BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

As the former Chair...

Expert replies
by mksreeram » Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:25 pm
As the former chair of the planning board for 18 consecutive years and a board member for 28 years, Joan Philkill attended more than 400 meetings and reviewed more than 700 rezoning applications.

A) As the former
B) The former
C) Former
D) She was
E) As the
Join the discussion
Source: — Sentence Correction |

by raunekk » Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:01 pm
C????
Join the discussion

by Canman » Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:15 am
Answer is E.

Answers with the word "former" are not parallel with board member- you would expect "former chair and former board member".

Also, more importantly adding former changes the meaning of the sentence.

She atteneded (past tense) those meetings and and reviewed those applications as THE chair and/or board member, not as THE "former" chair/board member.
Join the discussion

by Vignesh.4384 » Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:12 am
i think it is E too
Join the discussion

by reachac » Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:23 am
Canman wrote:Answer is E.

Answers with the word "former" are not parallel with board member- you would expect "former chair and former board member".

Also, more importantly adding former changes the meaning of the sentence.

She atteneded (past tense) those meetings and and reviewed those applications as THE chair and/or board member, not as THE "former" chair/board member.
IMO E.

but @Canman, I'm sorry but I don agree with ur reasoning of parallelism, a person can no longer be the chair but he/she can continue as a member of the organization.
Join the discussion

by Canman » Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:39 am
Point well taken on the parallelism, reachac.

Thanks.
Join the discussion

by NSNguyen » Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:44 pm
As is used for comparing verb.
I would go with D,
any one can explain?
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
Join the discussion

by jube » Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:50 am
Ok, I'm absolutely confused about this one. Can anyone explain why a, b and c are wrong? Thanks!
Join the discussion

by jube » Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:10 am
bumping it once more... would really appreciate help with this one!
Join the discussion

by NSNguyen » Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:38 pm
She can modify for Joan Philkill.
Others cannot.
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
Join the discussion

by kvcpk » Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:42 am
IMO E

My first thought was A. But soon realised that someone cant be a formaer cair for 18 continuous years.
So picked E.
Join the discussion

by uwhusky » Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:08 am
I guess for A to be right, we would have to say:

As the former chair of the planning board for 18 consecutive years and a [current/former] board member for 28 years, Joan Philkill attended more than 400 meetings and reviewed more than 700 rezoning applications.
Join the discussion

by jerseygirl » Sun Sep 19, 2010 5:19 pm
uwhusky wrote:I guess for A to be right, we would have to say:

As the former chair of the planning board for 18 consecutive years and a [current/former] board member for 28 years, Joan Philkill attended more than 400 meetings and reviewed more than 700 rezoning applications.
i'm still a little mystified as to why A is wrong...


i thought the sentence meant that she was a former chair of the planning board...a position she filled for 18 years...

if the sentence were to read, "As the former chair of the board, Joan attended more than 400 meetings.." wouldn't it be correct? why does tacking on "For 18 consecutive years" make it wrong? please help. thanks!
Join the discussion

by uwhusky » Sun Sep 19, 2010 5:55 pm
I must have posted the original response before I understood the question.

The issue with A is that it is illogical to suggest that Joan was a "former chair" for 18 consecutive years.

For example, you would say that you were a teacher for 18 years, but you wouldn't say that you were a former teacher for 18 years.

Hopefully I make sense in the explanation =).
Yep.
Join the discussion

by ankurmit » Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:27 pm
IMO E

@Uwhusky you are right.
--------
Ankur mittal
Join the discussion