apparently these questions are from GMAT.
“Conservatism” is the tendency to stick to established structures and avoid change. There are many areas one could be conservative in: politics, religion, technology or social structure, to name some big ones. One can be very conservative in one area and not at all in another, so here the author is specifying the area in which bicycle manufacturers are conservative: technology.
Moreover, in the US at least, stating that someone is conservative without a modifier typically means political conservatism. Therefore, writing the sentence without the word “technological” would be confusing.
You are perhaps parsing this wrong. “Is limited by” is a common phrase used to introduce the cause of a limitation. For example:
“The number of hats I purchase is limited by the amount of money in my wallet.”
This means I can purchase only so many hats, because of the amount of money in by wallet.
“His speed is limited by his short stature.”
This means he can go only so fast, because he’s short.
“Innovation in bicycle technology is limited by what authorities will accept as standard.”
This means innovation can proceed only so far, because authorities will accept only certain things as standard.
I’m curious, too. This is a fun thread, themajestic, but I’m curious what this is for and where you’re posting from.
I love this information . Thanks for the nice explanation.
From a Book called OG12
please look at this English text …
The Eurasian ruffe, a fish species inadvertently introduced into North America’s Great Lakes in recent years, feeds on the eggs of lake whitefi sh, a native species, thus threatening the lakes’ natural ecosystem. To help track the ruffe’s spread,government agencies have produced wallet-sized cards about the ruffe. The cards contain pictures of the ruffe and explain the danger they pose; the cards also request anglers to report any ruffe they catch.Most people who fish recreationally on the Great Lakes are interested in the preservation of the lake whitefi sh because it is a highly prized [COLOR=“Red”]game fish.[/COLOR]
game fish ? what is that ?
“Game” can refer to a wild animal that is commonly hunted. it might be hunted for sport (trophy hunting), or mainly because the hunter wants the meat. “Game animals” never include domesticated animals, for instance, domestic turkey.
Land-based game animals in North America include Deer and Elk, “game birds” would include things like grouse, pheasant, and wild turkey, and “game fish” are fish such as Swordfish, and, according to the article, the Lake Whitefish.
game fish = commonly hunted fish 
You’re mostly correct, although, since we’re talking about word usage, one doesn’t “hunt” fish. One “hunts” deer or elk or pheasant or grouse, but one “fishes for” whitefish or trout.
Notably, game fish aren’t necessarily commonly eaten.
Please look at this English text …
Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers.
It seems to me the comparison is imperfect.
Let me explain .
it says
>>>>Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil.
oil-drilling = is a production process …it produces oil after a oil drilling in the ocean floor.
importing oil on tankers = is NOT a production process . It just a carrying process. …is not it ?
Could you please post what we can guess for this . This part I’m not clear . Is it a import from Offshore ? Is it a import from Land ? What guesses we can do for the comparison.
drilling and importing are two different task . the comparison is faulty . I don’t like this english construction. please comment.
The problem with that paragraph is nothing to do with the English employed, but in the faulty logic, as you note. It’s perfectly valid English.
Essentially what the author is saying is that it’s better to risk oil spills in another country and import their oil by tanker, than to drill for it near my country. That is, export (some of the) risk.
Oil tankers move oil over thousands of miles of ocean. It is only economical to move oil in enormous quantities and oil tankers are the largest ships afloat. Both facts mean that moving oil in tankers involves large risks.
Offshore drills don’t need huge tankers. They may not need tankers at all. Many send the oil ashore via pipelines. Either way involves short distances, smaller quantities, and fewer risks.
Therefore, offshore drilling is safer per barrel of oil than sending it via tanker to the other side of the world after drilling it on land.
The paragraph assumes you understand facts not given in the paragraph, but the comparison is perfectly valid.
very nice . Is not oil tankers come by land also ? I thought the tankers / BIG BIG trucks loaded with oil come from another country.
OR they come exclusively by ship through ocean ?
It depends. Russian oil moves through pipelines to European and Asian countries. U.S. oil moves through pipelines to the U.S. Both also export oil elsewhere. Trucks are used for the final stages of delivery and only where pipelines don’t go.
Some Middle Eastern oil moves through pipelines to neighboring countries. Much of the Middle Eastern oil must use tankers to get to other parts of the world. Most South American oil must use tankers to get to other parts of the world.
It’s a giant world-wide system. Pipelines are extremely efficient but they are hard to build and to maintain, especially in countries that engage in war. They are easy targets. The places where the most oil is found are seldom near where the most oil is used. That’s why tankers have become so important and so large. The biggest tankers can’t even use the Panama Canal. (They can’t use the Suez Canal either I believe.) That means they must take longer and more dangerous routes around Africa and South America.
Oil spills and leaks happen everywhere all the time. People in the U.S. aren’t aware of them because they pay no attention to countries like Nigeria. So much oil is moving every minute that accidents are bound to occur. Tankers are historically the riskiest way to transport oil on a day to day basis, but a devastating leak in a well, on land or offshore, can have huge short-term implications. The worst oil spill ever took place when Iraq invaded Kuwait and destroyed their wells.
very much informative. yea…its giant world-wide system. I think we do also have same networking for Gas also. Wondering how difficult it is to build a pipeline that run across countries . That must be very hard task . Also very much accidental trendy. Just imagine if one part of the pipeline get caught fire , entire pipeline is going to blow up …may be Experts/Engineers have some methods to minimize the impact.
Anyway, this is quite good transport system indeed.
A “tanker” is shorthand for any transportation vehicle that carries liquid (in a big “tank”). This could be a tanker ship, a tanker truck, a tanker car (on a railroad), or even a tanker plane. In addition, a tanker can be carrying any kind of liquid; many are dedicated to transporting a particular kind (thus, “oil tanker”).
In the paragraph you quote, the author assumes that the reader already knows that much of the imported oil is carried on tanker ships, and very little (or none) on other types of tankers. Therefore, the author uses just the word “tanker” rather than “tanker ships” because he believes it’s unambiguous.
It’s more difficult to get the political permissions to build the pipeline than to solve the engineering problems. (This is true even inside the U.S. It is much more difficult to go across national borders.) The engineering problems are well known. No entire pipeline would blow up if a section caught fire. None ever has. They are designed not to fail this way.
what is the meaning of the word “vetted” ?
its from English Movie Green Zone (2010) .
soldier said “the site is empty . there is no WMD in the target site. All I found that is a toilet factory. Where from these intel come from ?”
General said “These intelligence packages have all been vetted”.
I did not understand what does **vetted **mean ?
When I looked up wordweb. I found two matches
(1)doctored
(2)Examined Carefully.
These two are diagonally different !
So, which is the correct meaning here ?
General said “These intelligence packages have all been doctored”.
OR
General said “These intelligence packages have all been Examined Carefully”.
Could you please comment on this part ?
Actually the two meanings are related. As in “doctored” it means “a veterinarian gave medical attention to.”
.
The horse was vetted before purchase = the horse was examined by a veterinarian before purchase
This is probably the origin of the second, much more common meaning – to carefully examine.
These intelligence packages have all been carefully examined.
You should use a dictionary of American usage – Merriam Webster online is a good bet if you don’t have a paper dictionary.
(2) Examined Carefully. To be honest I’ve never seen vetted used in sense (1) as doctored (which means “interfered with for evil purposes”, as in doctoring a drink). The entry for vet on wordweb actually gives sense (1) as “Work as a veterinarian” and the example as “She vetted for the farms in the area for many years” (which is very poor English IMO). But in that example “vetted” doesn’t mean the same as “doctored”, but “worked as an animal doctor”.
Ok . That makes sense really . by the way, I’m using wordweb desktop version . looks like they are quite different than online version.
Please look at this English text…
Thyria’s Cheese Importation Board inspects all cheese shipments to Thyria and rejects shipments not meeting specified standards. Yet only 1 percent is ever rejected. Therefore, since the health consequences and associated economic costs of not rejecting that 1 percent are negligible, whereas the board’s operating costs are considerable, for economic reasons alone the board should be disbanded
>>>Therefore, since the health consequences and associated economic costs of not rejecting that 1 percent are negligible.
This is hard construction to comprehend. I break it down this way…
since the health consequences are negligible
and
associated economic costs of not rejecting are negligible // what is it ? not comfortable here
what economic cost ? what cost of rejection ? rejection cost ? This part is confusing .Could you please explain this red part .