The javelin has a sharp point, which is more obviously

[Khush]

The javelin has a sharp point, which is more obviously dangerous than the discus; moreover, the discus is actually more likely to injure bystanders because, especially when wet, it can slip out of the thrower's hand and fly in a random trajectory.
A) javelin has a sharp point, which is more obviously dangerous than the discus; moreover,
B) javelin has a sharp point and is obviously more dangerous than the discus; however,
C) javelin's sharp point is obviously more dangerous than the discus, even though
D) javelin's sharp point makes it obviously more dangerous than the discus, even though
E) javelin, with its sharp point, is more obviously dangerous than the discus; however,

OA: E
i chose B

please see if my reasoning seems fine:

-> the difference between "more obviously dangerous"and "obviously more dangerous" is that :

More obviously dangerous visibly more dangerous/ looks like it is more dangerous

Obviously more dangerous actually more dangerous/ Clearly more dangerous/the author himself says that it is indeed more dangerous

am i correct?

-> I have few queries about choice B:

1) will it be correct if we write the choice B as : "The javelin has a sharp point and thus is more obviously dangerous than the discus."
can we also write "hence" in place of "thus"?

2) ignoring the other reasons why choice B is wrong for a moment, can't we write only the helping verb after "AND", without repeating the subject , if we are referring to the same subject before "AND" ?

[RonPurewal]

-> the difference between "more obviously dangerous"and "obviously more dangerous" is that :

More obviously dangerous visibly more dangerous/ looks like it is more dangerous

Obviously more dangerous actually more dangerous/ Clearly more dangerous/the author himself says that it is indeed more dangerous

am i correct?

yes.

1) will it be correct if we write the choice B as : "The javelin has a sharp point and thus is more obviously dangerous than the discus."

This would work.

Note"”you've also switched "more" and "obviously"; you didn't put those in boldface, so, not sure whether you noticed. (In the original choice B, those two words are in the opposite order, making that choice nonsense.)

can we also write "hence" in place of "thus"?

Yes.

[RonPurewal]

2) ignoring the other reasons why choice B is wrong for a moment, can't we write only the helping verb after "AND", without repeating the subject , if we are referring to the same subject before "AND" ?

I don't understand the question. Can you write the altered version out, please?

Thanks.

[Khush]

2) ignoring the other reasons why choice B is wrong for a moment, can't we write only the helping verb after "AND", without repeating the subject , if we are referring to the same subject before "AND" ?

I don't understand the question. Can you write the altered version out, please?

Thanks.

Please ignore my question, Ron.
I wanted to know the usage of "AND" and placement of "Helping verbs" in general.

I am going through your study hall sessions now.

[Khush]

1) will it be correct if we write the choice B as : "The javelin has a sharp point and thus is more obviously dangerous than the discus."
This would work.

Note"”you've also switched "more" and "obviously"; you didn't put those in boldface, so, not sure whether you noticed. (In the original choice B, those two words are in the opposite order, making that choice nonsense.)

Yes Ron!

for my understanding, i have revised the answer choice B to make it a correct choice, fixing ALL the issues in that (including "obviously more" issue). otherwise B is a wrong answer.

[Khush]

Thanks much for confirming my understanding, Ron!

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[kunkha]

Can someone explain to me the difference between "obviously more dangerous" and "more obviously dangerous"? There's two arguments I have - (a) the structure of these phrases, and (b) the meaning implied by the phrases.

I saw this problem and thought that 'obviously more dangerous' is probably right. The phrase 'more obviously dangerous' sounds weird, plus I feel like the meaning of the 'more dangerous' phrase gets obfuscated when you break it apart with an adverb.

Here's what really tripped me up - the meaning of the sentence. I understand that the author is going for a contradiction -- but even if a discus causes more injuries, a javelin is more dangerous. That's why I chose B.

This may sound looney for me to say -- you must be thinking "so this guy thinks that a thing that causes more injuries is not more dangerous than another thing that doesn't cause as many injuries?" Well, perhaps, but a nuclear bomb is certainly more dangerous than driving a car, even though more people get hurt from driving cars.

I thought that the author's intent was to say that a javelin is more dangerous, but the discus still causes more injuries.

Could someone please help me out here or clarify?

[jnelson0612]

Can someone explain to me the difference between "obviously more dangerous" and "more obviously dangerous"? There's two arguments I have - (a) the structure of these phrases, and (b) the meaning implied by the phrases.

I saw this problem and thought that 'obviously more dangerous' is probably right. The phrase 'more obviously dangerous' sounds weird, plus I feel like the meaning of the 'more dangerous' phrase gets obfuscated when you break it apart with an adverb.

Here's what really tripped me up - the meaning of the sentence. I understand that the author is going for a contradiction -- but even if a discus causes more injuries, a javelin is more dangerous. That's why I chose B.

This may sound looney for me to say -- you must be thinking "so this guy thinks that a thing that causes more injuries is not more dangerous than another thing that doesn't cause as many injuries?" Well, perhaps, but a nuclear bomb is certainly more dangerous than driving a car, even though more people get hurt from driving cars.

I thought that the author's intent was to say that a javelin is more dangerous, but the discus still causes more injuries.

Could someone please help me out here or clarify?

About your first question, check out Ron's post (second in the thread) which addresses this.

I read this and think of it this way: the javelin has a sharp point and it appears more dangerous than the discus, but the discus hurts many more people so it is actually more dangerous than the javelin. So it's kind of a contrast between what you would think based on the appearance of the two items and the reality of the situation.

[SpellB946]

I cannot seem to agree with the explanation given in Manahatan answer.
" if obviously is placed in front of more dangerous, then the resulting sentence contradicts itself. The intended meaning is not that the javelin is actually more dangerous, but, rather, that the danger posed by the javelin is more obvious than that posed by the discus; therefore, obviously should be placed directly in front of dangerous."

The original sentence is clearly wrong but can be fixed in two possible ways, depending on one's interpretation of the word 'dangerous'.
The explanation assumes that being more dangerous exclusively relates with the probability of the associated accident.
We trip more often than we get run over by a truck. Does that mean tripping is more dangerous than being run over?
Without knowing the real-world damages caused by a discus vs a javelin, I would naturally fix this sentence by interpreting the author's intended meaning as "obviously more dangerous", implying that getting hit by a javelin will result in far greater damage than getting hit by a discus.
The option (B) then makes perfect sense AND is grammatically correct, while the recommended (E) is based on a dubious assumption.

Arguments?

[RonPurewal]

the non-underlined part states that "the discus is actually more likely to injure bystanders". so, the point of the sentence is clearly to emphasize the danger of the discus.

[RonPurewal]

also, the use of "and" (in choice B) is a clear error.

the use of "and" (by itself--i.e., NOT "and so/therefore/thus..." implies that the two things are separate and independent.

so, you have a sentence that mistakenly implies that the sharp point is just a random observation, and is NOT the reason why the javelin is dangerous.

[RonPurewal]

e.g.,
Today there was more traffic than usual, and I was late to work.
--> meaning: "here are two different misfortunes that befell me today." in formal writing, this sentence implies that the traffic IS NOT the reason why i was late.

Today there was more traffic than usual, and so I was late to work.
--> the traffic made me late.

[XiaoJ881]

When I read the question, the logic chain appeared to me as
1. discus can cause more accidents
2. javelin has a sharp point
3. despite having less accidents, javelin can be more fatal if accident actually occurs, because of its sharp point, hence more dangerous in general

Acknowledged the explanation of OA works, can anyone point out any problem in this structure?

Also, OE D

(D) This sentence is self-contradictory: it begins by stating that the javelin is "obviously more dangerous" than the discus, but then describes the discus as more dangerous. This version also sets up a comparison between the javelin's sharp point and the discus. This comparison is nonparallel; the sentence should compare the discus with the javelin itself, not with the javelin's point.

does the explanation on the comparison part actually make sense?
I see

javelin's sharp point makes it obviously more dangerous than the discus

Why am I wrong to think 'it' refers to javelin and directly compares with discus?

[anmol10]

The OE for choice B is "This sentence is self-contradictory: it begins by stating that the javelin is "obviously more dangerous" than the discus, but then describes the discus as more dangerous. Additionally, the connector and illogically suggests that the obviousness of the danger posed by the javelin is independent of its having a sharp point."

How is the sentence self contradictory? The statement starts with stating that the Javelin is obviously more dangerous than discus and then correctly uses the contrast word however to describe that the in fact discuss can actually be more dangerous. Because of the word 'however' it seemed perfect to me. Can anyone explain? Thanks.