"in that" has gone out of use

[angad_mnnit]

I read somewhere that usage of "in that" has gone out of use But i know many instances where its usage is correct. For example
Teratomas are unusual forms of cancer because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears.


A. because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone

B. because they are composed of tissues like tooth and bone that are

C. because they are composed of tissues, like tooth and bone, tissues

D. in that their composition , tissues such as tooth and bone, is

E. in that they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone, tissues

E is correct answer here.
Please help.

[RonPurewal]

I read somewhere that usage of "in that" has gone out of use But i know many instances where its usage is correct. For example
Teratomas are unusual forms of cancer because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears.


A. because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone

B. because they are composed of tissues like tooth and bone that are

C. because they are composed of tissues, like tooth and bone, tissues

D. in that their composition , tissues such as tooth and bone, is

E. in that they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone, tissues

E is correct answer here.
Please help.

yeah -- we discovered that some of the og's explanations are just plain wrong. this is one of them; "in that" is a perfectly valid construction, and is often easily the best way to express a certain relationship.

for more details on that relationship (especially in contrast to "because", with which it is most often confused), click here: post20133.html#p20133

in general, if the og's explanation gives some sort of GRAMMATICAL reason why something is in error, you can usually trust that explanation. however, we've noted consistent evidence that -- let's just say -- they don't have their best people on the task of writing answer explanations. therefore, if you get some explanation that sounds like a weak excuse -- such as "this is awkward" or "this is too formal" -- then, unfortunately, as we've learned the hard way, you can't always trust such explanations.


fortunately, this incompetence hasn't spilled over into the grammatical explanations -- at least not as far as we've seen. on the other hand, if you see one of these weak usage-based explanations and you just don't trust it, go ahead and post it here and we'll let you know.

[owacto]

Hello,

Can someone elucidate what is wrong with option D?

Thank you.

[mschwrtz]

In D the noun phrase "tissues such as tooth and bone" is used to modify the noun phrase "their composition." It's perfectly fine to use a noun phrase as a noun modifier in this way; a noun used in this way is called an "appositive." Here's an example:

However, an appositive must be synonymous with the noun it modifies, as in this example, "Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America, was sworn in on 1/21/2009." Here "the 44th President of the United States of America" is synonymous with "Barack Obama."

"Their composition" is not synonymous with "tissues...." It would be synonymous with something like "an arrangement of tissues... ," though that would sound horrible.

[sudaif]

what's wrong with answer choice A??

[akhp77]

Yes, E is correct.

I have a doubt if I select E.
Is following an absolute phrase?

tissues not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears.

[tim]

what's wrong with answer choice A??

A is wrong because it indicates a cause and effect relationship that is not as appropriate as the connection given in the OA. The correct sentence will explain HOW they are unusual forms of cancer, not WHY. i'm not entirely happy with that explanation though, because i don't feel it or any other explanation provides sufficient justification for getting rid of A. Since i can't find a record of this problem in our CAT database, i will remain skeptical of this problem in general until i get confirmation of a legitimate source. What is the source of the problem?

[sandeep.19+man]

Isn't A wrong because "that are" is missing?

Teratomas are unusual forms of cancer because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone that are not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears.

Or is the construct acceptable?

Thank you

[tim]

If you’re going to require use of "that are" then you end up getting rid of C and E as well. I am still waiting for a source on the problem though, partly because of the issue you bring up. This question just doesn’t feel right..

[amethyst.wei]

Option A:
because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears

Is it because that here the modifier of "(that are) not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears" works as restrictive modifier for "tooth and bone" ? It implies that there are other type of tooth and bone which ARE normally found in the organ... So here the sentense suggests that a subset of all types of tooth and bone are the tissues to compose Teratomas.
Whereas in option D, by using the apposition (non restrictive modifier), not normally found in the organ... is a descriptive information of tooth and bone.

[jnelson0612]

I agree with Tim--we need a source for this problem to be able to discuss further.

Thank you,

[arunkchaubey]

Hi MGMAT Staff,

Source for this problem is OG Paper based Test Code 28. Can you please explain what is wrong with "A"?

Thanks
Arun S.

[tim]

GMAT paper tests are a banned source; it is illegal to post these questions anywhere on the web. Furthermore, paper tests are probably not a good set of questions to study from because they are so old they are probably irrelevant by now. There are more than enough questions in the OG books; it's usually best to restrict your studying to those..

[abemartin87]

Teratomas are unusual forms of cancer because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears.

For a moment lets look at the other problems that this SC has. Let just for a second imagine we don't know whether to use "because" vs "in that"

A. because they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone

"not normally found in the organ in which the tumor appears" is modifying "tooth and bone" rather than "tissues"

B. because they are composed of tissues like tooth and bone that are

"like" WRONG. Should be "such as"

C. because they are composed of tissues, like tooth and bone, tissues

"like" WRONG. Should be "such as"

D. in that their composition , tissues such as tooth and bone, is

Tera are unusual in that their composition is not found in the organ?
This is incorrect. It is not the "composition" of the Tera found in the organ that makes it unusual, but the tissues of the Tera.

E. in that they are composed of tissues such as tooth and bone, tissues

Tera are unusual in that they are composed of tissues not normally found in the organ.

Sounds right! It's the tissues what is not usually found in the organ.

Hope this helps!

[jnelson0612]

Sorry all; this is a banned source and should not be discussed further. Thanks!