[nilesh]

Discuss about gmat sentence correction rhetorical construction here. Welcome to Courses.ind.in and this page is for gmat sentence correction rhetorical construction discussion. If you are looking for information on gmat sentence correction rhetorical construction then ask your question is as much details as possible in the “Reply” box provided below. The more detailed your question will be, the more easy will it be for our experts to answers your query. And if you have any updated or latest information on gmat sentence correction rhetorical construction, then please share you knowledge with our experts in the “Reply” box below. Your reply will be published here and your knowledge can help many people. Thanks for stopping by at Courses.ind.in. Please visit again.

Hii sir, I am Preparing for the GMAT Examination I Wants to get Some Sample Questions on GMAT Sentence Correction Rhetorical Construction Will you Please provide it ?

[prince karak]

GMAT Sentence Correction Rhetorical Construction

On GMAT Sentence Correction, the phrase ‘errors in rhetorical construction’ refers to any sentences with awkward, wordy, unclear, or redundant constructions. What makes these difficult is that, many times, these particular errors to not violate any grammatical rules.

Example

1) Split #1: the word orders “the six charged senior officers” and “the six senior charged officers” are awkward: answers (A) & (B) & (E) have these variants. It sounds awkward to mix the participle “charged” with ordinary adjectives. The order “the six senior officers charged” sounds considerably more natural — it separates the adjective before the noun, where they should be, and the participle after the noun.

Split #2: idiom. The idioms “able to do X” or “ability to do X” are correct, and the idiom “ability of doing X” is wrong: choices (B) & (C) make this mistake.

Split #3: missing verb. In choice (E), instead of a full verb inside the “that” clause, we have only a participle, “being” — the subject “lawyers” has no legitimate verb. (E) is incorrect.

Split #4: double subject. In choice (A), we have the structure “… lawyers … they could provide” — both the noun “lawyers” and the pronoun “they” could be the subject of the verb, but they can’t both be the subject of the same verb simultaneously.

For all these reasons, (D) is the only possible answer.


2) Split #1: the subject, the star, of the first half of the sentence is clearly Zhou Enlai. The sentence would have the most coherence if the second part also focused on this subject. Only (D) clearly features Zhou as the subject in both halves after the semicolon. This is not an absolutely deciding split, but gives us a suspicion that (D) is correct. In particular, choice (E) has a particularly awkward and indirect structure that couldn’t possibly be correct even if it were free of grammatical mistakes (which it is not!)

Split #2: pronoun mistake. China has quite a few people, but the noun China itself is singular, and therefore takes the singular pronoun, “it.” Using “they” for “China” is incorrect: both (A) & (C) & (E) make this mistake.

Split #3: parallelism problem. In choice (B), we have “China entered”, bonafide [noun]+[verb], then “and”, and then a participle “orchestrating”. First of all, this is a complete failure of parallelism. Moreover, it’s not at all clearly who is meant to be modified by this participle. (B) is an absolutely disaster.

Indeed, as we suspected on rhetorical grounds, (D) is the best answer.