Free practice SC questions

The Yongle Encyclopedia was an attempt by the Ming dynasty to save all Chinese knowledge for posterity, however, fewer than 400 of its more than 11,000 volumes surviving today.

We need a complete subject-verb pair after however, but surviving isn’t a verb. The easiest way to see this is to remember that an -ing without a helping verb before it can never be a complete verb capable of combining with a subject to form an independent clause. That leads us to another major error: even if the first error were not there, this option would still be incorrect, because however is an adverb. We can’t use an adverb to join two independent clauses. We’d need something like a conjunction or a semicolon.

Although this option is grammatically correct, we should check whether it conveys the intended meaning. It’s highly likely that the author wants to tell us that out of a total of “more than 11,000 volumes”, “fewer than 400” survive. This option, however, doesn’t specify the number of volumes. Instead, it goes with “more than 11,000 of its volumes”, choosing to create a subset of 11,000 from a larger, unspecified number. That’s not the intended meaning of the sentence.

Correct. This option tells us that, of a total of more than 11,0000, fewer than 400 volumes of the Yongle Encyclopedia survive today. As a major coordinating conjunction, but is capable of joining independent clauses.

This option isn’t as direct as the correct option, and the GMAT is extremely unlikely to use less with something countable like “400 of its… volumes”. This option also gives us the impression that people in the past were aware of what is true today. Additionally, the placement of its is incorrect: this option tells us that the total number of volumes is 11,000 but goes on to add “more than” before that number.

This option tries to use however to join two independent clauses. That doesn’t work though, as however is an adverb, and adverbs can’t join clauses. We’d need something like a conjunction or a semicolon instead. We should also check whether it conveys the intended meaning. It’s highly likely that the author wants to tell us that out of a total of “more than 11,000 volumes”, “fewer than 400” survive. This option, however, doesn’t specify the number of volumes. Instead, it goes with “more than 11,000 of its volumes”, choosing to create a subset of 11,000 from a larger, unspecified number. That’s not the intended meaning of the sentence.

That the current presidential candidates lack the wide support enjoyed by some of the earlier nominees proves that the forces of factionalism are not limited to playing a role only in states.

Correct. The plural verb lack agrees with its subject, the current presidential candidates, and the singular verb proves agrees with the subject of the sentence, that the current presidential candidates lack the wide support enjoyed by some of the earlier nominees.

The subject of this sentence is a that-noun clause. Such structures are always singular, and they therefore take singular verbs. In this option, the main verb for the subject is prove, which is plural. Moreover, the verb lacks, which is singular, doesn’t agree with its (plural) subject, the current presidential candidates.

The subject of this sentence is a that-noun clause. Such structures are always singular, and they must take singular verbs. However, the main verb, prove, is plural. This option doesn’t use the passive construction we see in the other options, but the subject and verb don’t agree with each other, and that’s an absolute error.

Lacks is a singular verb. It would agree with a singular subject like candidate, but its actual subject, the current presidential candidates, is plural.

The subject of this sentence is a that-noun clause, that the current presidential candidates lack the wide support enjoyed by some of the earlier nominees. Such structures are always singular, and any verb that combines with them to form a clause must also be singular. However, the main verb, prove, is plural.

Advances in genetic testing have raised major data security concerns, because of the ability of researchers to generate information about individuals far outpacing hospital administrators’ ability to protect it.

Because of, a preposition, takes a noun as its object. In that sense, it is different from because, which is a conjunction and is followed by a subject-verb pair. That doesn’t mean that there’s something inherently wrong with because of, but it’s usually a good idea to make sure that the noun phrase that follows it communicates the cause of whatever the because of points to. In this option, that cause is the combination of a noun and an -ing form. This structure is generally not preferred on the GMAT. Also, because outpacing is a participle, it’s somewhat ambiguous, as it could be pointing to individuals (“individuals far outpacing”).

Correct. This for may sound a little strange, but it actually means “because”. This option tells us that “advances have raised major concerns” because “the ability of researchers to generate information has outpaced administrators’ ability to protect it”.

Because is a subordinating conjunction and is always followed by a subject-verb pair. This option, however, gives us only a noun phrase (ability that has far outpaced) after because.

One reason to remove this option is the fact that it presents a relatively simple idea in a convoluted, indirect way. Also, due to is different from both because and because of in that it is normally used to introduce the reason for a noun (we don’t recommend looking at this as an absolute rule, but it is reasonably reliable). In this case, however, it is being used to introduce the reason for a clause (“advances… have raised”). To quickly check whether due to is correct in an option that’s trying to introduce the reason for something, just try replacing it with caused by. If it doesn’t work, we can remove that option.

Like option D, this option also drops far, but there’s a much better reason to take this option out: if we ignore of researchers, we see that this option uses the unidiomatic structure ability for + -ing. Keep in mind that since is not a major problem, even if other test prep resources say that since can’t be used as a replacement for because on the GMAT. It can.

A clinical trial clinic in California is offering older patients the chance to pay $10,000 to receive blood transfusions from younger people aged 16 to 25; however, scientists say that such transfusions have a much greater likelihood of leading to infections among the recipients than they have to slow down the aging process.

One problem with this option is that have a much greater likelihood isn’t as good as are much more likely. Additionally, the second half of the option wants to borrow the word likelihood from the first half, but it uses to slow down towards the end, which leads to an unidiomatic structure, likelihood to slow down.

This option doesn’t use a verb in the second half of the comparison. This isn’t an absolute error, but it does introduce ambiguity. Generally speaking, in a structure like X makes Y more likely than Z, two interpretations are possible: “X makes Y more likely than X makes Z likely” and “X makes Y more likely than Z makes Y likely”.

Correct. This option introduces a little bit of ambiguity because it uses a pronoun, they, but the parallel structure makes it reasonably easy for us to understand that they refers to such transfusions (“such transfusions are much more likely to lead to infections than they are to slow down the aging process”).

The singular pronoun it has no logical noun to refer to.

Such transfusions is plural, but increases is a singular verb. Some test takers take this option out because they think that it changes the original meaning of the sentence, but we should try not to take a meaning call on the basis of the while at the end. Generally speaking, all options are equally likely to be correct. Option A isn’t special in any way.

Formulating a precise search query remains the first critical step to getting useful search results; although search engines use past searches to try to determine what a user is asking.

A semicolon can be used to join two related independent clauses, but the clause on the right of the semicolon is a dependent clause. The reason for this is that although is a subordinating conjunction, and all subordinating conjunctions introduce dependent (“subordinate”) clauses.

Correct. Even though is just another way of saying although, and this option doesn’t use try and, which isn’t a particularly good replacement for try to.

Although and despite (or in spite of) are both used to indicate contrast, but they are different in terms of structure. Although is a subordinating conjunction, whereas despite is a preposition. Normally, after a preposition, we should try to avoid going with {noun + -ing}. Instead, it’s usually better to go with {possessive noun + -ing}. For example, “I appreciated the host greeting us personally” seems to tell us that there is a particular host that I appreciated (the one who greeted us personally), while “I appreciated the host’s greeting us personally” puts the focus on the personal greeting by the host (I appreciated the act of greeting).

Try and is not as good as try to.

Search engine’s is a singular possessive noun, so we need, for example, an article like a or the before search engine’s. Otherwise, it’d be like saying in spite of car’s speed. We’d actually want to go with in spite of a car’s speed or in spite of the car’s speed.

An industry with a history of systematically funding efforts to suppress or discredit research on the harmful effects of its products, the tobacco industry cannot be trusted to research on whether electronic cigarettes lead to cancer.

At an individual level, test takers may be comfortable using to research on/into/about, but we’ll avoid that as a result of the position taken in OG2017 #697. We recommend that test takers use the following guidance for the word research: (a) treat research on/into/about (verb form) as incorrect and (b) be open to research on/into/about when research is used as a noun. In this option, research is part of the infinitive to research on. Infinitives are verb forms (but not complete verbs). We should try to avoid using on, into, and about after research in such cases.

Whether is better than if when an option is talking about checking or investigating something. The other reason to take this option out is an idiomatic call: we’ll avoid using research on/into/about when research is a verb (or a verb form). In this option, research is part of the infinitive to research on. Infinitives are verb forms (but not complete verbs), and we should therefore avoid marking this option.

Could potentially introduces redundancy. The other reason to take this option out is an idiomatic call: we’ll avoid using research on/into/about when research is a verb (or a verb form). In this option, research is part of the infinitive to research into. Infinitives are verb forms (but not complete verbs), and we should therefore avoid marking this option.

Correct. This option uses research as a noun, and we should be open to research on/into/about when research is used as a noun.

Like the correct option, this option uses research as a noun, and we should be open to research on/into/about when research is used as a noun. It is, however, wordier than the correct option, and could be misinterpreted as the word potential is often used to introduce something positive or useful.

Like many other world leaders, such as Gandhi, Kennedy, and Lincoln, Winston Churchill is widely thought to have suffered from major depression.

Correct. This sentence introduces a simple comparison, and like is all we need to do that.

As with is wordier than like.

The only thing wrong with this option is that just like is slightly wordier than like.

This option appears to say that Winston Churchill and many other world leaders were one and the same. When as is used to mean like, it should be followed by a clause.

Just makes this option slightly wordier, but the main problem with this option is that it tells us that Winston Churchill and many other world leaders were one and the same. When as is used to mean like, it should be followed by a clause.

Pokémon Go, a game that brings the fictional world of Pokémon into the real world, has piqued consumer interest in augmented reality, a technology that neither Apple’s competitors nor Apple itself has been able to incorporate into a successful product, application, or service till now.

Correct. The singular noun Apple agrees with the singular verb in the nonunderlined portion of the sentence, has been.

Neither… and is unidiomatic.

Neither… or is unidiomatic. The usage of the past perfect had piqued appears to be unnecessary, as there’s no other (later) past event or time reference in the sentence.

Neither of… nor is unidiomatic. The usage of the past perfect had piqued appears to be unnecessary, as there’s no other later past event or time reference in the sentence. Additionally, the GMAT is unlikely to use which to refer to a noun before it without a comma between those two elements.

When we need to make a verb agree with neither X nor Y, we check the closest noun. In this case, the closest noun is its competitors, which is plural. The verb, has been is singular, and is in the nonunderlined portion of the sentence, which means that this option can’t be correct.