Some scientists contend that many species of dinosaur had a

[JJ]

Some scientists contend that many species of dinosaur had a metabolism more like a warm-blooded mammal’s than a cold-blooded reptile’s.

A. that many species of dinosaur had a metabolism more like
B. that the metabolism of many dinosaur species were more like
C. that the metabolisms of many species of dinosaurs were more like those of
D. there were many species of dinosaurs that had metabolisms more like those of
E. there were many dinosaur species that had a metabolism more like that of


Tell me what you think, and I'll give you the surprising answer

[Guest]

I will go for B

[Pathik]

Some scientists contend that many species of dinosaur had a metabolism more like a warm-blooded mammal’s than a cold-blooded reptile’s.

A. that many species of dinosaur had a metabolism more like
B. that the metabolism of many dinosaur species were more like
C. that the metabolisms of many species of dinosaurs were more like those of
D. there were many species of dinosaurs that had metabolisms more like those of
E. there were many dinosaur species that had a metabolism more like that of


Tell me what you think, and I'll give you the surprising answer

Does B has a typo - metabolisms(plural)?
If it is plural, then I will pick B. If not, I will pick A.

A is close call. But I think singular article(a) is wrong for metabolism.
C - metabolisms ... were more like metabolisms of mammal's metabolism - wrong

D and E are out because we need contend that

Pathik

[JJ]

I went for B, the answer is A. Tho I cannot 100% guarantee A is the official answer.

[JJ]

I think A is final. Metabolism cannot be "WERE" in B.

I have a pen just like yours. Sounds right...

The parallelism thing sometimes makes me think awry... >_<

[RonPurewal]

this problem shouldn't be that challenging if you have a grasp of the very mechanical issues that commonly plague these sorts of problems.

in particular:
(c), (d), and (e) are all eliminated by their use of redundant language: since 'mammal's' and 'reptile's' are already possessives, there is no need for 'those of'/'that of'.

the poster above is correct about (b): the subject of 'were' is, ostensibly, 'metabolism', creating a singular-plural mismatch.

answer = a

[violetwind]

the poster above is correct about (b): the subject of 'were' is, ostensibly, 'metabolism', creating a singular-plural mismatch.

Ron, I'm just wondering if the "metabolism" in B were "metabolisms", could B be right? would it conflict with "a ...mammal's " and with"a..reptile's" ?

Thank you very much!

[allandu]

Hi Ron,


I have the same question as violetwind's.
If change metabolism to metabolisms, will B be correct?

Thanks

[tim]

Violet, you're right. Changing it to "metabolisms" would conflict with the possessives, which both require "metabolism" to be singular..

[namnam123]

I agree with a.

Ron teach us that never question an official answer, but learn from it.

the matter is that in A, there is " ' " , the comma at the end of the sentence while there is no "of " phrase in the previous place.

in og books, I see a question in which we have to choose between 2 answer choices, one of which has "of" phrase at the begining of the sentence, and one of which has no "of " phrase at the begining of the sentence and both of which has comma phrase at the end of the sentence. The result is that the oa is the choice which has "of" phrase at the begining.

We learn from the official answer as Ron teach.

the rule that we need "of" phrase before "comma showing possession" is NOT ABSOLUTE.

similarly, the rule of pronound AMBIGUITY is not absolute. we can tolerate the ambiguity

similarly, the rule of keeping the verb in the right clause in the comparision sentence whch has 2 clauses is not absolute.
We prefer to keep the verb at the right clause even when there is no ambiguity.

the matter is that on gmat, some rules are not absolute.

[RonPurewal]

the matter is that in A, there is " ' " , the comma at the end of the sentence while there is no "of " phrase in the previous place.

there are no commas in any of the five versions of this sentence.

in og books, I see a question in which we have to choose between 2 answer choices, one of which has "of" phrase at the begining of the sentence, and one of which has no "of " phrase at the begining of the sentence and both of which has comma phrase at the end of the sentence. The result is that the oa is the choice which has "of" phrase at the begining.

i don't really understand what you are saying here, but the basic deal is that you just have to match up the possessives. if the possessives (either "of" or apostrophe+"s" or both) in the two parts match, then the construction works.
for instance:

Harvard's endowment is larger than Stanford's --> this is correct.

Harvard's endowment is larger than that of any other university --> this is also correct. note that there is no feasible way to attach apostrophe+"s" to the second part, so this is as good as it's going to get.

the tailoring of my suit is crisper than that of Nate's --> also correct; note that everything has its counterpart here.

[thanghnvn]

I have an idea which I wish you comment

In the og and gmatprep questions, I see the 2 cases

NOUN OF NOUNS

and

NOUNS OF NOUNS.



the single noun can go with plural " the leg of those table is good"

or plural noun can go with plunal: the legs of those table are good"

The point I want to make is that gmat never test us hard grammar point such as above.

Is my thinking correct?

[RonPurewal]

the single noun can go with plural " the leg of those table is good"

or plural noun can go with plunal: the legs of those table are good"

The point I want to make is that gmat never test us hard grammar point such as above.

Is my thinking correct?

nope. not at all, actually. this is not a grammar point at all -- it's just a function of what that sentence means!
if, in context, there is more than one of something, then you should use a plural noun; if there is only one, then you should use a singular noun.
the mother of those two boys --> correct if the two boys have the same mother, incorrect if they have different mothers.
the mothers of those two boys --> correct if the two boys have different mothers, incorrect if they have the same mother.

what concerns me more, however, is the fact that you don't seem to have a basic grasp of singular and plural nouns; for instance, you wrote "those table" twice in your last post. if you can't reliably distinguish between singular and plural nouns, then there isn't much point in thinking about this kind of stuff yet.

[thanghnvn]

Pls, help
can I eliminate D and E because "contend" has no "that"?

This error is absolute or not. I mean Can I apply a HARD AND FAST RULE when I see a choice having no "that" ?

[tim]

Actually thanghnvn, I've seen a LOT of your posts where you are asking whether there is a hard and fast rule about something. I would strongly advise you to start looking for general rules that can apply a majority of the time. You'll find you are far more successful (and less frustrated) if you learn a few general rules rather than trying to find a huge number of hard and fast rules that apply to a ridiculously small subset of cases..

Having said that, I'll tell you that there ARE a few hard and fast rules out there. But if you want us to confirm them, YOU are going to have to create an equally hard and fast context for us. Anytime I've ever seen you ask for confirmation of a rule, your question has been so vague, ambiguous, or grammatically incorrect that we are unable to confirm anything for you. Help us help you! :)