Major League Baseball Tickets

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:08 am
It is A
komal wrote:32. 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. - Correct - stadiums with is correct
B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. - Incorrect - less is for uncountable, since we can count seats we need few
C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. - - Incorrect - This changes the meaning. It says stadium had seats to reduce supply and increase prices. This is wrong
D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. - - Incorrect - same as B
E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices. - - Incorrect - Same as B

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:55 am
Thanked: 11 times

by Giorgio » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:57 pm
I Still think that C is a correct answer!

We need some expert's opinion here

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:08 am
Location: India
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by mohit11 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:45 pm
komal wrote:32. Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.

fibbonnaci's explaination is sound.

Cynics CHARGE and not CHARGED ..hence there is only 1 action in the past tense. Hence had is not required. Next since seats are countable, we should use fewer and not less.

A is our Winner and the correct answer.

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.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:55 am
Thanked: 11 times

by Giorgio » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:50 pm
GOSH!

Guys are you kidding me ? Where do you see a PAST PERFECT here?

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:26 am

by mj41 » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:55 am
If it said "had had" it would be past perfect tense

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 am
(a) and (c) are both GRAMMATICALLY correct, but (c) is absurd.

"lobbied for" implies that the stadiums didn't yet exist at the time.

in (c), "had fewer seats" is in the same tense as "lobbied" (i.e., the simple past tense), thereby creating parallelism.
this parallelism implies that the stadiums already existed -- and "had fewer seats" -- at the SAME TIME that MLB was lobbying for them. that doesn't make sense.
if we were to amend (c) in the following way...
lobbied for stadiums that would have fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices
...then it would also be correct, albeit bulkier and more awkward than (a).
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:44 am
a couple of comments:
in A , WITH is unclear
nope. totally clear.
"X with Y" is a perfectly acceptable method of expressing the idea that X has/possesses/owns/exhibits Y.
e.g.
women with red hair
stadiums with fewer seats
heterosexuals with AIDS

etc.
these are all viable.

--
But C has a issue. Usage of past perfect tense..."had fewer seats" is not suitable
that is not the past perfect.

that's the normal past tense.
"had" is the past tense of "to have".
in the past perfect, this would actually be "had had".

see here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/though-he-ha ... tml#184296
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:55 am
Thanked: 11 times

by Giorgio » Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:45 am
Thanks Ron

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:18 am
Location: PUNE

by ajaypatil_am » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:44 am
seats should be 'few' so down to 2 options A and C
as sentence already has 'that' no extra 'that' is required (as given in the C)
hence ans is A