GMAT PREP SC: Single-Family House...

[RonPurewal]

But the intended meaning is that the framework(banked with dirt) has a height of 3-4 feet.

Hmm? No.

The framework of a house is obviously not going to be just three or four feet high. It's the framework of a house! It has to be as tall as ... a house.

In this context, it is absolutely clear that the dirt, not the framework, is 3 to 4 feet high.

Do not rush through the "read the sentence and use common sense to understand it" step.

[thanghnvn]

The single-family house constructed by the Yana, a Native American people who lived in what is now northern california, was conical in shape, its framework of poles overlaid with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine, and banked with dirt to a height of three to four feet.

we have to acknowlege that we have to understand grammar before we can solve sc problems because grammar is in fact the medium through which we understand the relations between entities in the sentences. we can an entities adjectival to know that it must refers to a noun.

in above sentence, "its framwork... feet" is adverbial which modify "the house is conical" and in this, "its" must refer to "the house" grammartically. this is the grammartical pattern we should memorize.

it is lucky that the refering of "its" to "the house" is logical.

do you agree with me on this point?

[RonPurewal]

I don't understand what you are trying to ask.

[BrianX972]

The single-family house constructed by the Yana, a Native American people who lived in what is now northern california, was conical in shape, its framework of poles overlaid with slabs of bark, either cedar or pine, and banked with dirt to a height of three to four feet.

This is supposed to be the right sentence, however, I am a little bit confused about its structure. If I could simplify it, the whole sentence can be shortened as:

....House, was conical in shape, its framework overlaid with...., and banked with...

it seems a run-on structure.. Can you please help me to undertand the structure? Thank you so much!

[RonPurewal]

I looked through some grammar stuff and found the name of this type of thing: "absolute phrase"

If you Google that term, you'll find much more information (and many more examples) than we could feasibly provide here. Check it out. Make up one or two of your own examples, to use as references/standards in the future.

[RonPurewal]

#19 in the OG Verbal supplement is constructed similarly, by the way.

[BernardK777]

Ron,

In your response to Praneeth on page 1 of this forum, you said

"if you have that comma after "shape", then yes, you need the second "was".
if you don't have that comma, then the second "was" is optional (it would be parallel either way)."


Why does the presence of the comma make it necessary to have the second "was"?

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

Punctuation is a non-issue on the GMAT, so it's best not to dilute the value of the discussion by considering it.

(Regarding the present problem, that poster has the wrong words in parallel, too; the parallelism exists between "overlaid" and "banked". The whole house wasn't "banked"; the framework of poles was.)

[GAURAVSAXENA81]

is it not a case of 'run-on sentence'? there is no conjunction between first and second clause?

[RonPurewal]

is it not a case of 'run-on sentence'? there is no conjunction between first and second clause?

the correct answers are correct. they are not wrong.

asking questions like this one is a complete waste of your time.
the questions you should be asking are...
What don't I understand here?
What can I learn from this sentence?

[RonPurewal]

the key here is that a lot of past-tense verbs look the same as their modifier forms.

e.g.,
Ron came back into the house, his clothes soaked from the sudden rainstorm
--> this is a sentence.
here, "soaked" is NOT a verb (the clothes didn't soak anything!). it's a modifier.
this is also what's happening with "overlaid".

This meat is too sweet, the chef soaked it in the marinade for too long
--> this is not a sentence (it's a run-on).
here, "soaked" IS a verb, and that's the problem.

[RonPurewal]

for some verbs, the two forms are different (e.g., gave is a past-tense verb, but the modifier form is given).

for those verbs, it's much easier to make the distinction at hand; you may want to write a few example sentences of your own, using such verbs (gave/given, went/gone, began/begun, etc.)

[gmatkiller_24]

Hi, Ron:

different from the reason you eliminate "as high as"

I just think that the use of "as high as" is illogical here.

you can say

I am as high as Tom (something specific and concrete)

but is it weird to say that " I am as high as 7 feet"?

It just don't make any sense to me.

Is this a valid thinking ? Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

that's wrong, but not for the reason you're thinking.

it's wrong because...

1/
you are only one person, with one definite height, so "as (adjective) as..." is nonsense.
that construction implies a range of values (e.g., In this league, there are players as tall as 7'6"). it makes no sense for one individual.

2/
by convention, we don't say people are X number of feet/meters "high"; we say "tall". because we just do.

if you write Players in this league are as tall as 7'6", then nothing is wrong there at all.

[sri balaji143]

the key here is that a lot of past-tense verbs look the same as their modifier forms.

e.g.,
Ron came back into the house, his clothes soaked from the sudden rainstorm
--> this is a sentence.
here, "soaked" is NOT a verb (the clothes didn't soak anything!). it's a modifier.
this is also what's happening with "overlaid".

This meat is too sweet, the chef soaked it in the marinade for too long
--> this is not a sentence (it's a run-on).
here, "soaked" IS a verb, and that's the problem.

Thanks for the great explanation.

I understood the technique behind 'as high as' and 'heights of' but the past participle thing is still bothering me.

There is questions that goes like this 'Deborah Sampson joined the army in 1782, was injured and was later discharged'. Here we use 'was injured' as Deborah was the recepient of the action.
Similarily should'nt we use 'was banked' for the framework as the framework did not perform the action of banking'? ( I am not doubting the official answer, just trying to see how I can use the learning from one question to another ). if the sentence is written as 'framework was banked with dirt to a height of 3 to 4 feet', will this style be correct? I also remember one of your examples 'the shirt was pink', here pink is an adjective. So I tried using these techniques and consequently selected D.

Is my line of thinking correct?

Thanks in advance.