Brutal SC #39

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:01 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:1 members

Brutal SC #39

by jangojess » Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:50 am
Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices.

OA : A
Trying hard!!!

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Mumbai

Re: Brutal SC #39

by ratindasgupta » Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:47 am
jangojess wrote:Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices.
IMO, the answer should be C.
'lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats' sounds ambiguous as it appears that the MLB lobbied with fewer seats.

What do y'all think?

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:20 pm

by sandy29 » Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:57 am
Yes, IMO answer should be C. Lobbied suggests the past tense and of course the ambiguity in 'lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats' .