• 7 CATs FREE!
    If you earn 100 Forum Points

    Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
    100 points for $49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREE

    Veritas Prep
    VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS
    Earn 10 Points Per Post
    Earn 10 Points Per Thanks
    Earn 10 Points Per Upvote
    REDEEM NOW

Back tracking sentence

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 172
Joined: 21 Oct 2011
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:2 members

Back tracking sentence

by satishchandra » Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:58 pm
Among the emotions on display in the negotiating room were anger for repeatedly
raising the issue over and over again and preventing the raw wounds from earlier
battles from ever beginning to heal.

(A) were anger for repeatedly raising the issue over and over again and preventing the
raw wounds from earlier battles from ever beginning to heal
(B) was anger for repeatedly raising the issue and preventing the raw wounds from
earlier battles from ever beginning to heal
(C) were anger over repeatedly raising the issue and preventing the raw wounds from
earlier battles to begin healing
(D) was anger about the issue, which was raised over and over, and preventing the
wounds from earlier battles, still raw, to begin healing
(E) were anger about the issue, which was raised repeatedly, and preventing the raw
wounds from earlier battles to begin to heal

[spoiler]OA:B;
I know this is back tracking sentence. Subject is anger, which is singular.
In the correct choice; I thought parallelism is not at its best.
anger {for repeatedly raising the issue} and {preventing the raw wounds from
earlier battles from ever beginning to heal}
I think there should be one more "for" to be placed after 'and'- showing-
anger {for repeatedly raising the issue} and {for preventing the raw wounds from
earlier battles from ever beginning to heal}
Please express your views on this.[/spoiler]

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15503
Joined: 25 May 2010
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1889 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:55 am
satishchandra wrote:Among the emotions on display in the negotiating room were anger for repeatedly
raising the issue over and over again and preventing the raw wounds from earlier
battles from ever beginning to heal.

(A) were anger for repeatedly raising the issue over and over again and preventing the
raw wounds from earlier battles from ever beginning to heal
(B) was anger for repeatedly raising the issue and preventing the raw wounds from
earlier battles from ever beginning to heal
(C) were anger over repeatedly raising the issue and preventing the raw wounds from
earlier battles to begin healing
(D) was anger about the issue, which was raised over and over, and preventing the
wounds from earlier battles, still raw, to begin healing
(E) were anger about the issue, which was raised repeatedly, and preventing the raw
wounds from earlier battles to begin to heal

[spoiler]OA:B;
I know this is back tracking sentence. Subject is anger, which is singular.
In the correct choice; I thought parallelism is not at its best.
anger {for repeatedly raising the issue} and {preventing the raw wounds from
earlier battles from ever beginning to heal}
I think there should be one more "for" to be placed after 'and'- showing-
anger {for repeatedly raising the issue} and {for preventing the raw wounds from
earlier battles from ever beginning to heal}
Please express your views on this.[/spoiler]
In A, C and E, were (plural) does not agree with anger (singular), the only emotion discussed in the sentence. Eliminate A, C and E.

In D, the function of preventing is unclear. Eliminate D.

The correct answer is B.

If B were to say for repeatedly raising and FOR preventing, the meaning would change. The omission of the second FOR implies that the modifier REPEATEDLY refers to both actions: anger for REPEATEDLY raising the issue and [REPEATEDLY] preventing the raw wounds from beginning to heal.
Last edited by GMATGuruNY on Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mitch Hunt
Private Tutor for the GMAT and GRE
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.

Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com.
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: 24 May 2011
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by iongmat » Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:44 am
GMATGuruNY wrote: If B were to say anger for raising and FOR preventing, the inclusion of the second FOR would imply that the two actions (raising and preventing) were DISTINCT. The intended meaning is that the two actions were CONTEMPORANEOUS: RAISING the issues and PREVENTING the wounds from beginning to heal were part of the SAME recurring event. Hence the omission of the second FOR.
Hi GMATGuruNY, can you please explain this a bit more. For example, we can say:

The slaves were fighting for wage hikes and better working conditions.

OR

The slaves were fighting for wage hikes and for better working conditions.

So, are you saying the first one is not correct? Also, specifically in this sentence, does it matter that we know that these two are contemporaneous activities?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15503
Joined: 25 May 2010
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1889 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:28 am
iongmat wrote:Hi GMATGuruNY, can you please explain this a bit more. For example, we can say:

The slaves were fighting for wage hikes and better working conditions.

OR

The slaves were fighting for wage hikes and for better working conditions.

So, are you saying the first one is not correct? Also, specifically in this sentence, does it matter that we know that these two are contemporaneous activities?
Both are fine.

Please check my amended post above. What links the two actions in the SC above is the modifier REPEATEDLY: the omission of the second FOR implies that REPEATEDLY applies to both actions (raising and preventing).
Last edited by GMATGuruNY on Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mitch Hunt
Private Tutor for the GMAT and GRE
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.

Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com.
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: 24 May 2011
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by iongmat » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:56 am
Are you saying that the following sentence means that John likes to each popcorn "while" watching movies?

John likes to watch movies and eat popcorn.

Also, since Gerunds "are" noun forms, I cannot spot any difference between the following two sentences using Gerunds:

The organization was campaigning for swimming regularly and eating healthy, in order to stay fit.

AND

The organization was campaigning for swimming regularly and for eating healthy, in order to stay fit.

Also, more specifically, in the sentence posted in the original mail, how does it matter (in terms of our choice) if we interpret them or not interpret them to be contemporaneous events/actions.

Please explain.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15503
Joined: 25 May 2010
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1889 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:56 am
iongmat wrote:Are you saying that the following sentence means that John likes to each popcorn "while" watching movies?

John likes to watch movies and eat popcorn.

Please explain.
Each of the following is correct:
John likes to watch movies and to eat popcorn.
John likes to watch movies and eat popcorn.


I do think that the first version (which includes a second TO) implies more of a separation between the two actions and that the second version (which omits the TO) implies more of a connection. This distinction, however, is debatable. (It's the sort of thing that isn't relevant to the GMAT but would be discussed for hours on end in my college linguistics class.). If either of the two sentences above were to appear on the GMAT, I would hold onto it.

The SC above offers a more compelling reason not to include the second FOR: the modifier repeatedly. Please check my amended post above.
Mitch Hunt
Private Tutor for the GMAT and GRE
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.

Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com.
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 172
Joined: 21 Oct 2011
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:2 members

by satishchandra » Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:36 pm
GMATGuruNY wrote:If B were to say for repeatedly raising and FOR preventing, the meaning would change. The omission of the second FOR implies that the modifier REPEATEDLY refers to both actions: anger for REPEATEDLY raising the issue and [REPEATEDLY] preventing the raw wounds from beginning to heal.
Thank you Mitch. Got it completely.
Great observation. You are spot on.