GMAT Ninja Videos Flashcards
What is parallelism
Parallelism might be a list of nouns, verbs, preposition phrases, subordinate clauses, modifiers, could be anything.
They always have some sort of trigger like ‘and’, ‘or’, or some sort of comparison
Uses of that
Using that as a modifier
1. My favorite restaurant is in Brooklyn that serves delicious chicken tikka
Using that as a demonstrative pronoun
2. The debt-GDP ratio of Greece is lower than that of Japan
Using that as a subordinate clause
3. I believe that Santa clause is real and that the Knicks would win the NBA title
The exception to the touch rule of that
The son of a gun that stole my lunch deserves to die
Using that as a modifier
- That in here is used as a modifier and the sentence is incorrect, because it incorrectly modifies Brooklyn, while it should be modifying the restaurant. Generally all the modifiers such as ‘that’, ‘which’, ‘who’, ‘whom’ should be placed as close to the noun that they are modifying and it is only in few cases when this modifier can be placed somewhat far apart from their modifier
- In the second sentence that is used as a demonstrative pronoun and it can be replaced by ‘debt-GDP ratio
- In the third sentence that is not modifying any noun but is used as a subordinate clause, one interesting thing would happen if i remove second that after the and, after removing whatever comes after and is not connected/tied back to first clause, so the author now only believes in one thing and the statement after ‘and’ could just be a fact
- In the last sentence, usage of that is correct and it is not modifying gun, but rather correctly modifies son, the reason being prepositional phrase ‘of a gun’ is restrictively modifying son creating a noun phrase, in more laymen term there is no other place where ‘of a gun’ can be placed without changing the meaning of the sentence, so whenever that happens the modifier can break the touch rule and still correctly modifies
Observe the below sentence
Emily Dickinson’s letter to Susan, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber her letter to anyone else
Here the modifier ‘which is placed far away from the letter but even then the usage of ‘which’ is correct because after the letter we have a prepositional phrase ‘to Susan’ that is an essential modifier and cant be placed anywhere else in the sentence. so the touch can be broken without any issues, but please be careful not to follow this rule blindly
Observe the below sentence
The committee chose Mr. Smith in the last meeting, who was the most experienced member, to lead all the management-related operations.
In this sentence we again have a modifier separated from the noun that it intends to modify by a prepositional phrase, but this usage is not correct, because ‘in the last meeting’ can be placed near choose in the sentence with the meaning of the sentence remaining intact, so in this example usage of ‘who’ is incorrect as it illogically is modifying ‘meeting’
Can ‘due to’ and ‘because of’ be used interchangeably?
No, due to is used to modify nouns only while because of is used to modify verbs
It is cold in Arizona due to the westward storm coming from the Pacific
The above sentence is wrong because ‘due to’ is used to explain the reason behind the verb or action in the clause. Another easy way to spot the error is if ‘due to’ is used correctly in the sentence replace it by ‘caused by’ if the resulting sentence makes sense usage of ‘due to’ is correct.
Arizona’s cold wave is due to the westward storm coming from Pacific - In this sentence replacing ‘due to’ by ‘caused by’ keeps the sentence intact
What is the placement of the verb-ing modifier?
A verb-ing modifier can be placed in the following locations in a sentence
- Placed after a clause preceded by a comma
- Placed after a clause not preceded by a comma
- At the beginning of a clause followed by a comma
The function played in all of the above scenarios is different
What is the role played by an ‘ing’ modifier placed after a clause preceded by a comma?
It either presents new information or presents the result of the preceding clause e.g.
- Mary made a beautiful bouquet, arranging rare exotic flowers in a certain symmetry (This sentence presents additional information on how different flowers were organized in a bouquet by Mary)
- For decades now, Illinois Natural History Survey biologists in aluminum skiffs have scooted up
and down the thinly wooded banks of the Illinois river and monitored local fish, catching,
recording, and releasing approximately 150,000 of them a year (Present additional information on how the biologist monitored the fish) - Mary made a beautiful bouquet, winning accolades from everyone (this present a result of the previous action)
Observe the below two sentences
- Sachin Tendulkar played an exceptionally outstanding inning, making the team win gloriously
- Joe became the CFO of the company, increasing his pay significantly
What we must keep in mind is that the action denoted by the verb-ing word must make sense with the subject of the clause. The use of verb-ing is correct only if it makes sense with the subject. With two-sentence, the first one is correct as making is ‘ing’ verb modifier it will associate with the subject of the previous clause ‘Sachin Tendulkar’, who did play the inning and can be the actor of the action
With the second sentence increasing associate itself with subject Joe, signifying that Joe himself increased his salary but we know that is not the case it is rather the act of becoming a CFO that lead to his increase in salary, so a correct version of the sentence would be
Joe became the CFO of a company, a move that increased his pay significantly
What is the role played by an ‘ing’ modifier placed after a clause without a comma?
It modifies the previous noun or noun phrase
Mary made a beautiful bouquet releasing divine aroma.
‘releasing’ is modifying bouquet
Observe the below sentence
In three months, biologist Glauco Machado gathered enough information about large numbers of
a relatively unstudied order of arachnids to persuade an ant specialist at the university to advise
him and to publish his first scientific paper
A. arachnids to persuade an ant specialist at the university to advise him and to publish
B. arachnids, persuading an ant specialist at the
university to advise him and publishing
C. arachnids persuading an ant specialist at the university to advise him and publishing
STEP 1: (Intended) MEANING ANALYSIS
The sentence says that in three months Machado gathered enough information about a huge
a number of comparatively unstudied order of arachnids. He gathered all information with two
purposes in mind:
a. he wanted to persuade an ant specialist at the university to advise him
b. he wanted to publish his first scientific paper
B. arachnids, persuading an ant specialist at the university to advise him and publishing:
Incorrect. Here both the verb-ing modifiers are preceded by comma, implying that they modify
the entire preceding clause. Hence, now the sentence means that Machado gathered all the information and this action resulted into two things:
a. he persuaded the ant specialist, and
b. he published his first scientific papers.
This is certainly not the intended meaning of the original sentence. The original sentence talks
about purpose. Per this choice, Machado’s gathering information actually led to the persuasion of
the ant specialist and the publication of the first scientific paper. Hence, this choice is
grammatically correct but certainly alters the intended meaning and is thus incorrect
C. arachnids persuading an ant specialist at the university to advise him and publishing:
Incorrect. In this choice, the verb-ing modifiers appear without comma. Here, both “persuading”
and “publishing” modify the preceding noun “arachnids”. Now, per this choice, the sentence
means that Machado collected information on certain arachnids and these arachnids did the jobs
of persuading the ant specialist and publishing first scientific paper. This is absolutely illogical.
This is a case where verb-ing modifier without a comma does not make sense
How to identify if a ‘verb-ed’ form is acting as a verb or a modifier in the sentence?
if the subject of the sentence is doer of the action presented by the Verb-ed form then the Verb-ed form is the verb of the sentence.
The company extended the training period for the interns - In this company can extend the training period and it makes logical sense so extended is the verb here
The training period extended last year made many interns unhappy (Here training period did not do the action of extending, hence extended is used as a modifier in here)
What are uses of Like vs As
- Like is used to compare two nouns
- As can be used to compare two clauses or if as is followed by a noun then in that usage it should only be used in the manner of stating a function
Amy takes care of the children in the daycare like a mother (Like followed by a noun)
Amy takes care of the children in the daycare as a mother does (As followed by a clause)
John has joined the organization as a researcher
(In the above sentence as is followed by a noun, so this usage should only make sense if as is used to showcase a function, and the above sentence does mean that i.e. John joined the organization and will be functioning as a researcher)
John has joined Biotech industry as his brother
(In the above sentence as is followed by a noun, so again check if it is used to indicate a function, on inspection sentence does not make sense, John cannot play the function of his brother in the biotech firm, so above usage is incorrect)
Observe the below sentences
- Whenever I go to the post office, they overcharge me for stamps
- Whenever I ride on my horses to the post office, they overcharge me for stamps
- Whenever I eat a burrito while riding a horse, it falls on my lap
- They - no plural referent, so usage of pronoun is incorrect
- They - illogical plural referent, they can refer to horses but that is illogical, so usage of pronoun is incorrect
- Even though it has two referent - horse and burrito, logically speaking horse cannot fall on lap, hence it can only refer to a burrito, so this sentence is correct
The point with example 3 is in case of multiple referents try to see what all referent makes sense, if after elimination only one remains which makes logical sense then you don’t have pronoun ambiguity
Usage of ‘As’ vs ‘Like’
- As is used to compare clauses while Like is used to compare only nouns.
- The only case when as can be followed by a noun is to introduce an example in a sense that the noun plays a stated function for e.g.
John has joined the organization as a researcher
Here as is used to introduce example and state role/function that would be played by John in the example
The ability of and ability to
Both are unidiomatic
Observe the below sentence
John played football with Holmes, and he scored a touchdown
In this sentence, he is not ambiguous and refers correctly to John reason being Holmes is an object of the preposition with and pronoun can refer to object of prepositon
Observe the below sentence
- Software J crashes more often than Software X
- Software J crashes more often than does Software X
- Software J crashes more often than Software X does
This is an example of comparison, we should always have apples to apple comparison, i.e. noun should be compared to noun and action should be compared to action
First sentence is wrong because it is comparing action with noun(Software) while both second and third are correct as they compare action to action
Observe the below sentences
A 1999 tax bill changed what many wealthy taxpayers and large corporations are allowed to deduct on their tax returns.
(A) changed what many wealthy taxpayers and large corporations are allowed to deduct on their tax returns
(B) changed wealthy taxpayers’ and large corporations’ amounts that they have been allowed to deduct on their tax returns
(C) is changing wealthy taxpayers’ and large corporations’ amounts that they have been allowed to deduct on their tax returns
(D) changed what many wealthy taxpayers and large corporations had been allowed to deduct on their tax returns
(E) changes what many wealthy taxpayers and large corporations have been allowed to deduct on their tax returns
C and E are out because a 1999 tax bill would have already made changes so present continuous tense or simple present tense is invalid.
B and C are allowed because present perfect tense signifies that they were doing so up until now but given the tax bill was passed in 1999, the timeline is illogical
D is out because had signifies that they stopped taking deduction even before the bill was introduced which would defeat the use of bill, which would be illogical, hence A is the answer
Observe the below sentence
John F. Kennedy, one of the most social U.S. presidents, held many parties in his family home, they featured elaborate meals of local fish and lobster, famous guests, and late nights.
(A) John F. Kennedy, one of the most social U.S. presidents, held many parties in his family home, they featured
(B) Parties were held in one of the most social U.S. president’s homes, John F. Kennedy, and they featured
(C) John F. Kennedy, who was one of the most social U.S. presidents in his family home held parties that featured
(D) John F. Kennedy, one of the most social U.S. presidents, held many parties in his family home that featured
(E) In his family home, John F. Kennedy, one of the most social U.S. presidents held many parties that featured
A. Comma splice error, two IC’s are joined without conjunctions
B. Home illogically modifies JFK indicating as if JFK is home
C. Indicate JFK was social only in his home
D. that modifies home indicating it was home that featured meals etc.
E. Correct
Observe the below sentence
Dirt road may evoke the bucolic simplicity of another century, but financially strained townships point out that dirt roads cost twice as much as maintaining paved roads
A) dirt roads cost twice as much as maintaining paved roads
B) dirt roads cost twice as much to maintain as paved roads do
C) maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as paved roads do
(D) maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as it does for paved roads
(E) to maintain dirt roads costs twice as much as for paved roads
A. Illogical comparison, it literally compares the cost of maintaining dirt roads with maintaining paved roads, given its not apple to apple comparison eliminate
B. Whenever you have do in comparison sentences, always remember that ‘do’ acts as a pronoun the only difference is it refers back to the verb in the sentence, so in this sentence do can refer back to ‘cost to maintain’ cause that’s the action of the sentence, so you can plug that in and read the sentence
dirt roads cost twice as much to maintain as paved roads do (cost to maintain) - This sentence now compares the cost of maintenance with the cost of maintenance, so it looks pretty good
C. Again maintaining dirt road is compared with cost of paved road, eliminate this
D. Here it can refer to maintain but when you plug that in the problem arises because of does - which can refer back to cost, so the sentence is awkward
E. To maintain dirt roads vs. for paved roads - not comparing similar elements. This is not parallel
