GMATPREP- Rice

[pranabiitkgp]

Thanks Ron , I have further studied on the usage of those and got the concept of using 'those' as demonstrative pronoun or as pronoun used in 'new copy' .

Thanks,
PM.

[jnelson0612]

Thanks everyone!

[messi10]

Hello,

Can somebody please shed light on why (a) and (b) are incorrect?

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Hello,

Can somebody please shed light on why (a) and (b) are incorrect?

Thanks

1/
the meaning doesn't make sense.
those choices contain "...the costly requirements...", which is nonsense. the requirements don't cost money; the irrigation and application of fertilizer are the things that cost money.

2/
"requirement of X by Y" is not an idiom that exists in the english language.

[ricardocs84]

Hello:

Please any help, insights would be really appreciated!

New hardy varieties of rice show promise of producing high yields without the costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.

(A) requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties
(B) requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation
(C) requirements for application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation of earlier high-yielding varieties
(D) application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties
(E) irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer that were required by earlier high-yielding varieties

OA E, Narrowed to B,C and D - all sound awful considering that I thought that the irrigation was by water means!

My questions on the OA

I chose B because I thought that there were 2 +separated+ process *irrigation (of water)* and *application (of fertilizer)*

I've searched and encountered that the idiom: required of X by Y doesn't exist in english, but how about "requirement by X of Y" ???

Seems that nobody had my doubt--- guess should be clear that these are 2 process... but still if you think as they were *totally* separated processes you CAN NOT say "irrigation and ... of fertilizer"! (Assuming that you want to irrigate with *water* not with fertilizer)
How can I avoid this meaning trap?

Thanks in advance,

Ricardo

[RonPurewal]

I chose B because I thought that there were 2 +separated+ process *irrigation (of water)* and *application (of fertilizer)*

"Irrigation" already implies the use of water, so it would be redundant to mention both "irrigation" and "water".

I've searched and encountered that the idiom: required of X by Y doesn't exist in english, but how about "requirement by X of Y" ???

Not idiomatic.

Seems that nobody had my doubt--- guess should be clear that these are 2 process... but still if you think as they were *totally* separated processes you CAN NOT say "irrigation and ... of fertilizer"! (Assuming that you want to irrigate with *water* not with fertilizer)

They are totally separate processes.

Irrigation doesn't involve fertilizer, so this other interpretation is simply not a concern. (If a sentence has 2 possible interpretations, one of which makes sense and the other of which is nonsense, then there is no problem.)

If there are two REASONABLE meanings, then you've got an issue.

E.g.,

I spend a great deal of time walking and training my dogs.
^^ Here, we've got a problem.
* Walking the dogs, and also training the dogs?
Or
* Walking (by myself), and training the dogs?
Impossible to tell.

I spend a great deal of time walking and playing iphone games.
^^ No problem. You can't walk a mobile app, so the meaning of this senence is perfectly obvious.

[ricardocs84]

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Thanks!

Sure.

[ghong14]

What is a good way to recognize the subject in these type of sentences? Especially the later one which is more obscure?

I believe there is a subject verb issue here between D and E after "that" correct?

In addition could you not have a costly application for D?

New hardy varieties of rice show promise of producing high yields without the costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.

a) requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties

b) requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation

c) requirements of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation of earlier high-yielding varieties

d) application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties

e) irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer that were required by earler high-yielding varieties

[info123talk]

Hi,

Why option D is incorrect?

New hardy varieties of rice show promise of producing high yields without the costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.

d) application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties

Isn't Costly application modifies both commercial fertilizer and irrigation? And, "was" refers to "Costly application of...." ? is this wrong to say- Application of something is costly? What is wrong in this construction?

[thanghnvn]

[quote="tarek99"]New hardy varieties of rice show promise of producing high yields without the costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.

a) requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties

b) requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation

c) requirements of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation of earlier high-yielding varieties

d) application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties

e) irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer that were required by earler high-yielding varieties


one point is idiom "requirement by" is incorrect.

the second point.

because gmat focuses on meaning, I will focus on meaning relation between 2 entities, here, "costly" and "requirement"

the split "costly application" and " costly requirement" makes me suspect of this meaning relationship

we can not say "requirement is costly". we can only say "requirement is low, high or hard to meet" or "strict requirement"

so "costly requirement " is not logical. Wrong

is my thinking correct?

[RonPurewal]

Correct -- the required actions incur costs. A requirement doesn't cost money.

[AmmuS624]

New hardy varieties of rice show promise of producing high yields without the costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.

a) requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties

b) requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation

c) requirements of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation of earlier high-yielding varieties

d) application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties

e) irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer that were required by earler high-yielding varieties




I chose D, but the OA is E. I thought that "that" in D refers to "irrigation", leading to the singular verb "was." However, how come the singular verb "were" in E is used when the noun just before "that" is singular "commercial fertilizer"?

Hi,

In the above passage ,
A ) Costly requirements of
B) Costly requirements by
C) Costly requirements

are these words correctly used together ? I eliminated A, B, C on basis that requirement cant be costly. I think cost should come with words application, irrigation etc.

Could you correct me If I am wrong.

Regards,
Ammu

[RonPurewal]

I eliminated A, B, C on basis that requirement cant be costly.

Correct. Requirements don't cost money; the required procedures do.