The direction in which the Earth and the other solid planets

[GMAT 5/18]

Source: Gmat Prep, mba.com, Test II

The direction in which the Earth and the other solid planets - Mercury, Venus, and Mars - spins were determined from collisions with giant celestial bodies in the early history of the Solar System.

a. spins were determined from
b. spins were determined because of
c. spins was determined through
d. spin was determined by
e. spin was determined as a result of

My question is, why is d. better than e.? Idioms, or other reasons? Thanks!

[dbernst]

I think it is an idiomatic issue: "determined by" is the proper idiom, whereas "determined as a result of" is not only unidiomatic but also slightly redundant (as "determined" or "determined by" is almost synonymous with "results" or "resulted from"). I recognize that "the direction was determined by collisions" could imply a consious determination on the part of the collisions to choose a direction, but this is not necessarily so. To use a baseball analogy, one could say, "the distance of a home run is determined by the speed at which the bat is swung." In this case, there is no conscious decision on the part of the speed to "determine" the distance.

-dan

That is what I thought as well, and therefore, I selected e. (as a result of) as my answer. However, GMAT Prep disagrees and states that d. (by) is the answer.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

[deepakdewani]

I think it is an idiomatic issue: "determined by" is the proper idiom, whereas "determined as a result of" is not only unidiomatic but also slightly redundant (as "determined" or "determined by" is almost synonymous with "results" or "resulted from"). I recognize that "the direction was determined by collisions" could imply a consious determination on the part of the collisions to choose a direction, but this is not necessarily so. To use a baseball analogy, one could say, "the distance of a home run is determined by the speed at which the bat is swung." In this case, there is no conscious decision on the part of the speed to "determine" the distance.

-dan

Super explanation! Hammer to nail!!!

Thank you. There is so much I have learned from this forum, largely because of the excellent instructors and staff always ready to lend a helping hand.

[RonPurewal]

dan's summary above is good, but i take issue with where he says that the construction in (e) is "slightly" redundant -- in fact, that construction is blatantly redundant, and you should keep an eye out for it on future tests.

specifically, "result of" signifies causation, so any other construction that also signifies causation creates fatal redundancy.
was determined as a result of... = saying exactly the same thing twice, so, redundant
was determined by... = not redundant
was a result of... = not redundant

--

"determined as a result of" it is every bit as redundant as "annual salary per year" (vis-a-vis just "annual salary" or "salary per year").

[AmmuS624]

Hi,

Could you tell how to narrow down to was or were ?

Determined from and determined through are not idiomatic ?

Regards,
Ammu

[tim]

Subject/verb agreement. The direction *was* determined. Idioms are not an issue here.

[RonPurewal]

Subject/verb agreement. The direction *was* determined. Idioms are not an issue here.

Well, these idioms are also wrong. (It's almost certainly easier to use the subject-verb issue(s) to eliminate those choices"”but, that's not the only way.)

"X is determined from Y" means that people looked at data "Y", and figured out "X".
This is nonsense here, since no one was around to watch events in the early history of the solar system.

"X is determined through Y" means that "Y" is a method used to find out "X".
E.g., Optimal drug structure is often determined through combinatorial chemistry"”in other words, experimentation with essentially random combinations of chemical substitutions on a parent molecule.
Also nonsense here.

[tim]

Although I agree with Ron that there are idioms here, my advice is to avoid idioms whenever possible and only deal with idioms as a last resort when no other grammar rules apply. As such, idioms here are not an issue in the sense that they are not needed to make the decision you were asking about.

As Ron indicates, it is almost certainly easier to use S-V agreement on a sentence such as this. S-V issues are more concrete than idioms and have blanket rules to cover their application, and you're much more likely to make a correct decision if you stick to the hard and fast grammar rules.

In this particular case, Ron has given an excellent explanation of the specific idioms used here, but it is important to keep in mind that you cannot derive from this explanation any rules about whether "determined from" and "determined through" are correct idioms in general. It will all depend on the context.

[RAHULS852]

Hi Sage/ Manhattan Expert,

Can I also eliminate choice E because of indirect causation (Apart from redundancy).

as a result of" suggests indirect causation. i.e., when you write "x happened as a result of y", the implication is that y didn't cause x directly, although y was in some way ultimately responsible for x.

100 people were killed by fire. (here fire is the direct reason for death of 100 people)
100 people were killed as a result of fire. ( Here 100 people died from other causes related to fire)

Regards,
Rahul Singh

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I would be cautious in this area. Causation is a very tricky philosophical concept and I don't think that we need to delve as deeply as you're trying to do. I actually think that both your examples have meanings that are very close (and possibly overlapping).
100 people were killed by fire. (here fire is the direct reason for death of 100 people) - sure, but does that mean that they definitely burned to death? I mean, perhaps they were killed by inhaling smoke. I don't think our language is completely precise here.
100 people were killed as a result of fire. ( Here 100 people died from other causes related to fire) - I agree, that this looks like less direct causation - e.g., the fire caused a building to collapse - but the nuance of meaning between this example and the one above is pretty slight. Macabre examples, by the way.

[RAHULS852]

Thanks Sage,
Generally I try to understand every detail in SC problems for better understanding. (Non native approach)
"as a result of" suggests indirect causation
I took this example from Ron's post. (https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 63-15.html)

In that post he explicitly mentioned about indirect causation. Should I use this reason for elimination ?

Regards,
Rahul Singh

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Well done for comparing problems. I agree with you that 'as a result' suggests less direct causation. Interestingly, the split between 'as a result of' and 'by' isn't the only way to eliminate answers in that other problem, suggesting that GMAT doesn't consider it a knock-out issue on its own.

[RAHULS852]

I got your point now, " Indirect causation should be last way to eliminate a choice"
In E redundancy should be the first reason to eliminate that choice.

Regards,
Rahul Singh

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

You're welcome.