The success of the program to eradicate smallpox

[lxj2009]

Hi, Manhattan staff, regarding D I still have 2 questions:

(1) possible and possiblity
Your previous reply is pasted below. What I think is that the scientists don't consider it a previous possiblity, as written in D, means the scientists didn't think it possible in the past, but think it possible now. therefore for this part, A and D have equal meanings. What's wrong with my opinion here?

previous possibility would mean that it WAS a possibility in the past, but it isn't a possibility anymore. ("all the previous possibilities have vanished.")

(2) is there any thing wrong with "perhaps eradication" in D? I think both "if not eradication" and "perhaps eradication" are right in meaning according to the sentence's context. It makes sense that scientists want to eradicate other similar insects after they have eradicated one kind. What do you think of it?

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

Thanks for posting the text -- definitely makes it easier and quicker for us to use.

As you asked, in Answer C, considered and possible are not servings as adjectives. Considered is part of the verb phrase "had not considered" where as possible can be considered as a verb modifier (think adverb.)

Hope that helps.

Thanks.

Brian Lange

Brian / Ron - Can you please explain why "had not considered", a past perfect tense, is okay? I don't see any other time marker in the past. Please help. The only time marker I could think of is "previously."

Thanks

[jlucero]

Hi, Manhattan staff, regarding D I still have 2 questions:

(1) possible and possiblity
Your previous reply is pasted below. What I think is that the scientists don't consider it a previous possiblity, as written in D, means the scientists didn't think it possible in the past, but think it possible now. therefore for this part, A and D have equal meanings. What's wrong with my opinion here?

previous possibility would mean that it WAS a possibility in the past, but it isn't a possibility anymore. ("all the previous possibilities have vanished.")

Focus less on the possible(adj)/possibility(noun) split:
Anything is possible.
Anything is a possibility.

And more on the previous(adj)/previously(adv) split:
This was a previous possibility. (previous modifies possibility)
This was previously possible. (previously modifies was)

Now look at options C and D:
(C) (It has stimulated experts to pursue something) that they had not previously considered possible.
(D) (It has stimulated experts to pursue something) that had not been considered a previous possibility.

(C) Before, we had not considered this possible. CORRECT
(D) We had not considered this a (previous possibility). You didn't consider this as a previous possibility? Did you consider this a current possibility? Or a future possibility? Or something else?

(2) is there any thing wrong with "perhaps eradication" in D? I think both "if not eradication" and "perhaps eradication" are right in meaning according to the sentence's context. It makes sense that scientists want to eradicate other similar insects after they have eradicated one kind. What do you think of it?

Yes. Perhaps is an adverb which can't modify "eradication" in this sentence. I can't say "I want perhaps eradication". "If not" works as a conjunction to connect two ideas: better control, if not eradication.

[jlucero]

Thanks for posting the text -- definitely makes it easier and quicker for us to use.

As you asked, in Answer C, considered and possible are not servings as adjectives. Considered is part of the verb phrase "had not considered" where as possible can be considered as a verb modifier (think adverb.)

Hope that helps.

Thanks.

Brian Lange

Brian / Ron - Can you please explain why "had not considered", a past perfect tense, is okay? I don't see any other time marker in the past. Please help. The only time marker I could think of is "previously."

Thanks

We had not considered this possible until the success of the program (implied past tense).

This is a case where the program being successful implies that it occurred in the past and before this success, people had not considered something possible.

[sha55]

Hi,

In answer choice D, better control and eradication are connected with an and vs. or in the original. Does this constitute a change in meaning? Is there a preference of one over the other? Generally speaking, should we ever be concerned with changes from and to or, vise versa?

thanks in advance,

Shasha

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

In answer choice D, better control and eradication are connected with an and vs. or in the original. Does this constitute a change in meaning? Is there a preference of one over the other? Generally speaking, should we ever be concerned with changes from and to or, vise versa?

thanks in advance,

Shasha

in general, yes, those changes are going to be significant, because "and" and "or" don't mean the same thing.

here, control and eradication are mutually exclusive ideas -- they can't coexist. control, after all, signifies that the disease still exists (but is under control, to whatever degree); eradication, on the other hand, signifies that the disease is eliminated altogether.
since both of these can't be true at the same time, "and" is nonsense here.

[thanghnvn]

Thank you Manhantan experts.

can make a hard and fast rule as following:

the+nouns+such as

is never correct.

because I find it hard to understand why "the" is impossible logically, I want to remember a rule. I know this is counter to the gmat way of testing.

[jlucero]

Thank you Manhantan experts.

can make a hard and fast rule as following:

the+nouns+such as

is never correct.

because I find it hard to understand why "the" is impossible logically, I want to remember a rule. I know this is counter to the gmat way of testing.

As long as the "such as" refers to "the + nouns", your rule looks good.

[thanghnvn]

There are 2 problems with A.
- Major problem is "THE other infections." THE is too definitive here, carrying the connotation of "every single one of the other infections."
* THE is also incompatible with "such as":
- Correct: I never read this book, but I read the other books on the shelf.
- Correct: I never read this book, but I read other books on the shelf, such as "Right Hand, Left Hand" and "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
- Incorrect: I never read this book, but I read the other books on the shelf, such as "Right Hand, Left Hand" and "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
- Minor problem is "what they had not..." vs. "something they had not..." The "what" construction is awfully strong, suggesting that this was THE ONE THING they hadn't thought possible.
* As an analogy, compare the meanings of "I want to do what I love for a living" and "I want to do something I love for a living." The first suggests that the speaker has one particular field in mind; the second doesn't.

Dear Ron
regarding
"what they had not..." vs "something they had not..."

"what they had not..." mean "the thing, which they had not...". because there is "the" , there is only one thing.

in contrast
"something they had not..." means " there are many things they had not..."

is that right?

thank you Ron.

[RonPurewal]

"what they had not..." mean "the thing, which they had not...". because there is "the" , there is only one thing.

in contrast
"something they had not..." means " there are many things they had not..."

is that right?

thank you Ron.

no, that's not what i meant. what i meant is that "what xxxx" is exclusive -- i.e., it doesn't leave out any of the xxxxx.
e.g.
on the table is what your friend left at my house yesterday.
--> this means that everything your friend left behind is on the table. there could be only 1 thing, or there could be 1,000,000 things.
but...
on the table is something your friend left at my house yesterday.
--> your friend may have left other things besides the one that's on the table.

[harishmullapudi]

option C reads "something they had not previously considered possible -- better control, if not eradication, of such infections as"

Isn't the usage "had not previously considered" wrong here? Because it uses Past Perfect that is unnecessary here?


Please help...

[jlucero]

option C reads "something they had not previously considered possible -- better control, if not eradication, of such infections as"

Isn't the usage "had not previously considered" wrong here? Because it uses Past Perfect that is unnecessary here?


Please help...

(1) If C is the correct answer, don't waste your time wondering if anything in C is ok. It is. GMAC is judge and jury when it comes to making these rules. Our goal is to make rules/generalizations that help us to learn how to correctly decide on GMAC's questions.

(2) I had not considered is a valid expression, because you are implying that you now do consider this. "I had not considered muffins a breakfast food" implies that I now have considered them a breakfast food. So I had not considered something, before I decided to consider it.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Focus less on the possible(adj)/possibility(noun) split:
Anything is possible.
Anything is a possibility.

And more on the previous(adj)/previously(adv) split:
This was a previous possibility. (previous modifies possibility)
This was previously possible. (previously modifies was)

Now look at options C and D:
(C) (It has stimulated experts to pursue something) that they had not previously considered possible.
(D) (It has stimulated experts to pursue something) that had not been considered a previous possibility.

(C) Before, we had not considered this possible. CORRECT
(D) We had not considered this a (previous possibility). You didn't consider this as a previous possibility? Did you consider this a current possibility? Or a future possibility? Or something else?

Hi Joe,

I'm still a little confused about the the previous/previously split. How can you tell that previously modifies was but previous modifies possibility?

Thanks!

[thanghnvn]

There are 2 problems with A.
- Major problem is "THE other infections." THE is too definitive here, carrying the connotation of "every single one of the other infections."
* THE is also incompatible with "such as":
- Correct: I never read this book, but I read the other books on the shelf.
- Correct: I never read this book, but I read other books on the shelf, such as "Right Hand, Left Hand" and "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
- Incorrect: I never read this book, but I read the other books on the shelf, such as "Right Hand, Left Hand" and "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
- Minor problem is "what they had not..." vs. "something they had not..." The "what" construction is awfully strong, suggesting that this was THE ONE THING they hadn't thought possible.
* As an analogy, compare the meanings of "I want to do what I love for a living" and "I want to do something I love for a living." The first suggests that the speaker has one particular field in mind; the second doesn't.

though we can make a hard and fast rule that "the+noun+...such as" is incompatible, I want to understand why "the noun" is incompatible with "such as".

ron can use explain to us why "the noun" is incompatible with "such as". this point is involved the meaning analysis, I think. we are non native and it is hard for use to use "the" and "a".

pls, explain more on this point. Thank you, Ron

[RonPurewal]

I'm still a little confused about the the previous/previously split. How can you tell that previously modifies was but previous modifies possibility?

Thanks!

"Previous" is an adjective; "previously" is an adverb.