Scientists believe that unlike the males of most species

[tim]

:)

[RonPurewal]

Incidentally, the above is one of the dangers of studying for too long for this exam.

You can achieve success in SC by being able to find these 6 types of issues, wherever and whenever they appear:
• parallelism
• SV agreement
• choice of modifiers
• overall sentence structure (complete sentence vs. fragment/run-on sentence)
• placement (when the order of words or phrases is scrambled between choices)
• pronouns

If someone studies for too long after having mastered these principal issues, his/her brain can, essentially, become bored——and that's when the distractions can start to take over the show.

Once you learn to see the main things that are tested, you're ready to go take the exam. It shouldn't require hundreds and hundreds of hours of study.

[eggpain24]

even i have same doubt as vijaya.

Rather than is usually used to show preference of verbs (or clauses) .but here it is used to show preference b/w 2 nouns. Is it correct usage?

"instead of" is generally restricted to nouns.

"rather than" can be used for essentially any part of speech at all.

they moved stiffly rather than gracefully (adverbs)
they moved to the left rather than to the right (prepositional phrases)
the car was red rather than blue (adjectives)
i bought a car rather than a truck (nouns)
he chose to leave rather than continue arguing (infinitives)

...etc

Hi Ron. I think that the “ instead of” construction can only followed by ”noun“

and in choice B，we had ”instead of using“

using can be construed as ”gerund“ sometimes

but here it is used as a “verb” → therefore，instead of using is wrong

just feel free to correct me If I am wrong

[FanPurewal]

even i have same doubt as vijaya.

Rather than is usually used to show preference of verbs (or clauses) .but here it is used to show preference b/w 2 nouns. Is it correct usage?

"instead of" is generally restricted to nouns.

"rather than" can be used for essentially any part of speech at all.

they moved stiffly rather than gracefully (adverbs)
they moved to the left rather than to the right (prepositional phrases)
the car was red rather than blue (adjectives)
i bought a car rather than a truck (nouns)
he chose to leave rather than continue arguing (infinitives)

...etc

Hi Ron. I think that the “ instead of” construction can only followed by ”noun“

and in choice B，we had ”instead of using“

using can be construed as ”gerund“ sometimes

but here it is used as a “verb” → therefore，instead of using is wrong

just feel free to correct me If I am wrong

i don't think so
in my opinion, -ING can never be a verb, and it is either a noun or a modifier. (i remember Ron mentioned this point in some treads)

but in the choice B, the *using* here is an exception, it is neither a noun. nor a modifier.
it is just a prep., which means *with*

also, i think the *parallelism* issue is the most serious error in this choice and only error.

hope this helps and correct me if am wrong :)

[WhiteZ807]

Incidentally, the above is one of the dangers of studying for too long for this exam.

You can achieve success in SC by being able to find these 6 types of issues, wherever and whenever they appear:
• parallelism
• SV agreement
• choice of modifiers
• overall sentence structure (complete sentence vs. fragment/run-on sentence)
• placement (when the order of words or phrases is scrambled between choices)
• pronouns

If someone studies for too long after having mastered these principal issues, his/her brain can, essentially, become bored——and that's when the distractions can start to take over the show.

Once you learn to see the main things that are tested, you're ready to go take the exam. It shouldn't require hundreds and hundreds of hours of study.

Ron, I took my test two days ago, and I got a score of 760. It is so amazing that I have a much better understanding and performance in sc than I did two months ago. For a non-native speaker like me, sc can be the hardest part. I focused only on prep for less than one month, and I read tons of your posts, which help me a lot. Two months ago, I was so confused about sc. I practiced a lot but it seems that I couldn't do anything to change my bad performance. However, after reading your posts, I have a totally different idea about sc. I am one hundred percent sure that you are the reason why I made such a great progress. Thank you so much, Ron! many many kisses!

[RonPurewal]

Congratulations!

[NitinG177]

Hi ron,
1)
i eliminated the choices a and b using the following analogy :
i called him ...... [ here "by the use of"] sounds awkward as compared to [using OR by using..]
As it is impossible to remember all the rules , i often use such analogies.. is this analogy correct with respect to this question ?
2)
It is essential that parallel statments convey a logically parallel idea. However , i am not able to understand that , why "attract" and "call " should be parallel.
Tim says that , you cannot call some one by attracting that thing..
but consider this: I called him .. (How) .. by attracting him towards something glamorous ..(is it incorrect?)
In all , i want to ask , in these type of parallelism where meaning is essential to understand the parallel elements.. HOw can we do so effectively?
thanks,
nitin

[RonPurewal]

Hi ron,
1)
i eliminated the choices a and b using the following analogy :
i called him ...... [ here "by the use of"] sounds awkward as compared to [using OR by using..]
As it is impossible to remember all the rules , i often use such analogies.. is this analogy correct with respect to this question ?

in general using analogies is THE BEST way to approach absolutely anything in SC, because it's actually in line with how our brains learn language.

on the other hand, i can't tell exactly what you're saying here.
can you write out the two examples you have in mind?
thanks.

[RonPurewal]

2)
It is essential that parallel statments convey a logically parallel idea. However , i am not able to understand that , why "attract" and "call " should be parallel.

when you take notes on things, i bet you occasionally make 'bullet points' (or something equivalent—i ii iii iv ..., or a b c d ..., or 1 2 3 4 ..., or whatever).

consider how you would make 'bullet points' if you were taking notes on the information in this sentence (e.g., in a biology class).

this sentence tells you 2 interesting things about the whistling moths:
• They _____
• They _____

okay, now fill in the blanks.

i bet you filled them with the right two things:
1/ they call mates in xxxxx way
2/ they attract those mates at yyyyy time of day.

[RonPurewal]

the point, of course, is that no one ever had to TEACH YOU HOW to make 'bullet points'... it's just something that your brain inherently understands.

your brain also inherently understands when things are NOT a single list of 'bullet points'.
e.g.,
1. -------------
2. -------------
...a. ----------
...b. ----------
3. -------------

i'm sure you've made lists like that one.
the point is that no one ever had to EXPLAIN how to decide that it's #1, #2, #2a, #2b, #3 (as opposed to #1, #2, #3, #4, #5). by using everyday intuition (= 'common sense'), you just know.

in fact, this is exactly why parallelism is tested so often on this exam:
• EVERYONE inherently understands it...
• ...but it's impossible to make 'rules' for it.

[NitinG177]

Hi ron,
1)
i eliminated the choices a and b using the following analogy :
i called him ...... [ here "by the use of"] sounds awkward as compared to [using OR by using..]
As it is impossible to remember all the rules , i often use such analogies.. is this analogy correct with respect to this question ?

in general using analogies is THE BEST way to approach absolutely anything in SC, because it's actually in line with how our brains learn language.

on the other hand, i can't tell exactly what you're saying here.
can you write out the two examples you have in mind?
thanks.

Yes sure.
As i was unclear about the usage of "by the use of" , i constructed the following two shorter sentences to check the above :-
1) I called my father "by the use of" XXXX [ this seems awkward to me.]
Whereas ,
2) I called my father "using" XXXX .[this is way smooth to the ear as compared to the above choice.]
My question : Are the two analogies sound enough to eliminate option A and B ( though i am not a native speaker of English language, but if i
do not rely on the empirical knowledge that i have gathered from the past ( e.g by reading newspapers, novels etc) , it will be almost impossible to tackle such idiomatic expressions.)
*****

also pertaining to my last question ,
Tim says that , you cannot call some one by attracting that thing..
but consider this: I called him .. (and How did i call him ?) .. by attracting him towards something glamorous ..(is it incorrect?)
Is the above meaning incorrect?

Thanks,
Nitin

[RonPurewal]

Are the two analogies sound enough to eliminate option A and B ( though i am not a native speaker of English language, but if i
do not rely on the empirical knowledge that i have gathered from the past ( e.g by reading newspapers, novels etc) , it will be almost impossible to tackle such idiomatic expressions.)

that pink thing ^^ is a big part of winning the SC game... because that's how our brains learn language: analogies + imitation. (this is the same way you learned your own first language—regardless of which specific language that is.)

[RonPurewal]

in any case, you asked... 'Are the two analogies sound enough?'

this is not the kind of question i can answer... nor should it be.
you should answer this question the same way scientists answer questions: you should do an experiment.
• go through some problems
• IGNORE ALL RULES
• DO NOT DO ANY CONSCIOUS THINKING
• if you have a VERY STRONG INTUITION that some construction is incorrect (and/or inferior to its counterpart in another answer choice), then eliminate
• otherwise, IGNORE and move on.

(do not worry about SOLVING the problems; that's not the point. you might eliminate four choices—but you also might eliminate three, two, one, or zero choices. the point is to test STRONG intuition ONLY.)

then check your results.  how did you do, percentage-wise?
(if you eliminated choices completely at random, you would be right 80 percent of the time. so, to be worth anything, your intuitive eliminations need to be actual wrong answers significantly MORE than 80 percent of the time.
ideally they should be wrong 100 percent of the time—assuming you followed the directions, eliminating only choices on which your intuition was EXTREMELY STRONG.)

if your results are good enough, then you have a decently strong method to complement all of the 'conscious thinking' methods.

--

[RonPurewal]

also—
empirical testing aside, you can also apply another, much more crude criterion: would you be willing to bet a lot of money on it?

if you would be willing to bet $1000 USD on 'using' against 'by the use of'... well, then you're probably right.
(:

[RonPurewal]

but consider this: I called him .. (and How did i call him ?) .. by attracting him towards something glamorous ..(is it incorrect?)
Is the above meaning incorrect?

that doesn't really make sense, because 'call' implies either sounds or language.
only humans have language**... so, for non-human animals, 'call' should refer to a sound. this exam WILL NOT 'get creative' with the use of words.

--

**because we have language, the formal use of 'call' is expanded to include written language. for instance, in a court trial, a witness can be called to testify by means of a written document.
...but, again, we're getting way, way beyond the bailiwick of the gmat exam here.