MBA.com practice test #37

[guest]

Can someone explain the correct answer?

India, like Italy and China, has no single dominant cuisine: Indian food comprises many different styles of cooking, [with each a product of their regional influences, from the fiery vegetarian dishes of the south to the Portuguese-influenced Goan cooking of the west, to the more familiar Mogul food of the north.

a) with each a product of their
b) with each as a product of its
c) each products of their
d) each a product of
e) each products of


Whats the difference between using and not using "with" before each?
The correct answer is D.
[/b][/u]

[dbernst]

Normally, "with," when not used as a preposition, signifies an adverbial phrase (a phrase that normally describes a verb, but can also describe an adjective or another adverb). For example, the sentence Dan walked enthusiastically out of his Official GMAT test with a large smile on his face and a skip in his step uses the adverbial phrase to describe how I walked. Conversely, the answer choices without the with are adjective phrases (correctly used to describe the noun styles rather than the verb comprises)

Additionally, the pronoun their in answer choice A makes an error in pronoun number, and the word as makes choice B lack both proper parallelism and clarity of meaning.

Hope that helps.
-dan

[vietst]

"each a" in D is correct?
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

"each a" in D is correct?
Thanks

yes, because each style of cooking (singular) is a product of... blah blah blah. this construction equates the two, so it makes sense.

here are two other examples (both correct):
the gallery featured only four paintings, all art-deco pieces on canvas.
the gallery featured only four paintings, each a definitive masterwork of its creator.

[a.karajgikar]

Tutors,
one small doubt in Dan's explanation about choice B.

He says-
the word as makes choice B lack both proper parallelism and clarity of meaning.

I think I haven't got the concept clearly here. I could narrow down to B and D.
I selected D just because it was precise in enough to convey the original meaning.
With that said, I did not have any other reasons to eliminate B except 'With' can create ambiguity.
Could you please explain option B in detail?
Thanks for the guidance.

[jnelson0612]

Tutors,
one small doubt in Dan's explanation about choice B.

He says-
the word as makes choice B lack both proper parallelism and clarity of meaning.

I think I haven't got the concept clearly here. I could narrow down to B and D.
I selected D just because it was precise in enough to convey the original meaning.
With that said, I did not have any other reasons to eliminate B except 'With' can create ambiguity.
Could you please explain option B in detail?
Thanks for the guidance.

"with each as a product of its" absolutely has clarity of meaning issues. What is the "with" phrase supposed to be modifying? "with" is an adverbial modifier, but the words here are referring back to the styles of cooking, not a verb or a whole phrase. I would also wonder what "its" is referring to.

[duyng9989]

Could anyone help me what is the role of the phrase "each a product of their regional influences, from ..." in the sentence?

Is it absolute phrase, prepositional modifier???

thanks

[jnelson0612]

Could anyone help me what is the role of the phrase "each a product of their regional influences, from ..." in the sentence?

Is it absolute phrase, prepositional modifier???

thanks

It is a noun modifier describing the "different styles of cooking". :-)

[cshen02]

"with each as a product of its" absolutely has clarity of meaning issues. What is the "with" phrase supposed to be modifying? "with" is an adverbial modifier, but the words here are referring back to the styles of cooking, not a verb or a whole phrase. I would also wonder what "its" is referring to.

Can "its" refer to "each"? Is B wrong because "with each..." actually modifies the entire preceding clause, when the intention here is to modify the "different styles of cooking"? If we drop the comma before "with", will choice B be right?

[RonPurewal]

I know this thread is really old, but there's no citation of the source. To continue discussing the problem, we'll need one.

Thanks.

[benjamindian]

I know this thread is really old, but there's no citation of the source. To continue discussing the problem, we'll need one.

Thanks.

It's from GMATPREP code: (30675-!-item-!-188;#058&004285).

[benjamindian]

Tutors,
one small doubt in Dan's explanation about choice B.

He says-
the word as makes choice B lack both proper parallelism and clarity of meaning.

I think I haven't got the concept clearly here. I could narrow down to B and D.
I selected D just because it was precise in enough to convey the original meaning.
With that said, I did not have any other reasons to eliminate B except 'With' can create ambiguity.
Could you please explain option B in detail?
Thanks for the guidance.

"with each as a product of its" absolutely has clarity of meaning issues. What is the "with" phrase supposed to be modifying? "with" is an adverbial modifier, but the words here are referring back to the styles of cooking, not a verb or a whole phrase. I would also wonder what "its" is referring to.

Hi RON, can you summarize the usage of "with"? I have seen some correct answers using "with" but most of the time, "with" phrase is wrong.

I have taken some notes about the correct usage of "with":

- The intricate structure of the compound insect eye, with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, helps to explain why scientists...
- Starfish have a strong regenerative ability, and if one arm is lost it is quickly replaced, with the animal sometimes overcompensating and growing an extra one or two.
- The xxx were built on a spectacular scale, with more than 75 carefully engineered structures, of up to 600 rooms each, connected by a complex regional system of roads.

[RonPurewal]

Hi RON, can you summarize the usage of "with"? I have seen some correct answers using "with" but most of the time, "with" phrase is wrong.

Having already collected these examples, you've no need to "summarize". That would actually be a step backward.
The human brain is not made to work with "summary rules". It's made specifically to make analogies to existing examples.

In other words, you're better off just retaining the examples you're mentioned (in a "mental repository", so to speak). Then, when you see additional instances, you can just think about whether they work like the instances that are already in your repository.

As proof of just how pervasive this form of reasoning is, think about something that seems completely systematic or "rules"-based, such as factoring a quadratic.
If you're not very good at factoring quadratics yet, you have to think about "summary rules" (this number is the sum, that one is the product).
Once you've achieved mastery, though, you can forget (and may already have forgotten!) the actual summary rules, and you can just factor quadratics by analogy to ones you've already factored.

[RonPurewal]

If you had to summarize, you could summarize #1 and #3 as "describing components of something", and #2 as "an action/event subsidiary to the action/event described in the main part of the sentence".
But those summaries are super-awkward, and extremely difficult"”if not downright impossible"”to use in real time. It's much easier just to think about whether a usage is similar to existing examples.

More generally, this is the whole reason why experience is a valuable commodity in human beings!

[benjamindian]

Thanks Ron. I'm not a native speaker and most of the time, I try not to ask why and just remember some examples.