Recently documented examples of neurogenesis

[RonPurewal]

Apology to open the old thread, i have the same question too, Why is A not parallel. Stacy said A breaks parallelism, can someone please explain how?

Thanks

don't just look at the first couple words of parallel structures -- look at the rest, too.
in choice (a), one of the parallel structures says "mice when placed in a stimulating environment", but the other one says "canaries that learn new songs".
compare this to the parallelism in the correct answer choice, in which you have mice that do X and canaries that do Y.

[AmunaGmat]

Apology to open the old thread, i have the same question too, Why is A not parallel. Stacy said A breaks parallelism, can someone please explain how?

Thanks

don't just look at the first couple words of parallel structures -- look at the rest, too.
in choice (a), one of the parallel structures says "mice when placed in a stimulating environment", but the other one says "canaries that learn new songs".
compare this to the parallelism in the correct answer choice, in which you have mice that do X and canaries that do Y.

Thank you a lot Ron!!!

[tim]

:)

[aps_asks]

Sorry Instructors ,

I asked the same question that was addressed in the earlier posts.

I removed the question.

[tim]

thanks!

[davetzulin]

"Recently documented examples of neurogenesis, the production of new brain cells, include the brain growing in mice when placed in a stimulating environment or neurons increasing in canaries that learn new songs.

(A) [include] the brain growing in mice when placed in a stimulating environment or neurons increasing in canaries that

(B) [include] mice whose brains grow when they are placed in a stimulating environment or canaries whose neurons increase when they

Ron,

This looks really similar to the problem with preposition + noun + verbing, but I am still unsure.

examples of neurogenesis include the brain? or the growth of the brain? latter seems to make more sense. include increasing neurons or neurons increasing?

mice whose brains grow or the growth of brains?

this last one is tougher because there is no -ing, but it will still make more sense for examples to include the actual observed outcome of the experiment, not the subject of the experiment.

can those noun + ing or noun + whose be used that way in a correct answer choice when the intended meaning is not the noun? unfortunately they are all wrong for other reasons so I have no real basis for my conclusion.


thanks

[RonPurewal]

this last one is tougher because there is no -ing, but it will still make more sense for examples to include the actual observed outcome of the experiment, not the subject of the experiment.

i agree with this judgment; indeed, this is one of the worst-written of all the official problems (along with the "women of science" question ... ugh, so awkward).
nevertheless, the correct answer is still objectively better than the other choices -- and for a very tangible reason (parallelism) -- so, fortunately, there's no problem as far as answering the question is concerned.

i guess you could possibly save this one, if you interpret "include X" in the sense of "to involve X in some project/activity" -- the study included students in all grades, not just in high school. that's still not beautiful, but it helps to bridge the gap.

by the way, i must say: you appear to have a particularly advanced understanding of written english. so, it's possible that your work in studying for SC is largely done.
what you should do, at this point, is work on developing your intuitive ability to apprehend the sentences (= the mark of true proficiency in any endeavor -- no one needs conscious "rules" once he/she has truly mastered something). in other words, see whether you can get to the point of being able to make some of these judgments without consciously thinking about the "rules" at all. you might have to make analogies to other constructions in tough cases, but that's better than using abstract rules.

[davetzulin]

this last one is tougher because there is no -ing, but it will still make more sense for examples to include the actual observed outcome of the experiment, not the subject of the experiment.

i agree with this judgment; indeed, this is one of the worst-written of all the official problems (along with the "women of science" question ... ugh, so awkward).
nevertheless, the correct answer is still objectively better than the other choices -- and for a very tangible reason (parallelism) -- so, fortunately, there's no problem as far as answering the question is concerned.

i guess you could possibly save this one, if you interpret "include X" in the sense of "to involve X in some project/activity" -- the study included students in all grades, not just in high school. that's still not beautiful, but it helps to bridge the gap.

by the way, i must say: you appear to have a particularly advanced understanding of written english. so, it's possible that your work in studying for SC is largely done.
what you should do, at this point, is work on developing your intuitive ability to apprehend the sentences (= the mark of true proficiency in any endeavor -- no one needs conscious "rules" once he/she has truly mastered something). in other words, see whether you can get to the point of being able to make some of these judgments without consciously thinking about the "rules" at all. you might have to make analogies to other constructions in tough cases, but that's better than using abstract rules.

thanks Ron for that advice.. SC is still my worst area on the whole test. i think there is a huge gap between what I am capable of and what I can do in 2 minutes under pressure.

so are you saying at your level when you read these sentences and determine answers you only refer back to rules/nomenclature to explain it to us? in other words you can do the whole problem because you understand the reason behind the rules without needing the rules themselves?

yea that would be nice. i think it goes back to your suggestion I read weeks ago saying take a topic (ie prepositional modifiers and meaning) and just go to OG and eliminate 50 questions based on that topic alone. then you really solidify your understanding of that topic and then you sort of transcend the rule.

[RonPurewal]

so are you saying at your level when you read these sentences and determine answers you only refer back to rules/nomenclature to explain it to us? in other words you can do the whole problem because you understand the reason behind the rules without needing the rules themselves?

pretty much, yeah.

an an analogy, think about watching an injured person walk. you don't need explicit "rules" to figure out that he/she is walking in a way that's not normal -- you just look, and you know that's the case.

this is pretty much the same thing when it comes to large amounts of experience in, well, pretty much anything. in fact, if you asked me for a definition of "mastery", i would probably say something like "the point where you simply don't need explicit rules anymore."

think about anything at which you have achieved "mastery" -- whether a sport, an art/craft, or whatever else -- and you'll probably find that you agree.

then you really solidify your understanding of that topic and then you sort of transcend the rule.

... and that's the point.

in fact, i would go so far as to say this is WHY sentence correction is on the gmat. they purposely chose an area in which intuition is a necessary element of success -- an area in which we simply can't perform at top levels by thinking consciously about explicit rules.

[shans.bgp]

Hi Ron,
I have watched the recording of all your Thursday classes. Your trick of using signals to identify correct parallel structure and then easily eliminate wrong options is awesome. But in this question, answer E doesn't fit that method and I am sure if a similar question appears in exam, I will commit an error. Do we have to be extra careful to use the signal-parallel method or this problem is among one of the aberrations. there is a tradeoff between being cautious and solving problems fast on GMAT

Please guide using your vast experience and acumen.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
I have watched the recording of all your Thursday classes. Your trick of using signals to identify correct parallel structure and then easily eliminate wrong options is awesome. But in this question, answer E doesn't fit that method and I am sure if a similar question appears in exam, I will commit an error. Do we have to be extra careful to use the signal-parallel method or this problem is among one of the aberrations. there is a tradeoff between being cautious and solving problems fast on GMAT

Please guide using your vast experience and acumen.

well, sure choice (e) obeys the principle.
since you've given no explanation for your statement that it doesn't, i can't set you straight, because i can't tell what you were thinking in the first place.

in brief, though, the only signal word in choice (e) is "or". there is no signal in front of the left-hand part of the construction.
so, this construction works just as well, mechanically, as the other ones do: the right-hand parallel structure consists of exactly the words that follow "or". the left-hand structure must be deduced from context.

[benjamindian]

Tough one. "examples of neurogenesis include" - so the examples should lead off with whatever the actual thing is that indicated neurogenesis. The mice aren't the example - the example is the brain growth. That eliminates B and C. A also breaks parallelism.

And the other thing wrong with A, B, C and D is "when placed in a stimulating environment" - it sounds like they are referring only to the time that the mice are in the stimulating environment - but the brain growth is permanent. It doesn't shrink back down once the mice are no longer in the stimulating environment. Ditto for the increase in neurons in the canaries.

Hi instructor, in GMAT, can "when" only be used to describe a time/period? i.e. can "when" be used in a conditional sentence? I tend to eliminate the answer choices which use "when" in a conditional sentence.

For instance, the OG problem "Rising inventories, when unaccompanied correspondingly by increases in sales, ...." I eliminated the 3 choices containing "when".

Prep:"It is unclear whether chimpanzees are unique among nonhuman species in their ability to learn
behaviors from one another, or if, when other animals are studied in as much depth, similar patterns would be found." I know "if" should be "whether" but I think "when" here is also wrong.

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Hi instructor, in GMAT, can "when" only be used to describe a time/period? i.e. can "when" be used in a conditional sentence? I tend to eliminate the answer choices which use "when" in a conditional sentence.

If your "conditional sentence" depends on something that occurs at a specific time, then "when" can be used to express the whole conditional idea.

You can't use when if ...

... 1/ something is NOT an event that occurs at a specific point in time.
If you are a woman, the older executives may not speak to you as honestly as they will to men.
("When you are a woman" is nonsense, unless someone has the ability to change back and forth between sexes.)

... 2/ the consequence doesn't occur at the time of the conditional part.
If you smoke cigarettes, you will die of cancer.
"When you smoke cigarettes" doesn't work here, since you won't die when you smoke the cigarettes"”you'll die decades later.

If the time relationship is appropriate, though, "when" is more descriptive than "if", because it's more precise.

E.g.,
When you return the goods, you'll receive a refund.
"”> You'll receive your refund at the time when you return the goods"”i.e., not later.

If you return the goods, you'll receive a refund.
"”> This sentence is more vague about the timeline. You might get the refund when you actually return the goods"”but you might get it much later.

[RonPurewal]

For instance, the OG problem "Rising inventories, when unaccompanied correspondingly by increases in sales, ...." I eliminated the 3 choices containing "when".

This is only a fragment of the context, but it appears to be discussing immediate/simultaneous consequences. If that's the case, "when" is fine.

Prep:"It is unclear whether chimpanzees are unique among nonhuman species in their ability to learn
behaviors from one another, or if, when other animals are studied in as much depth, similar patterns would be found." I know "if" should be "whether" but I think "when" here is also wrong.

Presumably, patterns would be found at the time when the studies were done. (There's no reason to think that people might not find the patterns until later.). So "when" would work here, too.

[benjamindian]

For instance, the OG problem "Rising inventories, when unaccompanied correspondingly by increases in sales, ...." I eliminated the 3 choices containing "when".

This is only a fragment of the context, but it appears to be discussing immediate/simultaneous consequences. If that's the case, "when" is fine.

Prep:"It is unclear whether chimpanzees are unique among nonhuman species in their ability to learn
behaviors from one another, or if, when other animals are studied in as much depth, similar patterns would be found." I know "if" should be "whether" but I think "when" here is also wrong.

Presumably, patterns would be found at the time when the studies were done. (There's no reason to think that people might not find the patterns until later.). So "when" would work here, too.

Hi Ron, the original problem is as follows:

[redacted]

Is "when" OK in this context? I know there are some other mistakes in A,B,C. But someone claims that "When "˜if’ conditional statement is used to express a situation in which the outcome is a possibility and not a certainty, "˜when’ cannot be used in place of "˜if’." (Source: https://e-gmat.com/blogs/?p=169) Please comment. Thanks.