The hognose snake puts on an impressive bluff, hissing

[RonPurewal]

Can someone comment on what is wrong with answer choice B? Thanks.

look in the above posts. here's a link (to this same thread, but, since there are 14 posts, i'll link you to the correct one)

post14583.html#p14583

[madhavbatra]

It should be C. This choice has better parallelism than does choice E, and is phrased in a way that makes MUCH more sense. Choice E, while not strictly ungrammatical, is a 'garden path sentence' - one that reads incorrectly the first couple of times your eyes run over it, and that only makes sense if you go back and read it several more times. The specifics:

C:
The hognose snake puts on an impressive bluff,
hissing and rearing back, broadening the flesh behind its head the way a cobra does and feigning repeated strikes, --> note the parallelism between these two parts: both are in the form '(verb)ING and (verb)ING'

but it has no dangerous fangs and no venom, and eventually, if its pursuer is not cowered by the performance, will fall over and play dead. --> contains a key transition ('but'), and the start of a new clause (new subject & new verb), in just the right place - to mark the sudden transition/contrast between the stuff in the first half (all this intimidating behavior) and the stuff in the second half (it's all a big fake - snake oil, if you don't mind the pun).

E:
The hognose snake puts on an impressive bluff,
hissing and rearing back, broadening the flesh behind its head the way a cobra does, feigning repeated strikes, but with no dangerous fangs and no venom,
These two items are falsely made to look like two more items in a series begun with 'hissing...' and 'broadening...'. In addition, there is NO emphasis on the transition 'but', because no new clause is begun at this point. That's bad, because there's a sudden huge shift in what the sentence is talking about at this point.
and eventually, if its pursuer is not cowered by the performance, will fall over and play dead.

Hi Ron,
I eliminated option E for precisely the same reason, that is, comma + conjunction should be followed by an indepedent clause.
My question is that does this rule have any exceptions. If yes, can you please state a few??
sorry if this is question is too elementary.
Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

I eliminated option E for precisely the same reason, that is, comma + conjunction should be followed by an indepedent clause.

that's a fairly reliable rule *IF* the comma and the conjunction are both part of the same construction -- but there is a huge problem: there are lots and lots of constructions in which the conjunction is part of one large parallel construction, while the comma belongs to a completely separate sub-construction (such as a modifier).

ex:
without modifier:
the Smiths had a son and a daughter.
with modifier:
the Smiths had a son, who was born two months before the due date, and a daughter. --> note that the commas are part of the modifier construction, not part of the larger sentence.

there are lots and lots and lots of constructions like these, so you can't just see a comma next to a conjunction and automatically think "independent clause".

[madhavbatra]

I eliminated option E for precisely the same reason, that is, comma + conjunction should be followed by an indepedent clause.

that's a fairly reliable rule *IF* the comma and the conjunction are both part of the same construction -- but there is a huge problem: there are lots and lots of constructions in which the conjunction is part of one large parallel construction, while the comma belongs to a completely separate sub-construction (such as a modifier).

ex:
without modifier:
the Smiths had a son and a daughter.
with modifier:
the Smiths had a son, who was born two months before the due date, and a daughter. --> note that the commas are part of the modifier construction, not part of the larger sentence.

there are lots and lots and lots of constructions like these, so you can't just see a comma next to a conjunction and automatically think "independent clause".

Thank you very much for the quick and thorough reply, Ron.
Reading your posts is very enlightening.

[RonPurewal]

Thank you very much for the quick and thorough reply, Ron.
Reading your posts is very enlightening.

sure thing

[akriti_13]

Hi Ron,

I was just wondering could we just eliminate answer option E because the list
x -hissing and rearing back
y - broadening the flesh behind its head the way a cobra does
z - feigning repeated strikes

X,Y, Z lacks and before Z

[jnelson0612]

Hi Ron,

I was just wondering could we just eliminate answer option E because the list
x -hissing and rearing back
y - broadening the flesh behind its head the way a cobra does
z - feigning repeated strikes

X,Y, Z lacks and before Z

Check out Ron's explanation on the first page of this thread, in which he goes over option E.

[martelena]

Can someone explain why we need a comma in the second part of the correct choice C (between "venom" and "and").

I mean if we remove "distractors" from the second clause, we basically get:
" ... strikes, but it has no dangerous fangs and no venom, and eventually ... will fall over and play dead".
or even more concise:
" but it has ... , ... and will fall and play...".

So, if it is one clause, why do we need a comma between "venom" and "and"?
Is it because we already have the pair " no ... fangs and no venom"?
thanks in advance

[RonPurewal]

Can someone explain why we need a comma in the second part of the correct choice C (between "venom" and "and").

I mean if we remove "distractors" from the second clause, we basically get:
" ... strikes, but it has no dangerous fangs and no venom, and eventually ... will fall over and play dead".
or even more concise:
" but it has ... , ... and will fall and play...".

So, if it is one clause, why do we need a comma between "venom" and "and"?
Is it because we already have the pair " no ... fangs and no venom"?
thanks in advance

fortunately, the gmat doesn't test punctuation, so there is no need for you to worry about issues like this one.

--

here's the explanation anyway, in case you're curious (remember that you will NOT need to know things like this on the exam!):

there's a general stylistic principle in english (and in several other languages) that says, basically, "when the sentence is really long, you should add extra punctuation to make it easier to read."

for instance, in this sentence ...
i shut the windows and locked the doors
... everything is nice, short, compact, and easy to read, so there's no need for extra commas.

on the other hand, consider this version of the sentence ...
i shut the windows so securely that they would be impossible to pry open, and locked the doors with both the deadbolts and the ordinary locks
... without the comma in the middle, this version would be practically unreadable.

[SC312]

Ron,

Can we eliminate A, B, D and E based on the fact that these options are not complete sentences. Only C has the correct structure of "but + Independent Clause".

"But/And" acts like a wall and therefore modifiers such as "having..." or "with..." would need a subject in the second part of the sentence following "but".

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

Can we eliminate A, B, D and E based on the fact that these options are not complete sentences. Only C has the correct structure of "but + Independent Clause".

"But/And" acts like a wall and therefore modifiers such as "having..." or "with..." would need a subject in the second part of the sentence following "but".

Thanks

i agree that the structure of those other choices is pretty funky, but i'd be wary of trying to posit such a general rule.
see here, for instance:
post88280.html#p88280

[danli311]

Hello Ron,

I had a question pop up into my head related with your ealier post on choices D and E. Pls kindly have a look at the question and correct me if I'm wrong, thank you!

For sentences that include 'but' , the normal sentence strucure is:
S1+V1+O1, BUT S2+V2+O2. ? (i.e. s= subject, v=verb,O=object)

would it be possible to have a sentence structure such as:
S1+V1+O1, BUT V2+O2. ?

If so, D and E could be wrong because both consist of the following structure (which makes 'will' has no parallel verb?)
" S1+v1+O1, but with XXX, if XXX, AND will XXXX.

[RonPurewal]

For sentences that include 'but' , the normal sentence strucure is:
S1+V1+O1, BUT S2+V2+O2. ? (i.e. s= subject, v=verb,O=object)

would it be possible to have a sentence structure such as:
S1+V1+O1, BUT V2+O2. ?

Sure. Look at the correct version of OG Verbal Supplement #63. Even if "not only" isn't there, that's still a correctly constructed sentence.

In general, though, you don't have to think this hard. Just look at what comes after "but" -- as you would with any other parallel signal word -- and then see whether you can find something to which it's sensibly parallel.

If so, D and E could be wrong because both consist of the following structure (which makes 'will' has no parallel verb?)
" S1+v1+O1, but with XXX, if XXX, AND will XXXX.

I'm not great at following the symbolic notation, but it doesn't appear that anything is parallel to "will xxxx" here.

[danli311]

For sentences that include 'but' , the normal sentence strucure is:
S1+V1+O1, BUT S2+V2+O2. ? (i.e. s= subject, v=verb,O=object)

would it be possible to have a sentence structure such as:
S1+V1+O1, BUT V2+O2. ?

Sure. Look at the correct version of OG Verbal Supplement #63. Even if "not only" isn't there, that's still a correctly constructed sentence.

In general, though, you don't have to think this hard. Just look at what comes after "but" -- as you would with any other parallel signal word -- and then see whether you can find something to which it's sensibly parallel.

If so, D and E could be wrong because both consist of the following structure (which makes 'will' has no parallel verb?)
" S1+v1+O1, but with XXX, if XXX, AND will XXXX.

I'm not great at following the symbolic notation, but it doesn't appear that anything is parallel to "will xxxx" here.

Thanks Ron! Very clear indeed.

[RonPurewal]

Great, I'm glad it helped.