Target Test Prep GMAT Verbal Challenge Question 6

Challenge Question

hard

Because of rocks that protrude into the river at Lepenski Vir, there is whirling water that makes seeing fish easier, unlike the rushing waters of the river where it goes through the gorge.

Because of rocks that protrude into the river at Lepenski Vir, there is whirling water that makes seeing fish easier, unlike

Since rocks protrude into the river at Lepenski Vir, there is whirling water to make seeing fish easier, and therefore it is unlike

Where rocks are protruding into the river at Lepenski Vir, resulting in whirling water making seeing fish easier, unlike

Where rocks protrude into the river at Lepenski Vir, there is resulting whirling water, and it makes seeing fish easier, which is unlike

Because rocks protrude into the river at Lepenski Vir, whirling water there makes seeing fish easier, as opposed to

Confirm your answer

Solution:

CORRECT ANSWER(A) Because of rocks that protrude into the river at Lepenski Vir, there is whirling water that makes seeing fish easier, unlike the rushing waters of the river where it goes through the gorge.

This version logically compares the whirling water to the rushing waters by saying, “whirling water that makes seeing fish easier, unlike the rushing waters of the river where it goes through the gorge. ” Remember that there is no rule that we cannot compare a singular noun with a plural noun.

Additionally, through the use of the opening phrase that begins with “because,” the sentence makes clear the cause-and-effect relationship between the rocks and the whirling water.

Finally, the modifier “that makes seeing fish easier” logically expresses a characteristic of the whirling water.

(B) Since rocks protrude into the river at Lepenski Vir, there is whirling water to make seeing fish easier, and therefore it is unlike the rushing waters of the river where it goes through the gorge.

In saying, “there is whirling water to make seeing fish easier,” this version conveys the illogical meaning that the whirling water is there for the purpose of making seeing fish easier.

Furthermore, it is not clear whether the pronoun “it” refers to the river, the whirling water, or Lepenski Vir. If we assume that “it” refers to the “whirling water,” then “there is whirling water …, and therefore it is unlike the rushing waters” conveys the nonsensical meaning that the whirling water is unlike the rushing waters because there is whirling water.

(C) Where rocks are protruding into the river at Lepenski Vir, resulting in whirling water making seeing fish easier, unlike the rushing waters of the river where it goes through the gorge.

This version is composed of a string of modifiers: where rocks are …; resulting in …; making seeing fish easier; unlike the rushing waters …. Nowhere in this version is there an independent clause. Without an independent clause, this version is not a complete sentence.

Notice also that “where rocks are protruding into the river at Lepenski Vir, resulting in whirling water making seeing fish easier” conveys the illogical meaning that the whirling water makes seeing fish easier as a result of the protruding rocks. The logical meaning to be conveyed is that the water whirls as a result of the rocks, and the whirling makes seeing fish easier.

(D) Where rocks protrude into the river at Lepenski Vir, there is resulting whirling water, and it makes seeing fish easier, which is unlike the rushing waters of the river where it goes through the gorge.

This version expresses that the whirling water is “resulting,” without ever making clear the cause of this result. We may assume, given the statement “where rocks protrude into the river at Lepenski Vir, there is resulting whirling water” that the cause is the protruding rocks, but this version tells us only that there is “resulting whirling water” at a certain place where there also are rocks that protrude into the river. The cause-and-effect connection – that the whirling water is a result of the rocks' protruding into the river – is never made.

In addition, there is no logical referent for the pronoun “which. ” Note that the relative clause “which is unlike the rushing waters” is too far from the pronoun “it” to modify “it. ”

(E) Because rocks protrude into the river at Lepenski Vir, whirling water there makes seeing fish easier, as opposed to the rushing waters of the river where it goes through the gorge.

“As opposed to” does not mean “unlike. ” The meaning of “as opposed to” is along the lines of “rather than” or “not. ”

So, let's replace “as opposed to” with “rather than” to see what this version conveys:

Because rocks protrude into the river at Lepenski Vir, whirling water there makes seeing fish easier, rather than the rushing waters of the river where it goes through the gorge.

We now can easily see that the sentence conveys the meaning that whirling water there (at Lepenski Vir) makes seeing fish easier rather than makes the rushing waters of the river where it goes through the gorge. Since whirling water at Lepenski Vir would not make the rushing waters of the river, this version is clearly nonsensical.

Also, it does not quite make sense to say that, because rocks protrude into the river, the whirling water makes seeing fish easier. If whirling water would make seeing fish easier, wouldn't it do so regardless of whether rocks protrude into the river? Contrast this meaning with the meaning conveyed by (A), which is that, because the rocks protrude, there is whirling water, and that whirling water makes seeing fish easier. The meaning conveyed by (A) makes more sense. Perhaps this subtle, or even debatable, issue is not a clear reason to eliminate this choice, but it does contribute to the case for choosing (A) over (E).

Correct answer:A