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

Redeem

Assistant Attorney General

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:06 am
Thanked: 6 times

Assistant Attorney General

by gmatnmein2010 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:48 pm
In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning rod for controversy, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee went on record as one of the first and most senior government officials to consider controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing with so-called unlawful enemy combatants.

A) controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
B) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
C) controversial interrogation tactics as permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
D) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions to be irrelevant in dealing
E) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions as irrelevant in dealing
i usually get stumped on very lengthy SC pls help to deal them
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:00 am

by siddarth » Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:01 pm
gmatnmein2010 wrote:In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning rod for controversy, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee went on record as one of the first and most senior government officials to consider controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing with so-called unlawful enemy combatants.

A) controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
B) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
C) controversial interrogation tactics as permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
D) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions to be irrelevant in dealing
E) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions as irrelevant in dealing
i usually get stumped on very lengthy SC pls help to deal them
A is the correct answer.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:05 am
correct idiom is Consider X Y
here we have a format of consider xy and wz

a) consider x to be y and wz.....violates idiom
b) correct
c) consider X as Y and wz.....violates idiom
d) consider xy and w to be z.....violates idiom
e) consider xy and w as z.....violates idiom
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 1 times

by soumyopriyosaha » Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:06 am
gmatnmein2010 wrote:In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning rod for controversy, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee went on record as one of the first and most senior government officials to consider controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing with so-called unlawful enemy combatants.

A) controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
B) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
C) controversial interrogation tactics as permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
D) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions to be irrelevant in dealing
E) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions as irrelevant in dealing
i usually get stumped on very lengthy SC pls help to deal them
IMO B.
The SC tests the use of the idiom "consider X Y". Only B follows the rule correctly.
Please find the explanation inline.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:45 am
gmatnmein2010 wrote:In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning rod for controversy, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee went on record as one of the first and most senior government officials to consider controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing with so-called unlawful enemy combatants.

A) controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing - Awkward

B) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing - Correct

C) controversial interrogation tactics as permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing - Parallelism error

D) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions to be irrelevant in dealing - Same as C

E) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions as irrelevant in dealing - Same as C
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by bhumika.k.shah » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:21 am
Hope this helps :-)
gmatnmein2010 wrote:
In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning rod for controversy, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee went on record as one of the first and most senior government officials to consider controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing with so-called unlawful enemy combatants.

A) controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing - lack of parallelism - to be permissible....should be to be irrelevant...even then it would be wordy . ELIMINATE

B) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing - permissible and irrelevant - parallel - CORRECT

C) controversial interrogation tactics as permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing - as permissible .....irrelevant ...lack of parallelism .... ELIMINATE

D) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions to be irrelevant
in dealing - permissible ...to be irrelevant...lack of parallelism..ELIMINATE

E) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions as irrelevant in dealing - permissible ...as irrelevant...lack of parallelism...ELIMINATE

i usually get stumped on very lengthy SC pls help to deal them - GMAT just tries to confuse you .that is its sole intention...u r allowing them to do so. Kill it :-)
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1