Whereas the use of synthetic fertilizers has greatly

[jlucero]

One of the GMAT's preferences with pronouns is that once a pronoun has been used, it will generally continue to refer back to the same antecedent. In this case, since you've already used their to refer to fertilizers, you should continue to refer back to fertilizers throughout.

Joe loves to run and when he (Joe) was visiting with his friend Steve, he (Joe) went for a jog.

[SC312]

Experts,

Can we eliminate D and E because the use of "while", which expresses contrast, makes no sense in this context when we are talking of 2 negatives and not a contrast ?
* "the increase in the use of fertilizers"
* "the substitution of these fertilizers"

Thanks
Sudipto

[RonPurewal]

Experts,

Can we eliminate D and E because the use of "while", which expresses contrast, makes no sense in this context when we are talking of 2 negatives and not a contrast ?
* "the increase in the use of fertilizers"
* "the substitution of these fertilizers"

Thanks
Sudipto

yes.

[wei.xiang.thu]

the main problem i see with choice (c) is "if used as substitutions for..." this implies that the fertilizers themselves are "substitutions". that doesn't make sense; a "substitution" is actually the process of substituting one thing for another, not one of the things themselves.

Hi experts,

I'm confused here. According to Merriam-Webster, substitution has two meanings: 1) the act, process, or result of substituting one thing for another; 2) one that is substituted for another. Its second meaning basically is the same as that of noun substitue. Could you clarify this?

I think C can be eliminated on the basis that it mentions "they may accelerate soil structure deterioration and soil erosion" but they==fertilizers cannot do the action. meaning is that "their substitution may accelerate soil structure deterioration and soil erosion. "
am i correct ?

nah. if you actually ask yourself "What causes the deterioration of the soil here?", you could respond with either (a) the substitution of the fertilizers for xxxx or (b) the fertilizers themselves. after all, both are responsible. without (a) the fertilizers wouldn't be in the ground in the first place, but, of course, (b) the fertilizers themselves are actually what's wreaking havoc on the stuff in the ground.

I really want to vote for the explanation by vikram4689. It's the increase and substitution that work as the doer.

[wei.xiang.thu]

I think C can be eliminated on the basis that it mentions "they may accelerate soil structure deterioration and soil erosion" but they==fertilizers cannot do the action. meaning is that "their substitution may accelerate soil structure deterioration and soil erosion. "
am i correct ?

nah. if you actually ask yourself "What causes the deterioration of the soil here?", you could respond with either (a) the substitution of the fertilizers for xxxx or (b) the fertilizers themselves. after all, both are responsible. without (a) the fertilizers wouldn't be in the ground in the first place, but, of course, (b) the fertilizers themselves are actually what's wreaking havoc on the stuff in the ground.

I really want to vote for the explanation by vikram4689. It's the increase and substitution that work as the doer.

I find a relevant SC problem in OG 13 (#100, p753). In the explanation for (B), "The sentence structure indicates that the executive, not his or her strategy, causes signs to be overlooked...", the GMAC doesn't think that executive is the doer, instead executive's strategy (being committed to a course of action) is the actual doer. Can we glean some information here?

[RonPurewal]

Can we glean some information here?

^^^ this is a really bad idea.
i.e., it looks like you're trying to find "patterns" here, even though we're talking about an issue of meaning.
don't try to do this; it's not possible. (if you could come up with "rules" for the intended meaning of a sentence, you'd be able to invent artificial intelligence all by yourself.)

when it comes to meaning, you just have to (a) read the individual sentence, (b) use common sense to figure out what descriptions refer to what things, and (c) think a little more precisely than usual.

in the OG problem mentioned above, it should be clear that the executive does not "cause" the signs to be overlooked; instead, it's the strategy that most directly causes this result.
by contrast, the executive is the one who overlooks the signs (i.e., the strategy doesn't overlook the signs).
there's no "evidence" or "information" that could help you figure this out (and, in all likelihood, thinking about other problems will just make your job harder.) you just have to stop and think about "ok, what's supposed to be the deal here?"

[tim]

Yes, that was mentioned long ago.

[lemonperb]

the main problem i see with choice (c) is "if used as substitutions for..."
this implies that the fertilizers themselves are "substitutions". that doesn't make sense; a "substitution" is actually the process of substituting one thing for another, not one of the things themselves.
as an analogy, it would be correct to say i exchanged my rental car for a truck, but incorrect to say this truck was an exchange for my rental car.


pls, help.

in C, if I write " as subsitutes for ..." not " as substitutions for ..."

this part of sentence would be correct

Am I right?

i believe you are, yes.

[quote]

Hi GMAT instructors, Could you please give me others examples of words that have similar relationship like " substitute" and "substitution"?

Another problem, I think the problem with E (the increased usage of these fertilizers can create serious environmental problems like water pollution, while their substitution for more traditional fertilizers) is "like", which should be replaced by "such as".
So will E be right if "like" is replaced by "such as"?

[RonPurewal]

Hi GMAT instructors, Could you please give me others examples of words that have similar relationship like " substitute" and "substitution"?

"Replacement" comes to mind.

X was replaced by/with Y <"”> Y was substituted for X
the replacement of X by/with Y <"”> the substitution of Y for X
X's replacement by/with Y <"”> Y's substitution for X

For this test, there isn't much of a reason to accumulate a large mental list of such words, since you'll be restricted to whatever actually shows up in the answer choices. (If you're still curious nonetheless, you can always look up "substitute" or "replace" in a thesaurus.)

[RonPurewal]

So will E be right if "like" is replaced by "such as"?

"While" is still inappropriate. There's no contrast between the two items on either side of "while".

Both of those items are potential negative consequences, so they should simply be connected with "and" (as they are in the correct option).

[lemonperb]

Thank you so much for you great answers Ron!!!

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[eggpain24]

You're welcome.

HI ron

I am just wondering whether C and E could have been eliminated in this way

in choice C：

“whereas” serves as a conjunction and therefore needs another clause；the first ”if“ is a subordinate clause which also needs a main clause → creates sentence fragment

in choice E：


”while“ and ”whereas“ both serve as conjunctions and need another clause，but there is only one clause between these two clauses. Therefore， it is umgrammatical （I am not sure about this one）

just correct me if I am wrong

thanks

[RonPurewal]

I don't know any of the terminology you're using, so I can't comment on the terms.

But, C is fine, mechanically at least.
You have two legitimate "if ___, then ___" sentences, connected by "and".
The "whereas ___" part is also fine (mechanically, this could be stuck on the front of any sentence).

[RonPurewal]

E is also OK from a mechanical standpoint.

In fact, E is constructed in almost exactly the same way as the correct answer. The connector "while" (which is nonsense) is used instead of "and", but that's not a mechanical issue.