The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights and environmental protection, <u>have consistently received labor's unqualifying support<u>
1. have consistently received labor's unqualifying support
2. are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor
3. have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
4. receive consistent and unqualified support by labor
5. are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor.
Please explain the difference between 1 and 3.
Three women ..
This topic has expert replies
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:12 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- GMAT Score:730
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
I believe the use of passive voice in 1 makes it incorrect, as the option 3 is in active voice...
hope i'm right,,,,
hope i'm right,,,,
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:15 pm
- Location: Sydney
- Thanked: 12 times
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Why 2 is wrong?chintanjadwani wrote:I believe the use of passive voice in 1 makes it incorrect, as the option 3 is in active voice...
hope i'm right,,,,
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
- Thanked: 12 times
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
IMO 3leaonae wrote:The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights and environmental protection, <u>have consistently received labor's unqualifying support<u>
1. have consistently received labor's unqualifying support
2. are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor
3. have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
4. receive consistent and unqualified support by labor
5. are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor.
Please explain the difference between 1 and 3.
Consistently receiving shows that they were receiving support in past as well as present .. thus use of present prefect tense..
Whts the OA..??
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:14 pm
- Thanked: 331 times
- Followed by:11 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
In most situations dont change the tense of what's given unless the situation demands. For example when there are 2 past actions u use the past perfect for the 1st past action(action that happenned first out of 2 past actions) and simple past for the second etc to bring to light the sequence of eventsWhy 2 is wrong?
The past perfect tense have + V3(past particple) indicates that an action started in the past and it may or may not yet be completed.
In 2) we are saying we know for sure that they are still receiving whatever they are receiving and we dont know for sure the writer wants us to believe this.
Between 1 and 3 "support of" sounds idiomatic.
Eg: I need the support of my classmates, to win the school election.
Hope this helps!
Regards,
CR
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:57 pm
- Thanked: 3 times
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
My Answer: 3leaonae wrote:The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights and environmental protection, <u>have consistently received labor's unqualifying support<u>
1. have consistently received labor's unqualifying support
2. are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor
3. have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
4. receive consistent and unqualified support by labor
5. are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor.
Please explain the difference between 1 and 3.
There is no way to know whether labor is still supporting them at the time of reading or will continue to support them in future. Thus ruling out present, present continuous, future etc. tenses (2,4,5)
The meaning that is trying to be expressed here is that labor completely and without reservations supports the three women. Hence, "unqualified support" is the right usage. "unqualifying" does not exist in the dictionary, and even if it did, it would probably mean something like "not kosher"/"not qualified" and so changes the meaning of the sentence. Rules out (1,2)
"labor" modifies "support", not "received" so use "of", not "by". Rules out (4,5).
Finally, "unqualified support of labor" sounds more elegant than "labor's unqualified support" (if that answer choice was offered), although both are correct.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:04 pm
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
yepp...between 1 and 3 the main difference is "unqualifying" vs "unqualified".
tks.
tks.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:06 pm
- Thanked: 14 times
- Followed by:1 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
i think A,B,C are equally good candidates to be answer
(i think any one can be defended if they say it is the answer as it only depends how are present it now....)
Gramatically A B C are correct
A and C are more correct as in many cases i have seen continous tense are not preferred in gmat( but having said that i dont think it is totally incorrect)
Between A and C almost says the same thing in this case and goes down to differece between unqualifying and unqualified....
which ever may be the answer,it will be 'digging reasons' to show another one incorrect ...lol
(i think any one can be defended if they say it is the answer as it only depends how are present it now....)
Gramatically A B C are correct
A and C are more correct as in many cases i have seen continous tense are not preferred in gmat( but having said that i dont think it is totally incorrect)
Between A and C almost says the same thing in this case and goes down to differece between unqualifying and unqualified....
which ever may be the answer,it will be 'digging reasons' to show another one incorrect ...lol
GMAT score is equally counted as your GPA and 78 clicks can change you life.