One report concludes that many schools do not have,

[Jamie]

I am so sorry to bombard you with many questions :-(
I have yet another SC question from GMATPrep test from this morning eeek

One report concludes that many schools do not have, or likely to have, enough computers to use them effectively.

a. same
b. nor
c. or are
d. nor are they
e. nor are not

OA: D

This problem appear very very benign, but I could not eliminate anything but E (double negative) :-( Oh gosh, I have no idea. Please guide me through why D is the correct answer.

Thanks so much,
Jamie

[Guest]

anyone?

I am so sorry to bombard you with many questions :-(
I have yet another SC question from GMATPrep test from this morning eeek

One report concludes that many schools do not have, or likely to have, enough computers to use them effectively.

a. same
b. nor
c. or are
d. nor are they
e. nor are not

OA: D

This problem appear very very benign, but I could not eliminate anything but E (double negative) :-( Oh gosh, I have no idea. Please guide me through why D is the correct answer.

Thanks so much,
Jamie

[ddwilli]

I am so sorry to bombard you with many questions :-(
I have yet another SC question from GMATPrep test from this morning eeek

One report concludes that many schools do not have, or likely to have, enough computers to use them effectively.

a. same
b. nor
c. or are
d. nor are they
e. nor are not

OA: D

Jamie, a, b, and c don't make sense grammatically so you could eliminate those also.

If you break the sentence in two pieces using answer choice (d)
1) One report concludes that many schools do not have enough computers to use them use them effectively
2) Nor are they likely to have enough computers to use them effectively

Clearely the best answer choice for this problem.
I have trouble understanding all the technicalities concerning issues such as modifiers, prepositions, etc. I can't explain them, I just kind of understand how they work so I don't know if my answr will make much sense to you. I'm sure someone will come along and provide a better explanation

[RonPurewal]

hi.

(a) and (b) are incorrect because of their poor parallelism. in this "or" construction, the first half is "do not have", a tensed verb. therefore, the second half of the construction must also contain a tensed verb.
(a) and (b) don't have a tensed verb ("likely to have" contains only an infinitive - not what we want here).

--

as you've said, (e) contains a double negative, so it's out.

--

(c) is, as far as i can tell grammatically correct (although the commas are superfluous in such a construction), but it's simply absurd. the use of "or" here creates a sentence that is weirdly self-contradictory.
the clear point of the sentence is that the schools don't have enough computers, so you need to select the choice that's grammatically correct but also in line with that meaning. (d) is the only choice that satisfies both criteria.

[rohit21384]

hi.

(a) and (b) are incorrect because of their poor parallelism. in this "or" construction, the first half is "do not have", a tensed verb. therefore, the second half of the construction must also contain a tensed verb.
(a) and (b) don't have a tensed verb ("likely to have" contains only an infinitive - not what we want here).

--

as you've said, (e) contains a double negative, so it's out.

--

(c) is, as far as i can tell grammatically correct (although the commas are superfluous in such a construction), but it's simply absurd. the use of "or" here creates a sentence that is weirdly self-contradictory.
the clear point of the sentence is that the schools don't have enough computers, so you need to select the choice that's grammatically correct but also in line with that meaning. (d) is the only choice that satisfies both criteria.

One report concludes that many schools do not have, or likely to have, enough computers to use them effectively.

a. same
b. nor
c. or are
d. nor are they
e. nor are not

OA: D


can we put following option into the sentencë:
f) nor are ........word "they" will be understood......verb "are" we have supplied for second clause.

g) nor they are.....i have a doubt here- for such sentence (with not x nor y), helping verb comes before subject.......for this question would it be "nor are they "or "nor they are"

[RonPurewal]

can we put following option into the sentencë:
f) nor are ........word "they" will be understood......verb "are" we have supplied for second clause.

nope. you can't do that unless you have a "neither" in front.

i.e.:
the schools neither have, nor are likely to have, ...
this would work.

you should just consider this an idiomatic construction: nor + helping verb + subject.

g) nor they are.....i have a doubt here- for such sentence (with not x nor y), helping verb comes before subject.......for this question would it be "nor are they "or "nor they are"

nor + noun + helping verb is never an acceptable construction. never, ever.

[tankobe]

hi.
(c) is, as far as i can tell grammatically correct (although the commas are superfluous in such a construction), but it's simply absurd. the use of "or" here creates a sentence that is weirdly self-contradictory.
the clear point of the sentence is that the schools don't have enough computers, so you need to select the choice that's grammatically correct but also in line with that meaning. (d) is the only choice that satisfies both criteria.

Ron, you said (C) change the meaning, because it said:schools do not have enough computers, but they are likely(not unlikely, because do not can't modify likely) to have. am i right?
(1)so if i change the sentence--schools do not have, or need, many computers;which one is the right meaning?
1# schools do not have many computers,but they need many computers.
2# schools do not have many computers,and they do not need many computers.

so is it the rule that when do not can modify BE Verb, the BE Verb is positive rather than nagative?

[RonPurewal]

hi.
(c) is, as far as i can tell grammatically correct (although the commas are superfluous in such a construction), but it's simply absurd. the use of "or" here creates a sentence that is weirdly self-contradictory.
the clear point of the sentence is that the schools don't have enough computers, so you need to select the choice that's grammatically correct but also in line with that meaning. (d) is the only choice that satisfies both criteria.

Ron, you said (C) change the meaning, because it said:schools do not have enough computers, but they are likely(not unlikely, because do not can't modify likely) to have. am i right?
(1)so if i change the sentence--schools do not have, or need, many computers;which one is the right meaning?
1# schools do not have many computers,but they need many computers.
2# schools do not have many computers,and they do not need many computers.

you've hit on the heart of the problem here: your sentence is ambiguous. it could be interpreted either as #1 or as #2.

this is the reason for the more awkward-looking (to people unfamiliar with it) construction in the correct answer here: that construction is not ambiguous.

so, if you meant #2, you'd write
schools do not have many computers, nor do they need many.
...which is a lot like the correct answer above.

[tankobe]

hi.
(c) is, as far as i can tell grammatically correct (although the commas are superfluous in such a construction), but it's simply absurd. the use of "or" here creates a sentence that is weirdly self-contradictory.
the clear point of the sentence is that the schools don't have enough computers, so you need to select the choice that's grammatically correct but also in line with that meaning. (d) is the only choice that satisfies both criteria.

Ron, you said (C) change the meaning, because it said:schools do not have enough computers, but they are likely(not unlikely, because do not can't modify likely) to have. am i right?
(1)so if i change the sentence--schools do not have, or need, many computers;which one is the right meaning?
1# schools do not have many computers,but they need many computers.
2# schools do not have many computers,and they do not need many computers.

you've hit on the heart of the problem here: your sentence is ambiguous. it could be interpreted either as #1 or as #2.

this is the reason for the more awkward-looking (to people unfamiliar with it) construction in the correct answer here: that construction is not ambiguous.

so, if you meant #2, you'd write
schools do not have many computers, nor do they need many.
...which is a lot like the correct answer above.

it appears that you also think the sentence--3# schools do not have or need many computers--is a not acceptable option. if so, the better sentences will be 4# and #5 when we want to parallel two nagative Verb.
(i am sorry for guess your intent, Ron; what i want is that i will not,or never, be confused next time i meet i the similar question and its even more weird options)

4# schools do not have many computers, nor do they need many.||schools do not have,nor do they need, many computers..
5# schools neither have nor need many computers.||schools neither have, nor need, many computers.

[violetwind]

Hi, Ron, is there any problem that the "they" in "nor are they" and the "them" in "use them efficiently" are pointing to different antecedents?

[RonPurewal]

Hi, Ron, is there any problem that the "they" in "nor are they" and the "them" in "use them efficiently" are pointing to different antecedents?

they actually must refer to different antecedents; if they referred to the same antecedent, the latter would have to be "themselves" instead of "them".

analogy:
... she looked at her ... --> one woman is looking at another woman. (this sentence is not ok unless it's a component of some larger parallel structure that elucidates the pronouns, but you get the point)
... she looked at herself... --> a woman is looking at herself.

[violetwind]

Hi, Ron, is there any problem that the "they" in "nor are they" and the "them" in "use them efficiently" are pointing to different antecedents?

they actually must refer to different antecedents; if they referred to the same antecedent, the latter would have to be "themselves" instead of "them".

analogy:
... she looked at her ... --> one woman is looking at another woman. (this sentence is not ok unless it's a component of some larger parallel structure that elucidates the pronouns, but you get the point)
... she looked at herself... --> a woman is looking at herself.

well, but I vaguely remember that in one sentence, one form of pronoun must point to the same antecedent otherwise it will cause ambiguity. for example,all the"he" in one sentence must point to one person. Is there a rule like that?

[jnelson0612]

well, but I vaguely remember that in one sentence, one form of pronoun must point to the same antecedent otherwise it will cause ambiguity. for example,all the"he" in one sentence must point to one person. Is there a rule like that?

violet, you are correct that if you use the exact same pronoun repeatedly in a sentence, it must only refer to one particular antecedent.

[violetwind]

well, but I vaguely remember that in one sentence, one form of pronoun must point to the same antecedent otherwise it will cause ambiguity. for example,all the"he" in one sentence must point to one person. Is there a rule like that?

violet, you are correct that if you use the exact same pronoun repeatedly in a sentence, it must only refer to one particular antecedent.

Roger! thanks!

[RonPurewal]

excellent