The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion, that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit, year by year.
A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has
B) enough has been set aside with which environmental claims can be paid and it will have no longer
C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having
D) enough has been set aside to pay for environmental claims, thus no longer having
E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have
The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its e
This topic has expert replies
- richachampion
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
- Location: Noida, India
- Thanked: 32 times
- Followed by:26 members
- GMAT Score:740
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
- OptimusPrep
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:36 am
- Location: Worldwide
- Thanked: 120 times
- Followed by:8 members
- GMAT Score:770
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Meaning: The company has increased revenues, has set aside enough funds and will not need to pay them bit by bit.richachampion wrote:The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion, that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit, year by year.
A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has
B) enough has been set aside with which environmental claims can be paid and it will have no longer
C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having
D) enough has been set aside to pay for environmental claims, thus no longer having
E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have
Coming to the options:
A: that is redundant here
B: not sure who has set aside the money
C: having is incorrect
D: Having is incorrect
E: Correct
Correct Option: E
Is there any particular option with which you are having problem?
-
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:27 pm
- Followed by:8 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Hello Everyone!
Let's tackle this question, one problem at a time, and get to the correct answer quickly! First, here is the original question with the major differences between each option highlighted in orange:
The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion, that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit, year by year.
(A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has
(B) enough has been set aside with which environmental claims can be paid and it will have no longer
(C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having
(D) enough has been set aside to pay for environmental claims, thus no longer having
(E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have
After a quick scan over each option, a couple major differences jump out:
1. How they begin: it has set aside enough / enough has been set aside
2. How they end: no longer has / have no longer / no longer having / no longer have
Let's start with #1 on our list: how they begin. Either way we choose to go with this, we will knock out 2-3 answers right away.
The biggest question we have to ask here is, "WHO is setting aside the money?"
it has set aside enough = "it" is clearly referring back to the company --> the company is setting aside the money
enough has been set aside = there is no clear pronoun referring to the company or anyone else --> UNCLEAR who set aside the money!
Therefore, we can eliminate options B & D because they don't clearly say WHO is setting aside the money for later, which is a problem with clarity!
Now that we're left with only 3 options, let's take a look at #2 on our list: how each option ends!
(A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has
This is INCORRECT for a couple reasons. First, the word "that" is unnecessary here and sounds redundant. Second, the verb "has" is present tense, which isn't the best choice to indicate future events (using profits and capital to pay claims). If a sentence says they have "hope" that an action will have positive consequences, they're talking about the future, not the present.
(C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having
This is INCORRECT because it uses the gerund "having" as a verb, which doesn't work here. It also indicates a present tense action, rather than a future one.
(E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have
This is CORRECT! It's clear that the company set aside the payments, thanks to the pronoun "it." It also uses future tense "will have" to indicate the money will go toward future claims payments!
There you have it - option E is the correct choice!
Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
Let's tackle this question, one problem at a time, and get to the correct answer quickly! First, here is the original question with the major differences between each option highlighted in orange:
The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion, that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit, year by year.
(A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has
(B) enough has been set aside with which environmental claims can be paid and it will have no longer
(C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having
(D) enough has been set aside to pay for environmental claims, thus no longer having
(E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have
After a quick scan over each option, a couple major differences jump out:
1. How they begin: it has set aside enough / enough has been set aside
2. How they end: no longer has / have no longer / no longer having / no longer have
Let's start with #1 on our list: how they begin. Either way we choose to go with this, we will knock out 2-3 answers right away.
The biggest question we have to ask here is, "WHO is setting aside the money?"
it has set aside enough = "it" is clearly referring back to the company --> the company is setting aside the money
enough has been set aside = there is no clear pronoun referring to the company or anyone else --> UNCLEAR who set aside the money!
Therefore, we can eliminate options B & D because they don't clearly say WHO is setting aside the money for later, which is a problem with clarity!
Now that we're left with only 3 options, let's take a look at #2 on our list: how each option ends!
(A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has
This is INCORRECT for a couple reasons. First, the word "that" is unnecessary here and sounds redundant. Second, the verb "has" is present tense, which isn't the best choice to indicate future events (using profits and capital to pay claims). If a sentence says they have "hope" that an action will have positive consequences, they're talking about the future, not the present.
(C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having
This is INCORRECT because it uses the gerund "having" as a verb, which doesn't work here. It also indicates a present tense action, rather than a future one.
(E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have
This is CORRECT! It's clear that the company set aside the payments, thanks to the pronoun "it." It also uses future tense "will have" to indicate the money will go toward future claims payments!
There you have it - option E is the correct choice!
Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
In option E - " will no longer have/has" . Subject (company - singular) doesnt agree with have (plural)
also What about parallelism with 'and' - before 'and' - has is being used.
Thanks!
also What about parallelism with 'and' - before 'and' - has is being used.
Thanks!
[email protected] wrote:Hello Everyone!
Let's tackle this question, one problem at a time, and get to the correct answer quickly! First, here is the original question with the major differences between each option highlighted in orange:
The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion, that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit, year by year.
(A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has
(B) enough has been set aside with which environmental claims can be paid and it will have no longer
(C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having
(D) enough has been set aside to pay for environmental claims, thus no longer having
(E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have
After a quick scan over each option, a couple major differences jump out:
1. How they begin: it has set aside enough / enough has been set aside
2. How they end: no longer has / have no longer / no longer having / no longer have
Let's start with #1 on our list: how they begin. Either way we choose to go with this, we will knock out 2-3 answers right away.
The biggest question we have to ask here is, "WHO is setting aside the money?"
it has set aside enough = "it" is clearly referring back to the company --> the company is setting aside the money
enough has been set aside = there is no clear pronoun referring to the company or anyone else --> UNCLEAR who set aside the money!
Therefore, we can eliminate options B & D because they don't clearly say WHO is setting aside the money for later, which is a problem with clarity!
Now that we're left with only 3 options, let's take a look at #2 on our list: how each option ends!
(A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has
This is INCORRECT for a couple reasons. First, the word "that" is unnecessary here and sounds redundant. Second, the verb "has" is present tense, which isn't the best choice to indicate future events (using profits and capital to pay claims). If a sentence says they have "hope" that an action will have positive consequences, they're talking about the future, not the present.
(C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having
This is INCORRECT because it uses the gerund "having" as a verb, which doesn't work here. It also indicates a present tense action, rather than a future one.
(E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have
This is CORRECT! It's clear that the company set aside the payments, thanks to the pronoun "it." It also uses future tense "will have" to indicate the money will go toward future claims payments!
There you have it - option E is the correct choice!
Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
In option E - " will no longer have/has". Subject (company - singular) doesn't agree with have (plural)
also What about parallelism with 'and' - before 'and' - has is being used.
Experts, please explain.
Thanks!
also What about parallelism with 'and' - before 'and' - has is being used.
Experts, please explain.
Thanks!