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
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
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.

Spanish Armada

Expert replies
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
Join the discussion
Source: — Sentence Correction |

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

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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

spanish armada didnt itself stymied the plan
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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)
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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)
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion