Which sentence makes more sense?a)How fastdid he drivewhen the accident happened?b)How fastwas he drivingwhen the accident happened?Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Which sentence makes more sense?a)How fastdid...

Which sentence makes more sense?

a)
How fast did he drive when the accident happened?
b)
How fast was he driving when the accident happened?

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Which sentence makes more sense?a)How fastdid he drivewhen the acciden...

Both sentences A and B are grammatically correct, but sentence B is more commonly used and makes more sense in this context. Here's why:

1. Use of the verb "drive":
- In sentence A, the verb "did" is used with the base form of the verb "drive" ("did he drive"). This construction is typically used for simple past tense questions.
- In sentence B, the verb "was" is used with the present participle form of the verb "drive" ("was he driving"). This construction is typically used for questions about an ongoing action in the past.
2. Context of the accident:
- Since the accident is mentioned in the sentence, it implies that the driving action was happening at the time of the accident.
- Sentence B ("How fast was he driving when the accident happened?") accurately reflects this context and asks about the speed at which the person was driving when the accident occurred.
3. Common usage:
- Sentence B ("How fast was he driving when the accident happened?") is the more commonly used phrase in everyday language.
- It follows the standard pattern of asking about the speed of someone's driving at a specific moment in the past.
Therefore, sentence B is the better choice as it aligns with the context of the accident and is more commonly used in English language usage.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

X: When a rare but serious industrial accident occurs, people respond by believing that such accidents are becoming more frequent. This belief is irrational. After all, being dealt four aces in a hand of poker, a rare event, hardly increases ones chances of being dealt four aces in a future hand.Y: To the contrary, the belief is rational because it results in peoples sensing a danger to themselves not previously sensed and taking precautionary actions to prevent similar accidents in the future.Ys attempt to counter Xs claim is best described by which of the following?

View answer

Most television viewers estimate how frequently a particular type of accident or crime occurs by how extensively it is discussed on television news shows. Television news shows report more on stories that include dramatic pictures such as fires and motor vehicle accidents than they do on more common stories that have little visual drama such as bookkeeping fraud.If the statements above are true, it can be properly concluded that which of the following is also true?

View answer

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable. Since the end of the Second World War, the very fact that there were nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons, for fear of starting a worldwide nuclear exchange that would make the land of the power initiating it uninhabitable. The proof is that a third world war between superpowers has not happened.Which one of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the argument?

View answer

Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause big accidents, while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in big accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?

View answer

A proposed ordinance requires that all cyclists wear a helmet when riding a bike. However, one cycling enthusiast argued that since more than ninety percent of bike-related accidents do not cause more than a scrape, mandatory helmet use would only marginally decrease the number of serious injuries caused by cycling.Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the cycling enthusiasts argument?

View answer

Top Courses for GMATView all

GMAT Focus Edition Mock Test Series 2025

Quantitative for GMAT

Crash Course for GMAT

Data Insights for GMAT

100 RCs for GMAT