Hi Guys,
Please read through the kaplan 800 verbal supplement.
Read through the imperfect options in sentence correction.
You will see lots of whacky questions and equally whacky
answer choices that are supposed to be correct

-Top

lunarpower wrote:

nileshdalvi wrote:Hi Ron,

If the touch rule does not strictly apply to "that", then why is it that in Q.40 in OG SC Diagnostic, "one of the Kirchoff's laws that" is incorrect because "That appears to refer to laws rather than one".

Is there any difference in the use of that in Q.50 and Q.40?

that, frankly, is one of the particular instances in which the OG answer key authors are just ... well ... wrong. ironically, they are wrong for reasons that they actually mention themselves (!) -- namely, because the verb is singular, we know that it can't go with "laws".

in my experience, some small but not totally insignificant percentage of the OG SC answer key comments are ... wrong. i'd say a couple percent.
the questions are essentially flawless, but many of the answer keys are (a) wrong, in the worst cases, or (b) missing extremely important elements of the problem -- things that the problem's actual author never would have left out of an explanation.
i.e., it's very easy to tell that the answer keys aren't written by the same people who write the questions (and that the people who write the questions are more talented than the people who write the answer keys! ... better than the other way around, for sure)

the OG is still an excellent resource, all things considered. but it's not perfect.

If the OG explanation is wrong in case of option (E), then Could you please tell me what is the right explanation for (E) being wrong.

Here is how I eliminated...
e) was proposing that the amount they were allocating be reduced by nearly 17 percent from the previous year for maintaining the city's major cultural institutions and for the subsidization

There are multiple errors in this statement.
"reduced by nearly 17 percent from the previous year" is awkward.
you can't reduce from previous year. You can reduce by nearly 17 percent what was allocated previous year.

maintaining is a participle while subsidization is a noun.
hence they are not parallel.

tetura84 wrote:Let's give it a try.
A vs C
The city mayor proposed ONLY ONE thing.
17% reduction in the amount.
This reduction will do two things.
to maintain .... and to subsidize ....

It is not that mayor proposed two things,
to reduce .... and to maintain

also, in C, I have issue with COMMA + by nearly 17 percent + COMMA
Is it acting like an appositive?
If yes, it is modifying reduce. But it is wrong, it should modify the amount.
But I need experts comment here.

This doesn't seem right,
to maintain and to subsidize aren't parallel, cause the sentence says -
proposal was to reduce the amount that was allocated to maintain the institutions

if to maintain and to subsidize are parallel then here's how it would sound
proposal was to reduce the amount that was allocated to maintain the institution and reduce the amount allocated to subsidize the local arts group.

doesn't it seem incorrect.

I feel rather to reduce and to subsidize need be parallel.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Faced with an estimated $2 billion budget gap, the city's mayor proposed a nearly 17 percent reduction in the amount allocated the previous year to maintain the city's major cultural institutions and to subsidize hundreds of local arts groups.
(A) proposed a nearly 17 percent reduction in the amount allocated the previous year to maintain the city's major cultural institutions and to subsidize - Correct
(B) proposed a reduction from the previous year of nearly 17 percent in the amount it was allocating to maintain the city's major cultural institutions and for subsidizing - Misplaced modifier from the previous year. Parallelism issue between 2 tasks to maintain and for subsidizing
(C) proposed to reduce, by nearly 17 percent, the amount from the previous year that was allocated for the maintenance of the city's major cultural institutions and to subsidize - Parallelism issue as in B, Misplaced mod by nearly 17 percent and from the previous year
(D) has proposed a reduction from the previous year of nearly 17 percent of the amount it was allocating for maintaining the city's major cultural institutions, and to subsidize - Misplaced modifier from the previous year. Parallelism issue for maintaining and to subsidize
(E) was proposing that the amount they were allocating be reduced by nearly 17 percent from the previous year for maintaining the city's major cultural institutions and for the subsidization - they has no referent. Misplaced mod from the previous year. For maintaining isn't parallel to for subsidization.