scrub jay can remember

[shalinibhatia15]

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

A tends not to bother recovering a perishable treat

B tends not to bothering to recover a perishable treat it

[thoppae.saravanan]

to bothering in option B is incorrect. So option A should be right.

Btw, please quote the source as well as OA.

[shalinibhatia15]

this is from gmatprep

surely the answer is A but i need some more explanation

thanks

[RonPurewal]

hi --

please follow the forum rules (which are accessible in the first post in each folder). in particular, we require that you post ALL answer choices with each question.

please repost the question, along with all five of the answer choices.
also, when you do so, please take greater care in transcribing it -- there are at least three typographical errors in your prompt sentence, and you have the wrong choice A (note that choice A always contains exactly the same content as the original).
thanks!

[redable]

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 recovering a perishable treat if
D. tends not to bother recovering a perishable treat
E. tends not bothering to recover a perishable treat if

OA: D

I am confused about the structure of parallelism. What's wrong with option A?

Thanks in advance

[RonPurewal]

What's wrong with option A?

Thanks in advance

the lowest-hanging fruit on that choice is the verb (at the beginning), which is plural. this is inconsistent with the subject "scrub jay", which is singular.

there's also the problem with "if [participle]" -- a modifier that, by convention, refers to the SUBJECT of the sentence (not the proximate noun).
for instance:
Animal 1 will attack animal 2 if injected with enough of the hormones related to aggression.
--> in this sentence it is animal 1, not animal 2, that is being injected with hormones.

so, choice (a) (as well as (c) and (e)) implies that the bird itself is "stored long enough to have rotted" -- an interesting idea, but certainly not the intended meaning of the sentence.

[abemartin87]

What's wrong with option A?

Thanks in advance

the lowest-hanging fruit on that choice is the verb (at the beginning), which is plural. this is inconsistent with the subject "scrub jay", which is singular.

there's also the problem with "if [participle]" -- a modifier that, by convention, refers to the SUBJECT of the sentence (not the proximate noun).
for instance:
Animal 1 will attack animal 2 if injected with enough of the hormones related to aggression.
--> in this sentence it is animal 1, not animal 2, that is being injected with hormones.

so, choice (a) (as well as (c) and (e)) implies that the bird itself is "stored long enough to have rotted" -- an interesting idea, but certainly not the intended meaning of the sentence.

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?


Animal 1 will attack animal 2 if injected with enough of the hormones related to aggression.
--> in this sentence it is animal 1, not animal 2, that is being injected with hormones.


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 ??

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

[RonPurewal]

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.

[abemartin87]

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.

Thanks in advance

Hey Ron,

I want to clear this up a bit more and please excuse me if I aberrate a bit slightly from the original post. As you have eloquently put it , while the GMAT does make a concerted effort to avoid the "x that y that z", "x to y to z", I have noticed this construction as the correct answer in many problems.

Here is variation of a correct example :

Scientists believe that one of the least expensive ways (to begin) (to halt) the damage done to the ozone layer is to paint the roads and streets with white paint.

While I would have preferred the "to begin halting" construction, it seems that the GMAT prefers

1) I know the best way to do something <--prefered
more than
2) I know the best way of doing something

Here is another example:

My sister is more likely than I to plan on studying. <-- prefered
My sister is more likely than I in planning to study.

Am I right in my analysis? Thank you for your patience and guidance Ron.

[RonPurewal]

I have noticed this construction as the correct answer in many problems.

Here is variation of a correct example :

Scientists believe that one of the least expensive ways (to begin) (to halt) the damage done to the ozone layer is to paint the roads and streets with white paint.

* where is the original correct example?
if it is in gmat prep, just post it here.
if it is in the official guide, then don't post it here, but give the edition and problem number.

* are these words within the underlined part? (if not, then this example is irrelevant, since you don't have to use the distinction to make any decisions.)

1) I know the best way to do something <--prefered
more than
2) I know the best way of doing something

either of these should be fine.
if #1 produces "x to y to z", then you should try to use #2 instead.
if #2 produces "x of y of z", then you should try to use #1 instead.
if neither of these things happens, then i don't think there is a preference.

My sister is more likely than I to plan on studying. <-- prefered
My sister is more likely than I in planning to study.

this pair is not an example of "preferred"/"not preferred"; the second of these is unidiomatic (i.e., wrong).

[brparajuli]

Sorry to Open up this old thread, but wanted to clarify something.

John will eat, and run toward the school.

From my understanding, "will" applies to both verbs. Since we have axillary verb the main verb needs to be in basic forms (not eats or runs for example).

In the question "A scrub jay can remember (verb 1)..., and tend (verb two)"

Why not the axillary "can" applies to verb 2 tend as well?

I know D is correct here, but above was the sole reason why I went with A in the first place, so I wanted to understand.

[jlucero]

Sorry to Open up this old thread, but wanted to clarify something.

John will eat, and run toward the school.

From my understanding, "will" applies to both verbs. Since we have axillary verb the main verb needs to be in basic forms (not eats or runs for example).

In the question "A scrub jay can remember (verb 1)..., and tend (verb two)"

Why not the axillary "can" applies to verb 2 tend as well?

I know D is correct here, but above was the sole reason why I went with A in the first place, so I wanted to understand.

Because tend is also an auxiliary verb in this sentence:

A scrub jay CAN REMEMBER X
and
A scrub jay TENDS NOT TO BOTHER Y.

Idiomatically, you wouldn't say that X can tend not to do something.
Can = able to
Tend to = inclined to

The only time you'd want to combine those things is if you are something is able to be inclined to do something:

Dogs can tend to be loud.

[brparajuli]

Thank you for the explanation Joe!

I have a quick follow up question if you don't mind. You said tend is acting as an auxiliary verb here.

But, auxiliaries do not have tense or singularity/plurality, right?

For e.g. you don't say "can" for plural nouns and "cans" for singular nouns. If so, how do you explain "tends" in D.

Would you mind clarifying my doubt here?

Thanks,
BC

[jlucero]

Auxiliary verbs can have singular/plural forms. Is/are or have/has are examples.

He is running.
They are running.

At the same time, I find myself doubting whether tend is really an auxiliary verb in this sentence. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I'm going to say that this might be a better example of when things are so far away from other parts of the sentence, it's best to restate any part of the sentence that is intended in the later parallel element.

John will run and eat. (easy and concise)
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)

[divineacclivity]

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.)

[/quote]

Just one question on this one:
If we remove "although" in the example sentence above, would it still follow the rule, that is, would the participle modifier still modify the subject or the placement of the participle modifier change the meaning of the sentence.

thank you very much in advance

Oh I think I know the answer; please correct me if I'm wrong.

James still played with his son, tired of the day long activity. => son is tired

Tired of the day long activity, James still played with his son => James tired

James, tired of the day long activity, still played with his son => James tired

Am I right?
Is there any other way this sentence could be written (in terms of placement of modifier) & we could device another meaning