Many daring vacationers who participate in guided

[jnelson0612]

I'm actually going to disagree here. I don't know how this question made it through our editing process, but it is NOT representative of what you'll see on the GMAT. In nearly a decade of teaching the GMAT I have NEVER seen a single official question (i.e. written by the GMAT itself) where concision was required to get to a correct answer. In other words, in my experience there is ALWAYS something other than concision to base your decision on. The corollary to this is that anytime the GMAT claims an answer choice is "awkward" or "wordy" this is NOT the real reason why that answer choice is wrong, and you should find another reason.

For years I have had a standing challenge to all my students and fellow instructors to prove me wrong on this point - find an actual GMAT question that cannot be decided without resorting to concision. No one has ever shown me such an example. The takeaway? As near as anyone can tell, concision is NOT a thing on the GMAT, and if you ever use concision to make a decision on SC, you are missing a bigger point.

Thanks, Tim. Yeah, in hindsight I would agree. Both of these are correct, and I doubt that the GMAT would split this hair. Great question!

[kinjal.das1]

Two doubts:

the rule that modifiers must touch their nouns includes a caveat that another modifier of the same noun can come between them..

1) As per the explanations provided by Tim, in the case of option A)

encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, whose eyes and noses are peeking out

should be fine as lurking also modifies "native crocodiles" and that comes in between whose which is a relative pronoun.

Can you please clarify.

2)

I'm actually going to disagree here. I don't know how this question made it through our editing process, but it is NOT representative of what you'll see on the GMAT. In nearly a decade of teaching the GMAT I have NEVER seen a single official question (i.e. written by the GMAT itself) where concision was required to get to a correct answer. In other words, in my experience there is ALWAYS something other than concision to base your decision on. The corollary to this is that anytime the GMAT claims an answer choice is "awkward" or "wordy" this is NOT the real reason why that answer choice is wrong, and you should find another reason.

For years I have had a standing challenge to all my students and fellow instructors to prove me wrong on this point - find an actual GMAT question that cannot be decided without resorting to concision. No one has ever shown me such an example. The takeaway? As near as anyone can tell, concision is NOT a thing on the GMAT, and if you ever use concision to make a decision on SC, you are missing a bigger point.

Then how do you eliminate option D) and option E). I completely agree with Tim about the concision is not a "concrete" reason to eliminate a option.

D) encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, with eyes and noses peeking out

E) encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, with eyes and noses that are peeking out

that being a relative pronoun the option E) can be re-written as
encounter native crocodiles lurking in the shallows, with eyes and noses are peeking out.

Somehow I feel "are" is not required but I am not able to pin point the issue.

[samichange]

Hi

I am still not sure about the use of with in this particular sentence.

If we consider that with+......... modifies lurking then by same logic with +.......... can also modify vacationers who........ encounter.

Please clarify . I am now really confused about the use of 'with'.

I'm actually going to disagree here. I don't know how this question made it through our editing process, but it is NOT representative of what you'll see on the GMAT. In nearly a decade of teaching the GMAT I have NEVER seen a single official question (i.e. written by the GMAT itself) where concision was required to get to a correct answer. In other words, in my experience there is ALWAYS something other than concision to base your decision on. The corollary to this is that anytime the GMAT claims an answer choice is "awkward" or "wordy" this is NOT the real reason why that answer choice is wrong, and you should find another reason.

For years I have had a standing challenge to all my students and fellow instructors to prove me wrong on this point - find an actual GMAT question that cannot be decided without resorting to concision. No one has ever shown me such an example. The takeaway? As near as anyone can tell, concision is NOT a thing on the GMAT, and if you ever use concision to make a decision on SC, you are missing a bigger point.

Thanks, Tim. Yeah, in hindsight I would agree. Both of these are correct, and I doubt that the GMAT would split this hair. Great question!

Thanks
Sami

[RonPurewal]

Hi

I am still not sure about the use of with in this particular sentence.

If we consider that with+......... modifies lurking then by same logic with +.......... can also modify vacationers who........ encounter.

as long as the correct interpretation is clear, there's no issue. "ambiguity" is only a thing if simple common sense cannot determine which of two possible meanings is the correct one.

here's another example in which common sense is used to distinguish between 2 possible interpretations:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p98900