It is unclear whether chimpanzees are unique among nonhuman

[healthy312]

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.

(A) if, when other animals are studied in as much depth, similar patterns would be found
(B) if other animals were studied with as much depth they would exhibit similar patterns
(C) would similar patterns be found in other animals if they were studied in as much depth
(D) whether similar patterns would be exhibited in other animals that were studied with as much depth
(E) whether other animals would exhibit similar patterns if they were studied in as much depth

official answer is E. why not D?

[RonPurewal]

what, specifically, do you already understand about that answer choice? what don't you understand?

(the most fundamental issue with choice D is that the past tense ("were studied") doesn't make sense.)

[healthy312]

what, specifically, do you already understand about that answer choice? what don't you understand?

(the most fundamental issue with choice D is that the past tense ("were studied") doesn't make sense.)

Ron, sorry, I still cannot get what you said. Why were studied was wrong?

I can narrow down the answers to D and E, but I cannot rule out D..

[RonPurewal]

the sentence talks about something that is still unclear.

if there were "animals that were studied"-- in the past-- then we would already know the results of those studies, an idea that contradicts the rest of the sentence.

[RonPurewal]

note that "were studied" is sometimes a hypothetical form, rather than a past-tense form. in that form, it would be reasonable here.

We don't know what would happen if these animals were studied in such depth.

in fact, this is how the correct answer works.

choice D, on the other hand, postulates the existence of "animals that were studied". that's not a hypothetical; it asserts that there are actually animals that have already been studied in the manner described.

[healthy312]

note that "were studied" is sometimes a hypothetical form, rather than a past-tense form. in that form, it would be reasonable here.

We don't know what would happen if these animals were studied in such depth.

in fact, this is how the correct answer works.

choice D, on the other hand, postulates the existence of "animals that were studied". that's not a hypothetical; it asserts that there are actually animals that have already been studied in the manner described.

Ron , thank you so much! That explanation is so great and clear !

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome..

[weiw49]

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.

(A) if, when other animals are studied in as much depth, similar patterns would be found
(B) if other animals were studied with as much depth they would exhibit similar patterns
(C) would similar patterns be found in other animals if they were studied in as much depth
(D) whether similar patterns would be exhibited in other animals that were studied with as much depth
(E) whether other animals would exhibit similar patterns if they were studied in as much depth

official answer is E. why not D?

When I read this question,I feel E is much better than D. but that is only my feeling.

when I consider choice E, I find "they were " and "their ability" in the sentence. "their" refers to chimpanzees, obviously, and "they" refers to other animals. there are only commas in this sentence, no " ;" or ".", so...I think the same pronoun would refer to the same noun in a sentence and I rule E out.

what's wrong here?

[RonPurewal]

those pronouns are in two completely different clauses, so they can absolutely stand for different nouns. as long as the meaning is clear in context, that isn't a problem.

e.g.,
Brenda spends as much money on her dogs as Jane does on her children.
--> in context, it's crystal-clear that we're talking about brenda's dogs and about jane's children.

[RajaS909]

Thanks for the earlier explanation Ron.

But is the structure "whether.... or whether" in option E correct?
Moreover, what is wrong with option C - "would similar patterns be found in other animals if they were studied in as much depth"

[RonPurewal]

Thanks for the earlier explanation Ron.

But is the structure "whether.... or whether" in option E correct?

DO NOT question the correct answers!

here's a handy FAQ:

Q: Is the correct answer correct?
A: Yes.

Q: Is the correct answer wrong?
A: No.

Q: I wrote this other version. Is it better than the correct answer?
A: No.

[RonPurewal]

...besides, what would be wrong with that pairing (in choice E)?
those two things are perfectly parallel.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks for the earlier explanation Ron.

Moreover, what is wrong with option C - "would similar patterns be found in other animals if they were studied in as much depth"

that order is found in questions. you can't put 'would' + noun + 'be' in a statement other than a question.
Would similar patterns be found in other animals? (question)
I don't know whether similar patterns would be found in other animals. (statement)

[RonPurewal]

more importantly, none of the above is terribly important here, because...

1/
this should be a non-issue in the problem at hand, because, even if you don't know about the 'question vs. statement' structure, choice C can be eliminated on straightforward grounds of non-parallelism.

2/
it's also a non-issue in general, because SC sentences are never questions.

[RajaS909]

Thanks for the explanation Ron.

I just wanted to know if "whether...or whether" is an acceptable structure so i can be mindful of it in future. I was under the impression that it is a redundant and that's how I eliminated that choice. Its a learning for me.

Are there any specific scenarios where the structure "whether...or whether..." is preferred over "whether...or..."?