- 精华
- 4
- 积分
- 3617
- 经验
- 3617 点
- 威望
- 299 点
- 金钱
- 2623 ¥
- 魅力
- 2090
|
Qualitative Observations
Like the other problem types, Sentence Correction has not changed greatly from the 11th to the 12th editions. Do not forget this point as you study the nuances of new problems.
The GMAT continues to look for ways to penalize unwarranted shortcuts. Certain awkward expressions are often but not always wrong, and the GMAT has included problems that force you to choose these expressions, such as being (in #101) or the fact that (in #83). Remember that the right answer is not necessarily graceful, but it must be grammatically correct.
Explanations for repeated problems have generally remained the same, but occasional changes have been made that may indicate a slight refinement in the GMAT's thinking on particular issues. For instance, the explanation for problem #7 in the 11th edition condemns the use of which in restrictive clauses and instead insists on the use of that. This problem has been preserved verbatim as #10 in the 12th edition, but now the explanation says that the rule against which in restrictive clauses is "controversial." As it turns out, none of the wrong answers in the problem fail solely on this basis. Nevertheless, with its new explanation, the GMAT has signaled that it will almost certainly never write wrong answer choices that can only be eliminated with the which rule.
A few idioms have been added or returned to the working lexicon of GMAT Sentence Correction. Some of these, such as not just X but also Y, are variations of well-known idioms. Of course, you must be extremely careful not to draw too many analogies with idioms, which by definition resist classification. For instance, one new problem (#140) uses the word dated, which must go with at, not to be, when you express an age: This fossil has been dated AT 10,000 years old, not TO BE 10,000 years old. In contrast, a seemingly similar word, estimated, must be used in precisely the opposite way with ages (This fossil has been estimated TO BE 10,000 years old, not AT 10,000 years old), as is tested by problem #27 (#21 in the 11th edition). |
|