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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

Spanish Armada

Expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 amFollowed by: 43 members
Location: Chennai, India
Thanked: 206 times
GMAT Score:640
by GmatKiss » Sun May 06, 2012 6:16 am
Stymieing the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing of eight war ships as "fireships," vessels filled with pitch, brimstone, gunpowder, and tar and sent downwind toward the closely-anchored Spanish fleet.


Stymieing the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing

Stymieing the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrifice

Stymieing the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:36 pmFollowed by: 21 members
Thanked: 99 times

by vk_vinayak » Sun May 06, 2012 6:45 am
IMO D
- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 amFollowed by: 12 members
Thanked: 114 times

by patanjali.purpose » Sun May 06, 2012 7:17 am
GmatKiss wrote:Stymieing the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing of eight war ships as "fireships," vessels filled with pitch, brimstone, gunpowder, and tar and sent downwind toward the closely-anchored Spanish fleet.


Stymieing the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing

Stymieing the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada was not only gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrifice

Stymieing the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the defeat of the Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice
Opening verbing modifier modifies THE REASON (A/D), THE DEFEAT (E);

NOT ONLY DUE....BUT ALSO THE SACRIFICING (parallelism problem) - drop B/A;

IMO WHICH correctly modifies SPANISH ARMADA in C

IMO C
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pmFollowed by: 192 members
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Sun May 06, 2012 8:45 am
A--opening modifier incorrectly modifies "the reason"

B--"not only" should be after "due to"...we're comparing 2 reasons for the defeat, so it should be "due not only to *reason one* but also to *reason two*"

C--repeats "due to" unnecessarily ("not only due to...but also due to") and "not only" should be after the first "due to"

D--same modifier error as A

E--correct and parallel
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 amFollowed by: 12 members
Thanked: 114 times

by patanjali.purpose » Sun May 06, 2012 9:14 am
Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:A--opening modifier incorrectly modifies "the reason"

C--repeats "due to" unnecessarily ("not only due to...but also due to") and "not only" should be after the first "due to"

E--correct and parallel
Stymieing the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada...
Bill,

Need a clarification - my understanding is when VERBING is an opening modifier then the following subject should be the AGENT OF THE ACTION described by VERBING. In this example STYIEING ...NETHERLANDS should modify SPANISH ARMADA.

Pls clarify
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:00 am
Thanked: 4 times

by rajcools » Sun May 06, 2012 10:33 am
defeat of spanish armada stymied the plan.....

spanish armada didnt itself stymied the plan
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pmFollowed by: 192 members
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Sun May 06, 2012 1:08 pm
patanjali.purpose wrote:
Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:A--opening modifier incorrectly modifies "the reason"

C--repeats "due to" unnecessarily ("not only due to...but also due to") and "not only" should be after the first "due to"

E--correct and parallel
Stymieing the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, the reason for the defeat of the Spanish Armada...
Bill,

Need a clarification - my understanding is when VERBING is an opening modifier then the following subject should be the AGENT OF THE ACTION described by VERBING. In this example STYIEING ...NETHERLANDS should modify SPANISH ARMADA.

Pls clarify
With a participial phrase, I always ask myself what is doing that action. What is stymieing the armada's plans? It's not the reason for the defeat; it's the defeat itself.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:36 pmFollowed by: 21 members
Thanked: 99 times

by vk_vinayak » Sun May 06, 2012 9:54 pm
@Bill,

How is the splitting up of the idiom 'due to' is correct in the credited answer? I was thrown off by that splitting.

Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice

If we split this way, does it not change the meaning. The 'due', without 'to' following immediately, would mean payable. Eg: Your payment is due.

I have seen in the past where the pair words are split, but none of them changed the meaning. Here I think meaning is getting changed. Can you please clarify.
- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 amFollowed by: 12 members
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 49 times
GMAT Score:700

by bubbliiiiiiii » Mon May 07, 2012 1:45 am
Bill@VeritasPrep wrote: C--repeats "due to" unnecessarily ("not only due to...but also due to") and "not only" should be after the first "due to"
Isn't this the problem in E as well as 'to' is redundant.

Please advice.
Regards,

Pranay
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:56 pm
Location: New york
Thanked: 9 times

by agarwalva » Mon May 07, 2012 7:23 am
Bill in options B and C does "which" modify Spanish Armada or the defeat... I assumed it modifies Spanish Armada..

The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pmFollowed by: 192 members
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Mon May 07, 2012 8:34 am
vk_vinayak wrote:@Bill,

How is the splitting up of the idiom 'due to' is correct in the credited answer? I was thrown off by that splitting.

Spanish Armada was due not only to gale winds that favored the British but also to the sacrifice

If we split this way, does it not change the meaning. The 'due', without 'to' following immediately, would mean payable. Eg: Your payment is due.

I have seen in the past where the pair words are split, but none of them changed the meaning. Here I think meaning is getting changed. Can you please clarify.
The 'to' usually follows 'due' directly, but in this case it doesn't have to. If we put the 'not only' in front of 'due to,' we lose parallel form:

not only due to... but also to

As long as the 'to' is there, we're not changing the meaning.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pmFollowed by: 192 members
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Mon May 07, 2012 8:35 am
bubbliiiiiiii wrote:
Bill@VeritasPrep wrote: C--repeats "due to" unnecessarily ("not only due to...but also due to") and "not only" should be after the first "due to"
Isn't this the problem in E as well as 'to' is redundant.

Please advice.
No, we have to have that 'to' to create parallel form in the correlated pair not only...but also...
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pmFollowed by: 192 members
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Mon May 07, 2012 8:37 am
agarwalva wrote:Bill in options B and C does "which" modify Spanish Armada or the defeat... I assumed it modifies Spanish Armada..

The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also the sacrificing

The defeat of the Spanish Armada, which stymied the Armada's plans to meet up with the Duke of Parma's army off the coast of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands, was not only due to gale winds that favored the British but also due to the sacrificing
As a general rule, a relative clause should modify the noun directly before it, but if that noun is in a prepositional phrase ("of the Spanish Armada"), then it can modify the noun being modified by that prepositional phrase ("defeat").
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:36 pmFollowed by: 21 members
Thanked: 99 times

by vk_vinayak » Tue May 08, 2012 2:17 am

As a general rule, a relative clause should modify the noun directly before it, but if that noun is in a prepositional phrase ("of the Spanish Armada"), then it can modify the noun being modified by that prepositional phrase ("defeat").
In "X of Y, which" construction, if both X and Y are eligible to be modified by 'which', how do we decide which one is correct? Do you know of any OG problems that tests this concept?

Thanks,
- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pmFollowed by: 192 members
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Tue May 08, 2012 6:16 am
In that case, we have to use logic, much like with participial phrases at the end of a sentence (since they can modify the noun before the comma or the subject of the clause).

I don't know of any OG problems offhand, but if I have some time later I'll take a look.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Locked