[saurav_chat1234]

Originally Posted by Cakofonixx...

Pls dont introduce past participle if not necessary. Use it only when sequencing the past events.

thanks a lot dude ...

Past participle is used to refer to an event in the past which has already occured before some other event in the past ( correct me if i am wrong )

So if you look at option 5 , what it wants to say is that during the summer of 2002 because the outer bank had already been infested by the toads ( an event which had happened prior ( and shud logically happen prior ) to discourage ppl from using it or whatever ( dont remember what it discouraged ppl from ). Hence i went with the option 5 .

Secondly, another reason for choosing 5 over 2 was that if u look at option 2 then the phrase "suffered a massive infestation of toads, which discouraged " is enclosed within commas n as i had mentioned in my previous post any phrase or clause enclosed within commas can be considerd as a parenthitical statement ( am not sure abt this though ..remember reading it somewhere ) .
So if you remove this phrase from the sentence it would read as, " During the summer of 2002 which discouraged many vacationers from visiting the area." , which sounds terrible . Had the first comma been not there after the summer of 2002 i wud hv also chosen 2 as which wud hv then modified the noun phrase closest to it ,in this case " manifestation of toads " .

My explaination is open to debate. Any clarification , suggestion is most welcome .
In fact i want ppl to comment on this ques so that it becomes clearer to us . So pour in with ur explanations!!!

[deepakraam]

My Take:

66. A
67. D
68. B
69. C
70. A


-Deepak

[CAT_Eyed]

My take on the last set of Sentence correction:

66. A
67. D
68. B
69. E
70. A

Thanks,
CAT_Eyed.

[kamma]

My Answers:
66-A
67-D
68-B
69- E
70-A

[Cakofonixx...]

Originally Posted by saurav_chat1234;

thanks a lot dude ...

Past participle is used to refer to an event in the past which has already occured before some other event in the past ( correct me if i am wrong )

So if you look at option 5 , what it wants to say is that during the summer of 2002 because the outer bank had already been infested by the toads ( an event which had happened prior ( and shud logically happen prior ) to discourage ppl from using it or whatever ( dont remember what it discouraged ppl from ). Hence i went with the option 5 .

Secondly, another reason for choosing 5 over 2 was that if u look at option 2 then the phrase "suffered a massive infestation of toads, which discouraged " is enclosed within commas n as i had mentioned in my previous post any phrase or clause enclosed within commas can be considerd as a parenthitical statement ( am not sure abt this though ..remember reading it somewhere ) .
So if you remove this phrase from the sentence it would read as, " During the summer of 2002 which discouraged many vacationers from visiting the area." , which sounds terrible . Had the first comma been not there after the summer of 2002 i wud hv also chosen 2 as which wud hv then modified the noun phrase closest to it ,in this case " manifestation of toads " .

My explaination is open to debate. Any clarification , suggestion is most welcome .
In fact i want ppl to comment on this ques so that it becomes clearer to us . So pour in with ur explanations!!!

Wow...atleast we started a discussion in this thread...
although am no walking talking king of english ...but my line of thinking is, in option 5 "this" looks pretty awkward as compared to which/that which is normally used as a pronoun to introduce the clauses. Also, the 2 statements which u try to seperate out in timings occured almost simulataneously. For eg. If x causes y. Then its rarely said ... X had happened and this caused Y . In this case, it might be sensible (as per GMAT) to say: X happened,causingY.It makes it more concise and makes cause and effect more simultaneous. So I marked 1 but I lost out on "massive toad infestation" to 2.

wat say...

[saurav_chat1234]

Also, the 2 statements which u try to seperate out in timings occured almost simulataneously. For eg. If x causes y. Then its rarely said ... X had happened and this caused Y .


what i want to say is that in order to discourage the vacationers from goin to the bank the infestation shud have occured before it was actually discovered by the vacationers.
Aneways ur right this does sound a bit awkward . "Which" sounds a lot better but again which wasnt there in any of the options in which the phrase ( u know whcih phrase am talkin abt ) isnt enclosed within a pair of commas .

BTW whats the source of this ques n what does the expalination in the source say.

[Cakofonixx...]

Originally Posted by saurav_chat1234

thanks a lot dude ...

Past participle is used to refer to an event in the past which has already occured before some other event in the past ( correct me if i am wrong )

So if you look at option 5 , what it wants to say is that during the summer of 2002 because the outer bank had already been infested by the toads ( an event which had happened prior ( and shud logically happen prior ) to discourage ppl from using it or whatever ( dont remember what it discouraged ppl from ). Hence i went with the option 5 .

Secondly, another reason for choosing 5 over 2 was that if u look at option 2 then the phrase "suffered a massive infestation of toads, which discouraged " is enclosed within commas n as i had mentioned in my previous post any phrase or clause enclosed within commas can be considerd as a parenthitical statement ( am not sure abt this though ..remember reading it somewhere ) .
So if you remove this phrase from the sentence it would read as, " During the summer of 2002 which discouraged many vacationers from visiting the area." , which sounds terrible . Had the first comma been not there after the summer of 2002 i wud hv also chosen 2 as which wud hv then modified the noun phrase closest to it ,in this case " manifestation of toads " .

My explaination is open to debate. Any clarification , suggestion is most welcome .
In fact i want ppl to comment on this ques so that it becomes clearer to us . So pour in with ur explanations!!!

Regarding the parenthitical statement which is enclosed between the 2 commas , I think that if the 2nd comma is follwed by which/that, then it explains the thing which just precedes the 2nd comma and not the subject of the sentence before the 1st comma. So u cant directly join the statements before and after the comma if there is a which/that after the 2nd comma. Wat say.....

[Cakofonixx...]

Originally Posted by saurav_chat1234

Also, the 2 statements which u try to seperate out in timings occured almost simulataneously. For eg. If x causes y. Then its rarely said ... X had happened and this caused Y .


what i want to say is that in order to discourage the vacationers from goin to the bank the infestation shud have occured before it was actually discovered by the vacationers.
Aneways ur right this does sound a bit awkward . "Which" sounds a lot better but again which wasnt there in any of the options in which the phrase ( u know whcih phrase am talkin abt ) isnt enclosed within a pair of commas .

BTW whats the source of this ques n what does the expalination in the source say.

Source , I already mentioned..its the Princeton rebiew book. It's at the end test (level3) in English. I think there are 26 Q's in that..They are cool ..chek em out. Actually the Q's I posted were those which I did rong. So I thought to discuss them here. And I think we shud all post Q's which we think are a little ambiguous and might help the Junta

[ajarna]

My take:
66) A
67) C
6 D
69) E
70) A

[shreyas.nair]

my take on the questions for today...
66-a
67-d
68-b
69-e
70-a