Sentence Correction

I was looking at the following question:

In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price fixing and, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

a) the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and
b) the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, and
c) the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia,
d) a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,
e) when the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional,




The original answer was C. The explanation in the guide explains that D is ambiguous and causes a misplaced modifier. Can someone explain this to me? Also, I am getting confused about antecedent rules. How do we know that it is referring to "minimum wage" and not "Supreme Court" or "District of Columbia"?

antec0721 wrote:I was looking at the following question:

In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price fixing and, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

a) the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and
b) the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, and
c) the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia,
d) a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,
e) when the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional,




The original answer was C. The explanation in the guide explains that D is ambiguous and causes a misplaced modifier. Can someone explain this to me? Also, I am getting confused about antecedent rules. How do we know that it is referring to "minimum wage" and not "Supreme Court" or "District of Columbia"?

The question here is checking for IDIOM .

And the idiom rule it checks is "the Supreme Cort declared X unconstitutional"- this is correct Idiom.

You con not say declared AS

OR

Considered AS these are some of the wrong Idioms we use in speech but is often checked in GMAT. In both the cases the correct usage is DECLARED and CONSIDERED .


a) the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and[Idiom is wrong ]
b) the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, and[Idiom is wrong ]
c) the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia,
[Correct Idiom]
d) a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,[correct idiom but in passive voice so eliminate. ]
e) when the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional,[Idiom is wrong ]

As you can see the question can be easily solved if you know the Idiom , also option D is in passive voice thats the reason why you need to eliminate it.

In this question I dont see any IT with antecedent problem can you point them out .

in D, "minimum wage was declared, ruling.."

this means "wage was declare and ,at the same time,wage rule" and impossible

focus differences among answer choices to find error. last time I fail because I do not attack SC this way.

1. The modifier problem discussed is one that involves 'present participle' - verb + ing

Normally present participle, if preceded or followed by a COMMA, then it acts as a verb modifier, which should make sense with the subject.

In the case of option D -> Just look at the subject of the sentence - 'a minimum wage'

Can 'minimum wage' make a 'ruling' ? NO. So it is not logically correct.

2. In case of antecedents, the thumb rule is the subject of second clause refers to the subject of the main clause / object of the second clause refers to the object of the previous clause