scrub jay can remember

[RonPurewal]

in GMAT,
John will run to the school on Main Street before the bell rings and will play with his dog at home. (needs to restate the future intention with will)
The second "will" must be added?please clarify,thanks!

In a sentence of this length, if you don't add the second "will", the sentence is basically unreadable.

This won't actually be tested on the exam -- because the version without the "will" isn't actually wrong, just awkward -- so it's not really worth worrying about.

[Suapplle]

Ron，thanks for your help ^_^

[RonPurewal]

Ron，thanks for your help ^_^

You're welcome.

[manhhiep2509]

The correct version of the question is below.

A scrub jay can remember when it cached a particular piece of food in a particular place, researchers have discovered, and tend not to bother to recover a perishable treat if stored long enough to have rotted.

A. tend not to bother to recover a perishable treat if
B. they tend not to bother recovering a perishable treat
C. tending not to bother to recover a perishable treat it
D. tends not to bother recovering a perishable treat
E. tends not bothering to recover a perishable treat it

Hi instructors.

I think "it" in choice C and E is incorrect because "it stored long enough to have rotted" implies that the sentence is talking about a certain bird not a species of bird, and that the bird no longer store the food. In other words, past tense in the context is incorrect.

is my understanding correct?

[RonPurewal]

The correct version of the question is below.

A scrub jay can remember when it cached a particular piece of food in a particular place, researchers have discovered, and tend not to bother to recover a perishable treat if stored long enough to have rotted.

A. tend not to bother to recover a perishable treat if
B. they tend not to bother recovering a perishable treat
C. tending not to bother to recover a perishable treat it
D. tends not to bother recovering a perishable treat
E. tends not bothering to recover a perishable treat it

Hi instructors.

I think "it" in choice C and E is incorrect because "it stored long enough to have rotted" implies that the sentence is talking about a certain bird not a species of bird, and that the bird no longer store the food. In other words, past tense in the context is incorrect.

I agree with you here, although this is much, much too subtle to be a necessary elimination (both of those choices can be eliminated for reasons that are much easier to grasp).

But, yes, that's an insightful observation.

[RonPurewal]

The other problem with having "it" as the subject is that "it xxx long enough to have rotted" implies that the bird itself has rotted. Oops.

[manhhiep2509]

The other problem with having "it" as the subject is that "it xxx long enough to have rotted" implies that the bird itself has rotted. Oops.

I have thought that "to have rotted" refer to "treat", the object of "stored".

Why does "to have rooted" refer to "it", not "treat"?

[RonPurewal]

If you have subject + action + to ____, in which ____ is a consequence, then the ____ still has the same agent as the previous action"”i.e., the subject of the sentence.

E.g.,
I dug a hole in the ground to store valuables.
--> This sentence implies that I, personally, want to store valuables in the hole. If I am digging the hole so that someone else can bury things, I need to re-structure the sentence.

[xiaolanjingheleaf]

Hey Ron,

1) Would you happen to know problems in the OG that contain this same mistake? This is the first time I have heard of this rule. So any time I see a sentence with "if VERB-ed" in the middle, I should automatically look at the subject and determine whether "if VERB-ed" logically refers back to it. Do I have the rule down?

i'm sorry, but i don't have any o.g. references off the top of my head.
still, this is a very general principle that doesn't just apply to this one particular type of modifier. after a little bit of consideration, i can give you the following more general formulation:
if you have a modifier of the form (subordinating conjunction) + (participle), then, no matter where that modifier is placed, it should describe the subject of the clause to which it is attached.
for instance, all of the following sentences have the same meaning:
although exhausted from a long day of work, james still played football with his son.
james, although exhausted from a long day of work, still played football with his son.
james still played football with his son, although exhausted from a long day of work.
in all of these examples, the modifier is talking about james, not james's son. (the wording of the last one is a little bit wonky, but wonky wordings are not tested on this exam.)

2) Would you agree that in addition to the "if VERB-ed" problem and the S-V disaggreement, answer choice (A) is unidiomatic

tend(s) not to bother to recover a perishable treat ??

nope, not unidiomatic.

on the other hand, gmac does seem to make a fairly concerted effort to avoid repetitions such as "x that y that z", "x to y to z", etc.
i've posted on this a couple of times on the forum, although i can't seem to find the threads right now. i do remember one specific case of a gmat prep problem in which the correct answer used "evidence to suggest that..." instead of "evidence that suggests that...", presumably for the same reason; there were a couple of other examples as well.
needless to say, this sort of thing will not be explicitly tested; i.e., if it shows up, there will always be genuine errors in the choices that are meant to be wrong.

not to bother to recover sounds extremely awkward compared to the more active "recovering"

these constructions have no relation whatsoever to the concepts of active and passive.

Hi, Ron, I find the quesiton using "evidence to suggest that..." as the rgith answer. It turned out to be OG13 #123. Since it may be not allowed to post OG questions here, I just give the nubmer of the question.

[RonPurewal]

thanks.

[ManjunathD921]

Sorry to open up an old thread. Please let me know on the below question.

In the sentence.......discovered , and tends not to bother recovering a perishable treat ....... ( I have substituted the correct answer) . Can you help me identifying the subject of second clause post comma and ( Because both clauses should have subj + verb )

[RonPurewal]

Sorry to open up an old thread. Please let me know on the below question.

In the sentence.......discovered , and tends not to bother recovering a perishable treat ....... ( I have substituted the correct answer) . Can you help me identifying the subject of second clause post comma and ( Because both clauses should have subj + verb )

well, "discovered" definitely isn't the first part!
if you think "discovered" is the first part of that parallel structure, then you're trying to analyze the sentence with NO understanding AT ALL of WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO SAY -- in other words, you're trying to undertake an impossible task.

"researchers have discovered" is a modifier that's just tossed in there.

but, go back and figure out what the sentence is actually saying, FIRST.
THEN figure out the parallel structure.