The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

by **aflaamM589** Mon Apr 18, 2016 8:10 am

Hello experts,
What is the difference between
plastic can be made electrically conductive
and
plastic can be made to be electrically conductive.
Is it a genuine split?
Can you please help me a bit understand the usage of to be?

Moreover,
Is D also incorrect because it says
ability to be conductive rather than plastic to be conductive?
Thank you very much.

by **RonPurewal** Sun Apr 24, 2016 6:03 am

aflaamM589 Wrote:Hello experts,
What is the difference between
plastic can be made electrically conductive
and
plastic can be made to be electrically conductive.
Is it a genuine split?

the version with "to be" isn't wrong, but it's clearly inferior to the other version -- it uses unnecessary words that contribute nothing. it's less efficient.

remember—the correct answers don't contain bad writing.
so, if you see a split between an objectively better version and an objectively worse version of the same part of the sentence, you can safely eliminate the worse one.

by **RonPurewal** Sun Apr 24, 2016 6:03 am

Moreover,
Is D also incorrect because it says
ability to be conductive rather than plastic to be conductive?
Thank you very much.

i'm sorry, but i don't understand what you are asking here.

by **aflaamM589** Wed May 04, 2016 3:19 am

D) The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to three scientists for their discovery of plastic's ability to be made electrically conductive, with this advance leading to improvements in film, television screens, and windows

The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to three scientists for their discovery of plastic's ability to be made electrically conductive
what i am trying to figure out is that D seems to say that scientists discovered ability
and ability is conductive and not plastic, as per D is written. Therefore, illogical
Is this also an error?

by **RonPurewal** Sun May 22, 2016 1:31 pm

aflaamM589 Wrote:what i am trying to figure out is that D seems to say that scientists discovered ability
and ability is conductive and not plastic, as per D is written. Therefore, illogical
Is this also an error?

i'm sorry, but i don't understand the green part at all.

by **aflaamM589** Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:29 am

Ron,
Hope you are doing good.

In E, preposition noun Ving is an error, right?

e.of plastic being able to be made electrically conductive - an advance that has led

thanks
Have a nice day

by **RonPurewal** Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:19 am

you are right.

by **RonPurewal** Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:02 am

what is your question?

by **Crisc419** Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:13 am

RonPurewal Wrote:what is your question?

no question here, sir.

just bla bla my thought. :lol:

by **RonPurewal** Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:10 pm

ok -- please try to limit your discussion to actual questions. just writing down random "thoughts" doesn't add any value to the discussion. thanks.

(i've removed the post that didn't have a question in it.)

by **KarenL702** Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:00 pm

Is answer choice E wrong because of the "being able to" part? If so, is it because it's not a form of " be able to" ?

by **RonPurewal** Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:49 pm

choice E has the same problem described here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p26678

by **RAHULS852** Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:48 am

Hi Sage / Manhattan expert,

(C) The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to three scientists for their discovery that plastic can be made to be electrically conductive, and this advance led to improvements in film, television screens, and windows.

The American Heart Association reported recently that cardiovascular disease nearly accounted for 18 million deaths worldwide in 2015 and forecasted to increase to more than 23 million annually by 2030

In above both examples apart from all errors I would like to understand parallelism between clauses.

In Ist example Nobel prize was awarded vs this advance led to improvements ( Meaning wise both parts are not making sense)
Why can't we assume parallelism between " Plastic can be made to be electrically conductive and this advance led to improvements "
Is presence of comma before "and" creating parallelism between Nobel.....and this advance ?

In 2nd example Cardiovascular disease nearly accounted vs forecasted to increase ( Here also both parts are not making sense as CVD can't forecast)
Here comma is not present before "and" & parallelism occurs between "CVD accounted and forecasted..."

I know punctuation is not tested on GMAT but I would like to confirm whether this kind of interpretation is right.
(an "and" without a comma indicates parallelism, while the use of a comma will often separate independent clauses )

Regards,
Rahul Singh

by **Sage Pearce-Higgins** Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:29 am

The word 'and' can be confusing: it can be used for parallel structures (E.g. Rahul likes swimming and cycling.), but it can also be used simply to connect two independent clauses (E.g. Hugo went shopping and Helene stayed at home.)

(an "and" without a comma indicates parallelism, while the use of a comma will often separate independent clauses )

It's tempting to think this, but I haven't see a clear pattern in GMAT problems. Sometimes a comma is used simply if there are long clauses in the sentence. I would advise you not to rely on this.

Why can't we assume parallelism between " Plastic can be made to be electrically conductive and this advance led to improvements "
Is presence of comma before "and" creating parallelism between Nobel.....and this advance ?

When we're interpreting a sentence, we need to observe a Principle of Charity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity). It would be nonsensical to interpret the sentence as '...for their discovery that: (1) plastic can be ... and (2) this discovery led...'. In any case, the sentence only mentions a single discovery. The best interpretation seems to be that the word 'and' is linking two independent clauses. However, even this interpretation is not very logical as these aren't two separate events - the first one led to the second one. That makes answer (A) far clearer in its meaning.

In 2nd example Cardiovascular disease nearly accounted vs forecasted to increase ( Here also both parts are not making sense as CVD can't forecast) Here comma is not present before "and" & parallelism occurs between "CVD accounted and forecasted..."

In this example the part of the sentence after 'and' isn't an independent clause (no subject-verb), so we can't interpret 'and' as linking two independent clauses. But, as you wrote, interpreting 'and' as part of a parallel construction doesn't make sense either.

by **RAHULS852** Thu Sep 05, 2019 1:19 pm

It's tempting to think this, but I haven't see a clear pattern in GMAT problems. Sometimes a comma is used simply if there are long clauses in the sentence. I would advise you not to rely on this.

Ok.

Why can't we assume parallelism between " Plastic can be made to be electrically conductive and this advance led to improvements "
Is presence of comma before "and" creating parallelism between Nobel.....and this advance ?
When we're interpreting a sentence, we need to observe a Principle of Charity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity). It would be nonsensical to interpret the sentence as '...for their discovery that: (1) plastic can be ... and (2) this discovery led...'. In any case, the sentence only mentions a single discovery. The best interpretation seems to be that the word 'and' is linking two independent clauses. However, even this interpretation is not very logical as these aren't two separate events - the first one led to the second one. That makes answer (A) far clearer in its meaning.

Got your point that I should understand the rational meaning.
Parallelism should make sense as in choice A

Thanks Sage for "principle of Charity"

Regards,
Rahul Singh

The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to

Re: The Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to