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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
Live EA class + 6 months of EA OnDemand
  • Expert-led weekly online sessions
  • EA Masterclass access between classes
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Major League Baseball Tickets

Expert replies
by komal » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:11 am
32. Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.

A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices.

OA A
Last edited by komal on Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion
Source: — Sentence Correction |

by fibbonnaci » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:42 am
A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. [correct!]

B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. [ seats are countable. 'less' is used only for uncountable objects]

C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. [ use of past perfect' had' is not required. implies that the stadiums had fewer seats only in the past]

D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. [same error as in B]

E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices. [same error as in B]
Join the discussion

by VikingWarrior » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:42 am
I think A might be incorrect because of referral:
The league was lobbying for stadiums with lesser seats
The league was lobbying with lesser seats
stadiums with lesser seats

However that had correctly refers to the immediately preceding noun- stadium
My answer is C
Join the discussion

by sammmu » Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:39 pm
Here the issue is that had and with, however that had doesnt refer to the past perfect, it took the past participle of have/has.
However the construction is a bit odd and wordy "" that had"" compare to ""with""

I would prefer the option A.

Also please explain the referral VikingWarrior
Join the discussion

by Giorgio » Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:39 am
fibbonnaci wrote:A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. [correct!]

B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. [ seats are countable. 'less' is used only for uncountable objects]

C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. [ use of past perfect' had' is not required. implies that the stadiums had fewer seats only in the past]

D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. [same error as in B]

E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices. [same error as in B]
I would choose C !

in A , WITH is unclear
Join the discussion

by gmatmachoman » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:26 am
komal wrote:32. Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.

A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices.
Contenders over here would be A & C becox of usage of "fewer & lower" ( Countable & Uncountable)

But C has a issue. Usage of past perfect tense..."had fewer seats" is not suitable.

SO pick A
Join the discussion

by Giorgio » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:57 am
gmatmachoman wrote:
komal wrote:32. Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.

A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices.
Contenders over here would be A & C becox of usage of "fewer & lower" ( Countable & Uncountable)

But C has a issue. Usage of past perfect tense..."had fewer seats" is not suitable.

SO pick A
HAD is not past perfect , it just just past form of VERB TO HAVE
Join the discussion

by prinit » Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:11 am
komal wrote:32. Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.

A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices.
My pick is A.
IMO had is not required here. so C,D,E are out. fewer is appropriate for countable nouns. So A is correct
I'm here to BTG :)
Join the discussion

by gmat800_ » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:45 am
IMO A

OA??
Join the discussion

by Phirozz » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:24 am
komal wrote:32. Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.

A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices.
IMO A whats the OA ?
Join the discussion

by reply2spg » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:08 am
It is A
komal wrote:32. Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.

A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. - Correct - stadiums with is correct
B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. - Incorrect - less is for uncountable, since we can count seats we need few
C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. - - Incorrect - This changes the meaning. It says stadium had seats to reduce supply and increase prices. This is wrong
D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices. - - Incorrect - same as B
E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices. - - Incorrect - Same as B
Join the discussion

by Giorgio » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:57 pm
I Still think that C is a correct answer!

We need some expert's opinion here
Join the discussion

by mohit11 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:45 pm
komal wrote:32. Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.

fibbonnaci's explaination is sound.

Cynics CHARGE and not CHARGED ..hence there is only 1 action in the past tense. Hence had is not required. Next since seats are countable, we should use fewer and not less.

A is our Winner and the correct answer.

A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices.
Join the discussion

by Giorgio » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:50 pm
GOSH!

Guys are you kidding me ? Where do you see a PAST PERFECT here?
Join the discussion

by mj41 » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:55 am
If it said "had had" it would be past perfect tense
Join the discussion