A confusing SC Q from prep，please help！

[RonPurewal]

... so that ^^ is why (a) is nonsense. "detection" is not something that the drop does; it's something that humans do. in other words, it is a capability that belongs to the humans, not to the stuff they're smelling.

[RonPurewal]

"can", on the other hand, doesn't carry the same connotations.

e.g.,

Jim is able to understand Tom.
(tom might be difficult to understand, but jim has the ability to understand him. this is definitely NOT a statement about tom's ability to communicate.)

Jim can understand Tom.
(maybe we're talking about jim's understanding. maybe we're talking about tom's ability to communicate successfully. maybe even both.)

[HH985]

Hi Ron,
I have a question about change of meaning in SC.
Assume that choice D is : tasteless and odorless drops can be detected
Does the change from "drop" to "drops" change the meaning?
Its been a while since I have this type of question, and usually every question that has this problem has another bigger problem that outweighs the kind of problem I noted.

[RonPurewal]

the word 'single' is in every answer choice.
therefore, the sentence is clearly MEANT to describe the detection of ONE drop. (if we were talking about plural 'drops', then the word 'single' would at best be completely pointless, and would at worst create a self-contradictory sentence.)

[RonPurewal]

also, i want to make sure one more thing is crystal-clear: there is NOTHING special about the meaning of choice A.
choice A is just a random answer choice, like the other four.
you may know this already, but you used the phrase 'change of meaning'—possibly implying that you think 'changing the meaning' is a bad thing. if that's what you're thinking... nope.

do not think about 'changes in meaning'.
think ONLY about 'yes, this is the intended meaning' vs. 'no, this is NOT the intended meaning'.

the intended meaning is discernible from context + common sense; it has nothing to do with choice A in particular.
(if you swap choice A with D or E in this problem—so that the original sentence contains plural 'drops'—then plural 'drops' is still wrong.)

[RonPurewal]

usually every question that has this problem has another bigger problem that outweighs the kind of problem I noted.

THIS ^^ is BY FAR the most important point here.

--

incidentally, this is a self-contradictory sentence:
'every question' means exactly what it says—every question.
'usually' means 'NOT every time'.

if you saw this sort of thing in SC—some choices with both 'usually' and 'every', and others with just one of the two—you could quite safely eliminate the ones with both.

[HH985]

also, i want to make sure one more thing is crystal-clear: there is NOTHING special about the meaning of choice A.

the intended meaning is discernible from context + common sense; it has nothing to do with choice A in particular.
(if you swap choice A with D or E in this problem—so that the original sentence contains plural 'drops'—then plural 'drops' is still wrong.)

Woww,, I've been studying for gmat for about 4 months but I could not find the thing you said... It helped me! thank you very much. I knew you are the best

[RonPurewal]

Woww,, I've been studying for gmat for about 4 months but I could not find the thing you said...

you're welcome... but i can't figure out what the pink thing is supposed to mean.
what does the pink thing mean?

[SnowH569]

Hi Ron,

According to your explanation below, if I apply my common sense to this sentence "a single drop is detectable, though without taste and odor, by humans at one part per million", I could infer that "without taste and odor" has to modify "a single drop" instead of "is detectable" in order for this sentence to make sense. I understand other errors presented in this question but this one. I'd appreciate that if you could offer any help.

"With(out)" is just a preposition (like "in", "on", etc.) It's not particularly special.

These things can describe nouns:

I read the book on the table.
--> There's a book on the table; I read it. Obviously, I didn't read a random book while sitting on the table.

I generally cook chicken without skin.
--> I take the skin off the chicken when cooking. Obviously, I don't take off my own skin!
If I were a snake, this sentence might mean "I only cook chicken after molting", but I'm not a snake. So the sentence is unambiguous. (:

They can also describe actions:

I read the book on the subway.
--> While riding the subway, I read a book. (The alternative interpretation -- "There's a book that randomly stays on the subway, and I read it" -- isn't reasonable.)

I generally cook chicken without a flame.
--> I cook the chicken in some other way, e.g., sous vide, or in a microwave oven, or whatever. (A "flame" is not part of a chicken, so this sentence doesn't work like the other one.)

You get the point.
As you can see from these pairs of examples -- which are structured identically, but have different functionality -- you may have to employ a bit of common sense to determine how these prepositions are used.
That shouldn't be news, though, since most SC principles require a little common sense.

[RonPurewal]

right—the drop is the thing that doesn't have a taste or an odor.
so, that particular option is badly written ("without taste or odor" is not next to "drop"). by comparison to the other choices, that one can be easily eliminated.

i'm not sure what you are trying to ask. what are you asking?

[aflaamM589]

It is the powerful compound capsaicin that makes a chili pepper hot; a single drop that has no taste and
odor is capable of detection by humans at one part per million.
A. a single drop that has no taste and odor is capable of detection
B. a single drop is detectable, though without taste and odor,
C. a single tasteless and odorless drop can be detected
D. single tasteless and odorless drops are capable of detection
E. single drops that have no taste or odor can be detectable

thanks

Hello Ron,
Is idiom capable of noun(in D) also problematic ?
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

in other contexts you could have that sort of thing—but you'd still have to be talking about the person/animal/thing that's actually capable of that feat.
so, in the case of "detection", you'd have to be talking about whoever/whatever can actually detect something.

[RichaChampion]

"With(out)" is just a preposition (like "in", "on", etc.) It's not particularly special.

These things can describe nouns:

I read the book on the table.
--> There's a book on the table; I read it. Obviously, I didn't read a random book while sitting on the table.

I generally cook chicken without skin.
--> I take the skin off the chicken when cooking. Obviously, I don't take off my own skin!
If I were a snake, this sentence might mean "I only cook chicken after molting", but I'm not a snake. So the sentence is unambiguous. (:

They can also describe actions:

I read the book on the subway.
--> While riding the subway, I read a book. (The alternative interpretation -- "There's a book that randomly stays on the subway, and I read it" -- isn't reasonable.)

I generally cook chicken without a flame.
--> I cook the chicken in some other way, e.g., sous vide, or in a microwave oven, or whatever. (A "flame" is not part of a chicken, so this sentence doesn't work like the other one.)

You get the point.
As you can see from these pairs of examples -- which are structured identically, but have different functionality -- you may have to employ a bit of common sense to determine how these prepositions are used.
That shouldn't be news, though, since most SC principles require a little common sense.

Ron, Based on your discussion prepositional phrases are not constrained to obey the tough rule than in the below-mentioned option -
(B) a single drop is detectable, though without taste and odor,

why are you associating without taste to detectable? why not a drop?

You have also discussed above that it depends upon the context and common sense. In our case common sense says it is modifying a single drop.

[RonPurewal]

if that phrase were describing "drop", it would be attached to "drop" (or attached to "drop" + modifiers).

it can't be describing "drop" when there's a whole clause and a comma in the way.