GMATPrep

[tim]

glad to hear it!

[visitdhiraj]

Hi Ron,

Could yo please explain the difference between the choice C and D?

I am confused. Does D change the meaning?

Would a comma after the word "and" would make the choice D correct?

[jlucero]

Hi Ron,

Could yo please explain the difference between the choice C and D?

I am confused. Does D change the meaning?

Would a comma after the word "and" would make the choice D correct?

D is much easier to spot when you take out the junk:

C. the army of X is (1) more than 2,000 years old and (2) took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete

D. the army of X is (1) more than 2,000 years old and (2) 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete

The second idea in D is now: the army of X is 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete.

This is nonsense. There's a lot of different ways to fix this (1 of which Tim already mentioned), but since C already does this, let's go with that fix.

[chetan86]

Hi,

I am confused about the structure of the sentence.

the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

I want to know
1. 'in his afterlife' refers to Shi Huang or Army??
2. 'is more than' - what this refers to?

Can anyone explain this sentence structure with the use of example??

[RonPurewal]

Chetan86, every language has (1) things that are hard to understand, and that therefore need explanation, and (2) things that are self-evident.

Don't take this the wrong way, but both of these questions are definitely #2. If you just think about them for a few seconds, you'll have the answers.

1. 'in his afterlife' refers to Shi Huang or Army??

If you're talking about "his", you've got at least three ways to figure that out.
1/ What does your common sense tell you?
2/ Can "he"/"his" refer to an entire army?
3/ The "army" consists of little soldiers made of terracotta (a craft material). Are such things commonly believed to have an "afterlife"?

There's your answer.

The entire phrase is talking about when the little soldiers are supposed to protect this guy (something else that's not very hard to figure out).

[RonPurewal]

2. 'is more than' - what this refers to?

What's your understanding of this phrase? I bet you can figure it out.
The Sears Tower is more than 1000 feet tall.

I'm not trying to be an obstructionist here; I'm just trying to get you to think about these things.

[RonPurewal]

Can anyone explain this sentence structure with the use of example??

This is a long sentence that contains many different constructions. Please specify which construction(s) you're asking about.
Thanks.

[TooLong150]

Can any instructor explain whether "took" in " took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete" is parallel to "created"? If not, which word is it parallel to?

[RonPurewal]

Can any instructor explain whether "took" in " took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete" is parallel to "created"? If not, which word is it parallel to?

Think about the meaning of the sentence. The author is giving us two "wow" facts about this army of terra-cotta soldiers:
1/ It ___________.
2/ It took 36 years to finish.

What is fact #1?

Note: If you're reading the original prompt as you should"”focusing on what it's supposed to say, NOT on grammar"”then, by the time you're debating this split, you should already know what #1 is.

According to your reading (and common sense), what is #1?

[TooLong150]

The first fact is "it is more than 2000 years old".

So does this mean that we can have parallelism in this case, because "is more than 2000 years old" is used as an adjective and "took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete" is also used as an adjective? If this is the wrong thinking, where is the grammatically parallel structure here given that this is from the correct answer and correct answers are 100% correct in the parallel (hehe) GMAT universe?

[RonPurewal]

"Is" and "took" are verbs with the same subject, so "is xxxx" and "took yyyy" are perfectly parallel.

I'm somewhat bemused by your contention that these things are adjectives. Verbs can't be adjectives; in fact, verbs can't be anything other than ... well, verbs.
In fact, "verb VS. __ing used as adjective" is a common split that determines sentence structure. (E.g., if a sentence needs a verb somewhere, then the __ing will create a sentence fragment.) Be sure to keep them straight.

[TooLong150]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for replying. I just thought that "took" was a part participle that was used to begin a participial phrase noun modifier, which is used as an adjective.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for replying. I just thought that "took" was a part participle that was used to begin a participial phrase noun modifier, which is used as an adjective.

I don't know what any of these terms (except "adjective") mean. But, "took" is the past-tense form of "take".
I took the dog home with me.

I think "taken" is the modifier form you're looking for.

[TooLong150]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for replying. I just thought that "took" was a part participle that was used to begin a participial phrase noun modifier, which is used as an adjective.

I don't know what any of these terms (except "adjective") mean. But, "took" is the past-tense form of "take".
I took the dog home with me.

I think "taken" is the modifier form you're looking for.

Sorry, I meant "past participle" instead of "part participle", but you answered my question. "Taken" was the correct modifier form that I was looking for.

[RonPurewal]

Great.