According to the writings of Thorstein Veblen

[rustom.hakimiyan]

According to the writings of Thorstein Veblen, the economist, the most reliable signal of a truly wealthy individual is his or her ability and willingness to engage in "conspicuous consumption"—to spend it in a way that is patently absurd or irrational.


a)Thorstein Veblen, the economist, the most reliable signal of a truly wealthy individual is his or her ability and willingness

b)Thorstein Veblen, the economist, the most reliable signal that one is truly wealthy is whether one is capable and willing

c)economist Thorstein Veblen, the most reliable signal of one's true wealth is whether an individual is capable and willing

d)the economist Thorstein Veblen, an individual's true wealth is most reliably signaled by their ability and willingness

e)the economist Thorstein Veblen, the most reliable signal of true wealth is an individual's ability and willingness

Hi --

I eliminated A and B because of the "it" in the non-underlined portion. We need wealth but the options have wealthy.

I eliminated D because of "their" -- we need his/her/one etc.

Two questions:
1)I can't figure out what's wrong with C?
2)Is there a difference between "signal of a truly wealthy individual" vs. "signal that one is truly wealthy" vs. "signal of true wealth" ?

OA is E.

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

1)I can't figure out what's wrong with C?

"capable and willing to..." is one problem.
that construction would only work if both "capable" and "willing" were compatible with "to xxxx".
"capable" isn't, though. (it's unidiomatic to say that someone is "capable to do" something; we need to say that someone is capable of something, or of doing something.)

what's probably easier to notice is the shift from "one" to "an individual".
this implies that a different individual is spending "one's" wealth!!
(if we're using "one", we're committed to using "one" throughout the sentence if we're talking about the same hypothetical person.)

[RonPurewal]

Two questions:
1)I can't figure out what's wrong with C?

^^ also—you have access to an answer key, no? there shouldn't be any CAT questions without one.

i.e., it might be more useful to cite the answer key & say specifically what you don't understand. otherwise, i'm probably just saying whatever the answer key already says.

[RonPurewal]

2)Is there a difference between "signal of a truly wealthy individual" vs. "signal that one is truly wealthy" vs. "signal of true wealth" ?

Thanks.

the first is pretty much nonsense: we're talking about signals of wealth, not "signals of an individual".

there's no significant difference between the last two, since "wealth" can't exist independently of its possessor. (if wealth were something that could exist without belonging to anyone, then there'd be a difference.)

[Navneet]

Is there is any difference in meaning between A and C
In A - xxx signal of xxx is his or her ability and willingness to engage
and
In C - xxxx signal of xxx is whether an individual is capable and willing to engage
Option E retains original idea

And could this meaning difference be a reason to eliminate option C ?

[RonPurewal]

Is there is any difference in meaning between A and C
In A - xxx signal of xxx is his or her ability and willingness to engage
and
In C - xxxx signal of xxx is whether an individual is capable and willing to engage
Option E retains original idea

And could this meaning difference be a reason to eliminate option C ?

the actual signal-- i.e., something that people can observe-- is the person's ability and/or behavior.

"whether xxxx" amounts to the abstract idea of "yes or no", which is not a signal.

[AndyH539]

Hi Ron,
Are both " Thorstein Veblen, the economist," and "the economist Thorstein Veblen," ok to use?

Thanks in advance
Regards
Andy

[NeetuJ81]

I thought there is a shift of meaning in Senetence E.
E says : signal of true wealth is individual's ability and willingness to engage in "conspicuous consumption". I though if it says - if it is signal of true wealthy is individual's ability and willingness to engage in "conspicuous consumption", then it would be correct.

@ron : pl help

[RAHULS852]

Hi Sage/ Manhattan Instructor,
Are both " Thorstein Veblen, the economist," and "the economist Thorstein Veblen," right to use ?

According to Ron,Manhattan expert, we should first focus on grammar to improve GMAT SC.
or
According to the Manhattan expert Ron, we should first focus on grammar to improve GMAT SC.

I tried to put 2 different construction in both of the above sentences.
Kindly help.

Regards,
Rahul Singh

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Yes, both are correct to use. They are just different ways of providing 'extra information' about Thorstein Veblen (i.e. adding a modifier). There may be a subtle difference of meaning (one I'd have to think about), but that's more of a nuance than GMAT would expect a test-taker to notice.

Consequently, both your examples are fine, so long as you add "a" to the first one: According to Ron, a Manhattan expert, ...

[RAHULS852]

Thanks Sage for clarification.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

You're welcome.

[vishnuchaithanya11]

Hi @Ron, @Sage,

I understand why capable to is unidiomatic and is one of the reasons to eliminate options B & C. But, I do not understand why usage of whether is incorrect in these two options. Can you please help me understand that?

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I wouldn't describe the issues surrounding 'whether' in this sentence as an idiom issue (i.e. a wrong combination of words). It seems to be a meaning issue. The word 'whether' means something like 'might or might not' or 'if'. For example:
We were unsure whether to leave.
Our plans depend on whether they join us.
(More at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/whether)
The word 'whether' implies some uncertainty between two options, and that meaning is inaccurate for the above sentence. The intended meaning of the sentence is that the signal of true wealth is a particular way an individual spends his/her money, not the choice between two options.

However, as I write this, I realize that I'm describing a small nuance of meaning, the kind of thing that I'm pretty sure wouldn't be critical in a GMAT problem. Note how there are other, cruder problems with the answer choices, most notably the pronoun 'it' in the non-underlined part of the sentence.

[yo4561]

My question: To confirm, I am assuming that the difference between "economist" versus "the economist" does not matter and is a trick "split", correct?