Before scientists learned how to make a synthetic growth hormone, removing it painstakingly in small amounts from the pituitary glands of human cadevers.

A)
B) scientists had learned about making a synthetic growth hormone, they had to remove it painstakingly.
C) scientists learned how to synthesize the growth hormone, it had to be painstakingly removed
D) learning how to make a sythetic growth hormone, scientists had to remove it painstakingly
E) learning how to synthesize the growth hormone, it had to be painstakingly removed by scientists

I chose D which is Incorrect. I used the split and re-split method here. but looks like the
correct answer is C. In addition to explain the inccorect choice, can you please describe briefly why each of the answer choices is wrong or each of the answer choices ARE wrong? :-)

Thanks

In sentence correction, don't forget about three C's: Correctness, Clarity, and Concision. Correctness is significantly more important than the other two, and most sentence correction questions can either be fully answered or narrowed down to the final two answer choices strictly through the use of proper grammatical construction. However, on more difficult questions, clarity and concision can also play important determining roles.

In the problem at hand, the original sentence, along with answer choices B and D, indicate that scientists removed "a synthetic growth hormone" from cadavers. This is nonsensical, as something synthetic, by definition, does not come from a natural source. Thus, A, B, and D can be eliminated based on their lack of clarity.

Apologize to restart this old thread. I am still not convinced why C is the correct ans. I agree with Dan's explanation given for A,B & D.

In C
C) scientists learned how to synthesize the growth hormone, it had to be painstakingly removed

Does the second part of the sentence not suggest that the removal of cadavers could have been done by the scientists themselves (although this is not directly stated. There is still a possibility)

Is there a quick way to identify questions that test clarity of meaning?

Thanks.

no such suggestion.

how about this:
before primitive man learned to make fire, it could only arise as a result of lightning, focused sunbeams, and the like.
this sentence clearly doesn't convey the idea that the lightning/sunbeams/etc could be caused by primitive man.
same idea in the original sentence w/ respect to the scientists.


well, sure.
if issues of strict correctness (the first "c") don't get you down to one answer choice, then the question must test clarity among the remaining choices. (sorry if you were looking for something more profound than that)

u r correct that scientists remove the hormone from cadavers but not a synthetic growth hormone.

"to be painstakingly removed "

is this a case of split infinitive ???

Thanks

[quote="MBA Applicant 2007/8"]Before scientists learned how to make a synthetic growth hormone, removing it painstakingly in small amounts from the pituitary glands of human cadevers.

A)
B) scientists had learned about making a synthetic growth hormone, they had to remove it painstakingly.
C) scientists learned how to synthesize the growth hormone, it had to be painstakingly removed
D) learning how to make a sythetic growth hormone, scientists had to remove it painstakingly
E) learning how to synthesize the growth hormone, it had to be painstakingly removed by scientists

/quote]

Why would E not be correct, isnt "had to be" passive thus making "by scientists" passive also?

In C "scientists learned" is that not active? then the latter part turns passive? Confused... thanks in advance for any advice.

the change from active --> passive is appropriate here, because the subject of the second part isn't mentioned (or probably even known).
see, the scientists mentioned in the passage are the ones who learned how to synthesize the growth hormone, but they weren't necessarily the same ones who had to remove it. in order to render the second half in the active voice, you'd have to introduce a subject - awkward at best, because who would be the subject? not only that, but the subject is irrelevant: we don't care who had to remove the hormone from cadavers, only that it had to be removed from the cadavers.
remember this:
if the subject of a verb is unknown or irrelevant, use the passive voice.

analogy:
before Marconi and Braun laid the foundation for wireless telegraphy, messages had to be transmitted over wires or carried by hand.
there's no avoiding the passive voice in the second half, without introducing an awkward (and irrelevant) subject, as in 'people had to transmit messages'. that would detract considerably from the quality of the sentence.

--

choice e is wrong, because it starts out with an initial modifier lacking a subject; such modifiers MUST modify the noun IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the comma. in the case of choice e, this would mean that 'it' (referring to the hormone itself) learned how to make the hormone. that's crazy.

Before scientists learned how to make a synthetic growth hormone, removing it painstakingly in small amounts from the pituitary glands of human cadevers.

A)
B)
C) scientists learned how to synthesize the growth hormone, it had to be painstakingly removed
D) learning how to make a sythetic growth hormone, scientists had to remove it painstakingly
E)


one more thing I have noticed:
in option c, "it "refers to growth hormone
whereas in option d "it" refers to sythetic growth hormone.
Instructors had there been following option wud it have been correct
" learning how to synthesize the growth hormone, scientists had to remove it painstakingly"

"learning how to synthesize the growth hormone, scientists had to remove it painstakingly" -- dont know if its wrong, but I would still prefer C.

because, of the word "had" which suggests two actions in the past..so ideally, it should be "learned".

nope. you're thinking of the past perfect (had VERBed). examples would be had grown, had done, had removed.

this is not that sort of construction; this is the simple past tense verb had (the past tense of "to have"), followed by an infinitive. so the "we need another past action" argument doesn't apply.
that choice is wrong for other reasons, though (see above)

Also please note

In many cases, such as spell (spelt vs. spelled), learn (learnt vs. learned), and spill (spilt vs. spilled), American English uses the regular form (spelled, learned etc), while British English tends to favor the irregular.


In addition, there are a number of verbs of the type -ed ~ -t:
burned, burnt
dreamed, dreamt
kneeled, knelt
leaned, leant
leaped, leapt
spelled, spelt
spilled, spilt
spoiled, spoilt

C) scientists learned how to synthesize the growth hormone, it had to be painstakingly removed

Before scientists learned how to synthesize the growth hormone, it had to be painstakingly removed in small amounts from the pituitary glands of human cadavers.

Rule says - pronoun after a clause would refer to the subject of the previous clause

Here "it" refers to "growth hormone". Is "scientists" or "growth hormone" the SUBJECT of the previous sentence...?

edit edit edith

There is no "previous sentence", so you're going to have to be more precise with your question..

And don't let us catch you plagiarizing from Wikipedia again. If you're going to quote from somewhere, source it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_En ... ular_verbs

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Apologize to reopen the old thread.I have gone through the entire post.
However, I have a question. Doesn't Option C indicate RUN-ON?
Two independent sentences connected just by comma without any coordinating conjunction.

If this were the scenario, none of the options would jump out at me.
Please guide.