Test: Idioms- 2 - GMAT MCQ

The purpose of this sentence is to contrast pigments used in modern oil paints with the pigments used in older paints. The original sentence uses the wordy expression “are different than,” but the idiomatic expression is “are different from,” and the more concise “differ from” would be even better. In addition, the statement “…X are different than Y because…” is misleading due to the use of “because”: it implies that because the pigments used in modern oil paints are more lightfast and vibrant, they are different (in some unspecified way) from
the pigments used in older paints. However, the intended meaning is that the pigments differ “in that” one is more lightfast and vibrant. Secondly, "the ones" can be replaced with the more concise "those." Finally, the antecedent of the plural pronoun “they” is ambiguous: "they" could refer to the older pigments or to the modern pigments.
USE of “IN THAT”
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. To make the comparison, the concise and accurate “X differ from Y in that…” construction is used. The concise “those” is used instead of “the ones.” The pronoun ambiguity in the original sentence has been
eliminated by using “the modern ones” instead of “they.”
(C) This choice uses the wordy expression “are different than,” but the idiomatic expression is “are different from,” and the more concise “differ from” would be even better. In addition, the statement “…X are different than Y
because…” is misleading due to the use of “because”: it implies that because the pigments used in modern oil paints are more lightfast and vibrant, they are different (in some unspecified way) from the pigments used in older paints.
However, the intended meaning is that the pigments differ “in that” one is more lightfast and vibrant.
(D) This choice uses the wordy and awkward “X are different from Y…on account of being Z” to explain why the pigments are different. In general, the use of “being” on the GMAT is incorrect, because there is typically a more
economical way of phrasing the same thing. Here, the concise construction “X differ from Y…in that…” would be preferred.
(E) The statement “…X differ from Y because…” is misleading due to the use of “because”: it implies that because the pigments used in modern oil paints are more lightfast and vibrant, they differ (in some unspecified way) from the pigments used in older paints. However, the intended meaning is that the pigments differ “in that” one is more lightfast and vibrant. Secondly, "the ones" can be replaced with the more concise "those." Finally, the antecedent of the plural pronoun “they” is ambiguous: "they" could refer to the older pigments or to the modern pigments.

The original sentence uses the unidiomatic phrase "to do it" to refer to the action of "letting the art go." The proper idiom is "to do so." Additionally, the word "where," which can be used to describe only physical locations, is incorrectly used to describe a time ("in the future"); the word "when" should be used instead.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice correctly uses the idiomatic phrase "to do so" to refer to the action of "letting the art go." However, it incorrectly uses the plural pronoun "them" to refer to the singular noun "art." Moreover, the word "where," which can be used to describe only physical locations, is incorrectly used to describe a time ("in the future"); the
word "when" should be used instead.
(C) This choice correctly employs the word "when" to describe a time "in the future." However, it incorrectly uses the plural pronoun "them" to refer to the singular noun "art." Moreover, the phrase "to do it" is unidiomatic; "to do so" is required instead.
(D) CORRECT. This choice correctly uses the idiomatic phrase "to do so" to refer to the action of "letting the art go." Additionally, the word "when" is properly used to describe a time "in the future."
(E) This choice correctly uses the word "when" to describe a time "in the future."However, the phrase "to do it" is unidiomatic; "to do so" is required instead.

In the original sentence, “Jack Nicklaus” is clearly modified by “who solidified…in 1986.” Also, the correct form of the idiom “regarded as” is used. Finally, the superlative “best” is correctly used to compare more than two golfers: Jack Nicklaus and Tiger woods are “regarded as two of the best” golfers among all the golfers in the
history of the sport.
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The idiom “regarded to be” is incorrect. The correct form of the idiom is “regarded as.” Further, the comparative “better” is incorrectly used to compare more than two golfers. The superlative “best” is needed to compare more than two golfers: Jack Nicklaus and Tiger woods are regarded as two of the best golfers among all the golfers in the history of the sport.
(C) The modifying phrase “who solidified his legendary status…in 1986” incorrectly modifies the plural subject “Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus.” Noun modifiers beginning with “who” always refer to the directly preceding noun. In this case, the directly preceding noun is the plural “Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus.” Consequently,
the singular pronoun “his” in the modifying phrase incorrectly refers to the plural “Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus.” Further, the idiom “regarded to be” is incorrect. The correct form of the idiom is “regarded as.”
(D) The modifying phrase “who solidified his legendary status…in 1986” incorrectly modifies the plural subject “Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus.” Noun modifiers beginning with “who” always refer to the directly preceding noun. In this case, the directly preceding noun is the plural “Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus.” Consequently,
the singular pronoun “his” in the modifying phrase incorrectly refers to the plural “Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus.” Further, the idiom “regarded as being” is incorrect. The correct form of the idiom is “regarded as.” Finally, the comparative “better” is incorrectly used to compare more than two golfers. The superlative “best” is needed
to compare more than two golfers: Jack Nicklaus and Tiger woods are regarded as two of the best golfers among all the golfers in the history of the sport.
(E) The singular pronoun “his” in the modifying phrase “Solidifying his legendary status…in 1986” does not agree with the adjacent plural subject “Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods.”

The original sentence contains the correct idiom "to derive X from Y," where X and Y are both nouns. In this sentence, the use of the noun phrase "the laying of private television" maintains consistency and parallelism with the noun “benefit” mentioned earlier in the sentence.
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The verb "to derive from" requires noun objects. Here, "laying" is not a noun. Moreover, "the public land" is not idiomatic; it should be "public land."
(C) The correct idiom is "to derive X from Y," not "to derive X by Y." Moreover, "the public's land" is unnecessary when "public land" would suffice.
(D) "To derive from" is correct in this choice. The wordy and unidiomatic construction "private television cables being laid on public land" fails to provide a noun that would ensure consistency with the noun “benefit” mentioned earlier in the sentence.
(E) The correct idiom is "to derive X from Y," not "to derive X by Y." Moreover, "land that was public" is wordy; "public land" is more concise.

When referring to y as the potential outcome of x, the correct idiom is “x’s potential to y.” This sentence incorrectly phrases the idiom as “a hurricane’s potential of destroying or damaging.” When referring to the use of y to determine x, the correct idiom is “x is determined by y.” This sentence incorrectly phrases the idiom as “potential … is determined from wind speeds.” Finally, there is a subtle distinction between the idiom "so x as to y" and “x is enough to y.” The original sentence uses the idiom "so x as to y" to indicate that characteristic x is so extreme in the particular case that y results. In contrast, the idiom "x is enough to y" is used when x is the criteria by which an ability to achieve y is measured. Thus, if a sentence stated that "a category 5 storm has wind speeds high enough to blow away small buildings," this would convey a different meaning: that wind speeds are the criteria by which one measures the ability to blow away small houses.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) When referring to the use of y to determine x, the correct idiom is “x is determined by y.” This sentence incorrectly phrases the idiom as “potential … is determined from wind speeds.” The change from the original idiom "wind speeds so high as to..." to the idiom presented in this sentence “high enough to...” changes the original meaning of the sentence; it conveys that wind speeds are the criteria by which one measures the ability to blow away small houses. The idiom "so x as to y" is required instead to match the original meaning: that characteristic x (the wind speed) is so extreme in the particular case (a category 5 storm) that y results (small houses are blown away).
(C) When referring to y as the potential outcome of x, the correct idiom is “x’s potential to y.” This sentence incorrectly phrases the idiom as “a hurricane’s potential of destroying or damaging.”
(D) The idiom “high enough to blow away small buildings” changes the original meaning; it conveys that wind speeds are the criteria by which one measures the ability to blow away small houses. The idiom "so x as to y" is required instead to match the original meaning: that characteristic x (the wind speed) is so extreme in the particular case (a category 5 storm) that y results (small houses are blown away).
(E) CORRECT. All idioms in the sentence are used correctly.

The idiom “x is cited as y” can also be phrased “cite x as y,” as in this sentence.
However, the original sentence incorrectly introduces the unnecessary verb “being.”
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice does not use the correct idiom “cite x as y,” instead introducing the unidiomatic form “cite x to be y.”
(C) This choice does not use the correct idiom “cite x as y,” instead introducing the unidiomatic form “cite x as if they were y.” In addition, the phrase “as if they were” properly refers only to hypothetical situations rather than the concrete example in this sentence.
(D) This choice does not use the correct idiom “cite x as y,” instead introducing the unidiomatic form “cite x for y.” In addition, the phrasing “that they should not” is unnecessarily more wordy than “not to.”
(E) CORRECT. This choice uses the correct idiom “cite x as y.”

The original sentence correctly uses the simple past tense “contributed” to refer to an event that occurred in the past. Furthermore, the original sentence correctly uses “such as” to refer to specific baritone singers who made a contribution to the popularization of the “crooning” style of singing.
(A) CORRECT. As explained above, this choice uses the proper verb tense and is idiomatically correct.
(B) This choice is wordy, awkward, and redundant. Since the 1930s is a decade, there is no reason to state “of the decade.” Similarly, if baritone singers such as Bing Crosby and Russ Columbo contributed, it is unnecessary to say they “decided” to contribute. Furthermore, this choice makes two errors in idiomatic construction: the
“and also” construction is unidiomatic – the word “also” should be eliminated, and “contribute in” should be “contribute to.”
(C) This choice uses the unidiomatic “like” to refer to specific baritone singers. On the GMAT, “like” means “similar to,” while “such as” refers to specific examples.
(D) Stating “the beginning of the 1930s commencement” is redundant, since “beginning” and “commencement” are synonyms. Furthermore, this choice incorrectly uses “like” instead of the idiomatic "such as" to refer to specific baritone singers. Finally, it incorrectly shifts to the past perfect “had contributed,” which would only be
correct if they “had contributed” prior to some other action in the simple past tense; here there is no such simple past tense verb.
(E) In this choice, “contributed in” is unidiomatic; the proper construction is “contributed to.” Furthermore, this choice incorrectly uses the past perfect “had contributed,” which would only be correct if they “had contributed” prior to some other action in the simple past tense, such as “the 1930s commenced.” This verb tense usage reverses the intended order of events: this choice clearly indicates that they contributed “not long after” the 1930s commenced.

The incorrect idiom “prefer X over Y” is used twice in the original sentence: “…not only prefer rigorous courses…over those that require less work, but also science and math courses over those in the humanities.” The correct form of the idiom is “prefer X to Y.” Also, the original sentence incorrectly uses “like” to introduce examples of
rigorous courses. “Such as” is the correct phrase to introduce examples. “Like” should not be used to begin a list of examples, but rather to make a comparison between nouns.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. The examples of rigorous courses, “honors and advanced placement courses,” are correctly introduced with the phrase “such as.” Also, the correct form of the idiom “prefer X to Y” is used, as is the correct idiom “not only X but also Y.” This sentence is written in the basic form “…prefer not only A to B, but also X to Y,” which is clear and idiomatically sound.
(C) The incorrect idiom “not only X but Y” is used: “…prefer not only rigorous courses…but they prefer….” The correct form of the idiom is “not only X but also Y.”
Also, this choice incorrectly uses “like” to introduce examples of rigorous courses. “Such as” is the correct phrase to introduce examples. “Like” should not be used to begin a list of examples, but rather to make a comparison between nouns. Finally, the use of “they prefer” is repetitive and unnecessarily wordy.
(D) The incorrect idiom “prefer X more than Y” is used twice: “…prefer not only rigorous courses…more than those that require less work, but also science and math courses more than those in the humanities.” The correct form of the idiom is “prefer X to Y.”
(E) The incorrect idiom “prefer X more than Y” is used twice: “…prefer not only rigorous courses…more than those requiring less work, and also science and math courses more than those in the humanities.” The correct form of the idiom is “prefer X to Y.” Also, the incorrect idiom “not only X and also Y” is used: “…prefer not only
rigorous courses…and also science….” The correct form of the idiom is “not only X but also Y.”

The underlined portion of the sentence introduces two idioms: "made possible by" and "both X and Y." The former idiom is incorrectly presented in the sentence as "made possible because of."

(A) CORRECT. This choice uses both idioms correctly: "made possible by" and "both X and Y."
(B) The choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(C) This choice corrects the first idiom ("made possible by") but introduces a new error by removing "both" and replacing it with "and also." The construction "by... and also" requires the idiom "by X and also by Y."
(D) This choice repeats the original idiom error "made possible because of" and also introduces a new error by removing "both" and replacing it with "and also." The construction "because of... and also" requires the idiom "because of X and also because (of) Y."
(E) This choice presents the incorrect idiom ("made possible as a result of") rather than the correct idiom, "made possible by."

The original sentence contains several errors. First, the phrase “remembered because of” is unidiomatic; the correct idiomatic construction is “remembered for.” Second, "like" is incorrect because the Guggenheim is a
specific example and the use of "such as" would be more appropriate to introduce examples. Third, the sentence incorrectly suggests that "the Guggenheim Museum" is a "design." More properly, the sentence should
discuss the design "for" the museum.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. "Because of" is replaced by "for." "Like" is replaced by "such as." And the use of "the one for" makes clear that the design is for the museum and is not the museum itself.
(C) This choice does not correct "because of." Moreover, it incorrectly implies that the museum itself is a design. However, the use of "such as" in place of "like" is correct.
(D) This choice does not correct "because of." Moreover, the relative pronoun “that” lacks a clear antecedent. It would be correct to say "The design for the house, like that for the factory, is beautiful," for example. But such a parallel structure does not exist in this sentence. However, the use of "such as" in place of "like" is correct.
(E) This choice does not correct "like." Moreover, the possessive construction "Guggenheim Museum's" is awkward and unidiomatic. However, the use of "for" rather than "because of" is correct.

There are three problems in the original sentence. First, the comparison is highlighting a difference in the effect of television on children, as measured by test scores. The original sentence uses the idiom “compared to,” but the
correct idiom for highlighting differences is "compared with."
To highlight differences between similar things, use compare with
To highlight similarities between different things, use compare to
Second, comparisons must compare logically parallel things, but this sentence compares "children whose parents speak English as a second language" with "those (children, presumably) who are native English speakers” themselves. Logic tells us that a child can both in both of these categories: a child who is a native English
speaker can have parents who speak English as a second language. Thus, these are not parallel categories.
Finally, the antecedent of the pronoun "those" is ambiguous; "those" could refer to "children" or "parents."
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) Although this choice uses the correct idiom ("compared with") to compare differences between the two groups and resolves the pronoun issue by replacing "those" with "children," it continues to compare "children whose parents speak English as a second language" with "children who are native English speakers."
(C) This choice uses the correct idiom ("compared with") to compare differences between the two groups but incorrectly compares “children whose parents speak English as a second language” with all “native English speakers.”
(D) Although this choice makes a clear comparison between two similar or parallel things (children of two different groups of parents), the comparison is highlighting a difference, so the correct idiom is "compared with" rather than "compared to." Moreover, it does not resolve the pronoun issue because it retains the ambiguous
"those."
(E) CORRECT. This choice uses the correct idiom "compared with" and correctly compares “children whose parents speak English as a second language” with the logically parallel “children whose parents are native English speakers." Moreover, it resolves the pronoun issue by replacing "those" with "children."

The original sentence fails to correctly complete the idiomatic structure “a result not of X, but of Y," incorrectly suggesting that sustainable weight loss is itself a healthy lifestyle as opposed to a result of a healthy lifestyle. The second “of” (before "a healthy lifestyle") is necessary to complete the structure. Also, “self-deprivation” and
“adopting an extreme diet” are nonparallel; because these two items are a "result of" the same thing, they should be structurally similar.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. This choice completes the idiom "a result not of X, but of Y" correctly by inserting the second “of," making sustainable weight loss a result of a healthy lifestyle. Also, “self-deprivation” and “the adoption of an extreme diet” are both nouns, and are treated in parallel fashion.
(C) This sentence fails to follow the idiomatic form "a result not of X, but of Y."
(D) This sentence fails to follow the idiomatic form "a result not of X, but of Y."
In addition, the expression “depriving oneself” is awkward.
(E) This sentence fails to follow the idiomatic form "a result not of X, but of Y." In addition, the expression “depriving oneself” is awkward.

The phrase "require a 60 percent minimum alcohol concentration for the killing of" is wordy and unidiomatic. The proper idiom takes the more concise form "require X to Y."
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice incorrectly uses the unidiomatic and wordy form "require that there be X to Y." The proper idiom is "require X to Y."
(C) This choice incorrectly uses the unidiomatic and wordy form "require that X be Z to Y." The proper idiom is "require X to Y."
(D) CORRECT. The choice uses the proper idiom "require X to Y" where X is the noun phrase "a 60 percent minimum alcohol concentration" and Y is the verb infinitive "kill."
(E) This choice incorrectly uses the unidiomatic and wordy form "require that there be X for Y." The proper idiom is "require X to Y."

The original sentence contains the unidiomatic "considered as being". The correct idiom is simply "considered", as in "I considered you a friend." Also, "was the subject...over the years" is incorrect. The sentence should use the present perfect "has been the subject," since the speculation began in the past and continues to the present. Finally, "attributed by" is not the correct idiom for this sentence. It should be "attributed to."
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice repeats the original idiom error "considered as," though it corrects the other two errors.
(C) This choice repeats the original idiom error "considered to be" (with a slight variation) as well as the verb tense error "was."
(D) CORRECT. This choice corrects all of the original errors: "considered" instead of "considered as"; "has been" instead of "was"; and "attributed to" instead of "attributed by."
(E) This choice repeats the original idiom error "considered to be" (with a slight variation) as well as the verb tense error "was." It also introduces new errors: "or any other language" was removed from the sentence entirely, which changes the meaning; "over the years" is placed awkwardly; and "he had not been" is in the past perfect tense, when the correct tense is simple past.

There are two errors with this sentence. First, the singular subject “incidence” does not agree with the plural verb “correlate.” Second, the proper idiom is “correlate … with” rather than “correlate … to.”
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The proper idiom is “correlated with” rather than “correlated to.”
(C) The singular subject “incidence” does not agree with the plural verb “correlate.”
(D) The proper idiom is “correlate … with” rather than “correlate … to.”
(E) CORRECT. This choice corrects both errors in the original sentence. The singular "incidence" agrees with the singular "correlates," and the proper idiom, “correlate …with” is employed.