The success of the program to eradicate smallpox

[thisisvb]

Sorry to bump this post up again, but I had one last Q:

D is incorrect because of 'previous possibility' which is unidiomatic and should rather be 'possibility previously'?
however, in the latter, 'previously' is an adverb and should not modify 'possibility' which is used as a noun. In the former, adj 'previous' correctly modifies the noun 'possibilty'

am I correct? I have my exam in less than a month and am horrible at SC..

[thisisvb]

Sorry to bump this post up again, but I had one last Q:

D is incorrect because of 'previous possibility' which is unidiomatic and should rather be 'possibility previously'?
however, in the latter, 'previously' is an adverb and should not modify 'possibility' which is used as a noun. In the former, adj 'previous' correctly modifies the noun 'possibilty'

am I correct? I have my exam in less than a month and am horrible at SC..

Help, anyone??

[RonPurewal]

Sorry to bump this post up again, but I had one last Q:

D is incorrect because of 'previous possibility' which is unidiomatic and should rather be 'possibility previously'?
however, in the latter, 'previously' is an adverb and should not modify 'possibility' which is used as a noun. In the former, adj 'previous' correctly modifies the noun 'possibilty'

am I correct? I have my exam in less than a month and am horrible at SC..

Help, anyone??

'previous possibility' isn't unidiomatic; it just means something other than what you're actually trying to say.

namely, previous possibility would mean that it WAS a possibility in the past, but it isn't a possibility anymore. ("all the previous possibilities have vanished.")

not previously considered a possibility means that people once didn't know that it was a possibility, but now they do realize that it is (currently) a possibility.

[shobujgmat]

Well:
1st: if we correct the sescond part of the setence of choice A:

what they had not previously considered possible - better control, if not eradication, of other infections such as

is A will be correct


And isn't chioce C- change the meaning of the sentence.
because from your explanation:"what they had not..." vs. "something they had not..."The "what" construction is awfully strong, suggesting that this was THE ONE THING they hadn't thought possible.

and why the secrifice the original meaning of the sentence?

pls shed some light on this topic

[RonPurewal]

what they had not previously considered possible - better control, if not eradication, of other infections such as

is A will be correct

still inferior to "something they had..."

also, "other" is unnecessary and therefore wordy, since the other infections are mentioned by name.
if no specific infections were mentioned, then we'd need the word "other" to make it clear that we're talking about infections other than smallpox.

and why the secrifice the original meaning of the sentence?

the original meaning is absurd. it is clearly impossible that there is only ONE thing that the researchers didn't consider possible.

in cases in which the original is absurd, outlandish, or illogical, you have the license - in fact, the duty - to change its meaning.

[hmgmat]

Hi Ron,

I read your post (#2).

You said that "what" means "the thing that" instead of "things that". However, in this sentence, I feel that "what" is fine because it can be interpreted this way:
The success of the program to eradicate smallpox has stimulated experts to
pursue the thing that they had not previously considered possible -- better control of ...

Also, I read somewhere that "what" can also means "things that". Is it a GMAT rule that "what" has to be interpreted as "the thing that"?

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Also, I read somewhere that "what" can also means "things that". Is it a GMAT rule that "what" has to be interpreted as "the thing that"?

Thanks in advance.

ah, no, i wasn't meaning to differentiate between singular and plural. "what..." can certainly refer to more than one thing, or to a plural noun.

What was most noticeable about the cathedral was the gargoyles on top of the roof.
this is legitimate.

the distinction i was trying to emphasize was that between an exhaustive treatment (implied by "what") and the giving of examples (implied by constructions such as "something").
"what" can refer to either a singular or a plural, although there may be other clues elsewhere in the sentence that require one or the other.

[nehajadoo]

I was hesitant to choose C and chose C in the end Only because i saw some other correct answer which had " such X as.." instead of "such as x"

i honestly don't know why "such infections as" in C is correct
shouldn't it be "infections such as"?

thanks!

[tim]

either construction is acceptable. A, of course, is wrong for other reasons..

[ankitp]

Why is D wrong?

[jnelson0612]

Why is D wrong?

ankitp, please read Ron's explanation earlier on this page.

[style.rohit007]

Hi Ron ,

Can you please clarify , why is "past perfect" correct here?
Also , is this rule also not a "absolute rule" , as is the case with passive/active rule?
There is a similar problem in OG 12(q.50) but can't post here.
Can u plz clarify , in which cases this type of construction (containing past perfect tense eventhough simple past is not used) is correct?
Response awaited.

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron ,

Can you please clarify , why is "past perfect" correct here?
Also , is this rule also not a "absolute rule" , as is the case with passive/active rule?
There is a similar problem in OG 12(q.50) but can't post here.
Can u plz clarify , in which cases this type of construction (containing past perfect tense eventhough simple past is not used) is correct?
Response awaited.

Thanks.

you don't need the simple past; you just need an explicit past time reference.
that reference *can* be a simple past action, but it can also be a specified occurrence or past time. in the context of this problem, the "past time reference" is the time at which the smallpox eradication program succeeded. i.e., before that point people had not thought xxxxxxxx was possible, but only up to that point.

[morymory_1983]

Hi Ron

If THE other + NOUN + SUCH AS... is not okey...
will

THE otherS + SUCH AS ...be okey?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron

If THE other + NOUN + SUCH AS... is not okey...
will

THE otherS + SUCH AS ...be okey?

in general, you shouldn't have both of these -- i.e., you shouldn't have "the" + noun + "such as", regardless of what else is around it.
"the" implies a definite, specified item or set of items, while "such as" implies items that are unspecified but similar to whatever "x" is. so, basically, the ideas of "the" and "such as" are contradictory.

ex:
you should do the exercises in the book.
--> it wouldn't make sense to have "such as" here, because the book will actually contain a specific group of exercises.

you should do exercises such as those in the book.
--> this means that you can basically do [i]any exercises of the same kind, regardless of whether they actually appear in the book. since this isn't a definite set of exercises, it wouldn't make sense to use "the" here.