to (this is the antecedent). This will ALWAYS be 100% clear; if you think you can't tell what the pronoun is referring to, you are either fooling yourself (which I find to be true in 99+% of cases) or you need to work on your basic reading comprehension skills.
3) Find the antecedent somewhere in the sentence.
4) If the antecedent is not there, the answer choice is wrong; if it is there, leave the answer choice in play.

[NaiwuH656]

Is there actually a question here? If so I can't find it. What I'll do then is give you the quick 15-second approach to pronouns on the GMAT:

1) Locate the pronoun.
2) Decide what the pronoun is supposed to refer to (this is the antecedent). This will ALWAYS be 100% clear; if you think you can't tell what the pronoun is referring to, you are either fooling yourself (which I find to be true in 99+% of cases) or you need to work on your basic reading comprehension skills.
3) Find the antecedent somewhere in the sentence.
4) If the antecedent is not there, the answer choice is wrong; if it is there, leave the answer choice in play.

The rule is stated in OG, but i cannot discuss here but the altnative structure is like "sb ..........and she .......", the subject of the underlined part has to be what "she" refers instead of anything else. I will learn the lesson from this question and I will not any more judge whether the pronoun is alright or not based on the parallel rule.. THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR HELP

[RonPurewal]

Many writers of modern English have acquired careless habits that damage the clarity of their prose but they can break these habits if they are willing to take the necessary trouble. in this sentence, if we changed the subject "Many writers", the whole sentence would be confused. we don't know what "they " refers to

Mountain yellow-legged frogs of the Sierra Nevada take three to four years to reach adulthood, and so they are restricted to deeper bodies of water that do not dry up in summer or freeze solid in winter. in this sentence, if we changed the subject "frogs", the whole sentence would be confused. we don't know what "they " refers to

this ^^ is an issue of style.

executive summary:

• these sentences are very, very long.

• because the sentences are so long, they are difficult to understand WITHOUT 'they'. (try removing 'they', pretending you're not already familiar with the sentence, and then to read it!)

• so, even though 'they' is technically not necessary, it's included for the sake of clarity.

as with other issues of style, you will never have to make this decision yourself. (i.e., you will not be presented with two choices that differ ONLY in the inclusion/exclusion of 'they'.) rather, your sole responsibility is to be aware that both possibilities exist.

[RonPurewal]

Offical answer is always right I accept that. in this question what if we change the answer like: Before scientists learned how to make a synthetic growth, they have to remove it ....

DO NOT do this ^^, EVER. DO NOT edit GMAC's sentences.

in at least 99 percent of cases, when forum users try to 'edit' GMAC's sentences, the result is wrong for reasons that are irrelevant to this exam.
DO NOT assume that yours is one of the ≤1 percent. (: