Help on a SC question

This topic has expert replies
Source: — Sentence Correction |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:13 am
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by rakeshd347 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:37 pm
srinivasapriyan.r wrote:Image
Only D makes sense to me.

C is out because violates and allowed two different tenses doesn't make sense.
E is passive and we prefer active if possible so E is out. Also the use of being is almost always wrong in GMAT.
B is out because "their" doesn't have clear antecedent.
A is out because the idiom is not correct....for allowing?

So FInal answer is
D

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:30 pm
Dear srinivasapriyan.r,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

This question involves a few idioms. First of all, here's a free GMAT idiom ebook:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idiom-ebook/

Here's the text of the question:
Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water books from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.
(A) of violating state laws for allowing
(B) of violating state laws to allow
(C) that it violates state laws that allowed
(D) that it violated state laws allowing
(E) that state laws were being violated allowing


Split #1: the legal idiom involving "grounds". This is a very clear idiom, and appears consistently throughout English new media in which legal proceedings are discussed. The correct idiom is "grounds that", and "grounds of" is wrong for an action. The latter structure would work for noun phrase (on grounds of indecency, on grounds of the due process clause), but for an action, the "of construction is incorrect and we need a "that" clause. Choices (A) & (B) are incorrect.

Split #2: passive vs. active
The passive construction in (E) is not justified, and makes that part of the sentence longer and less direct. This is wrong.

Split #3: verb tense
We have "the judge overturned", past tense, so the verb "violate" must be in the same tense. Choice (C) has the present tense, which is incorrect.

Split #4: the idiom with "allowing"
(A) "state laws for allowing" = awkward, not correct
(B) "state laws to allow" = implies that the purpose of violating the law was to allow the use of watercraft -- this changes the meaning of the sentence
(C) "state laws that allowed" = fine
(D) "state laws allowing" = fine
(E) totally messing up the modification and its meaning

Because of all of these, (D) is the best answer.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 8:53 am
Thanked: 10 times

by dominhtri1995 » Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:44 am
Hi Mike,

I have a question. Can you tell me "it" in D refer to what? I think it is unclear because we can assume that it might refer to "ground" , "judge", "ban".

Thanks,

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:55 am
dominhtri1995 wrote:Hi Mike,

I have a question. Can you tell me "it" in D refer to what? I think it is unclear because we can assume that it might refer to "ground" , "judge", "ban".

Thanks,
Dear dominhtri1995,
That's a great question. I would say that the pronoun "it" refers unambiguously to the "ban". First of all, "it" couldn't possibly refer to the "judge", because the judge is a person ---- we would need to use a personal pronoun, "he" or "she", for the judge.

The word "ground"is trickier. There is no literal piece of ground discussed here. Here, the word "ground" is used as an idiomatic expression ---- "on grounds that" --- similar to the word "means" in the expression "by means of." We use an idiomatic expression such as this to convey something about our subject, but unless the subject is grammar itself, the idiomatic expression would not be the object or focus of our attention. Therefore, a pronoun would never refer to it.

Think of it this way. Every film has a director, but ordinarily, when the action of the film is in motion and characters are interacting, the actors are never shown on the film as interacting with the director, but the director is coordinating their action. You would not see the director on camera unless the film were a documentary about that director or about directors in general.

Similarly, idiomatic structures direct the logical flow of the sentence, but they are never the subject or the focus of attention, unless the subject of the sentence is grammar itself.

BTW, here's a free GMAT idiom ebook:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idiom-ebook/

What you asked here brought up a subtle and sophisticated point. Does all this make sense?

Mike :-)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/

• Page 1 of 1