gmat.2008 wrote:The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights
and environmental protection, have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support.
A. have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support
B. are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor
C. have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
D. receive consistent and unqualified support by labor
E. are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor

OA is C.

what is wrong with b??

gmat.2008

Thanks for this post. The word "qualify", in this case, means to attach restrictions to something to to limit it. "Unqualified" support is unconditional support. The -ing form doesn't make sense in this instance because the subject of the qualifying is "labor" (means workers' unions, etc.), not "support".

Does that explanation clear it up?

Best,

which tense is appropriate in this case, present perfect or present continuous, and why?

vaishalijain7 wrote:which tense is appropriate in this case, present perfect or present continuous, and why?

vaishalijain7, good question. technically, "unqualified" is a participle (a verb acting as an adjective), a past participle. that's the right tense because the qualifying is done *to* the support *by* labor. if the support was doing the qualifying, then the present participle would be appropriate.

Clear? Keep 'em coming.

sir ,

i still have a doubt.

we tell that When action is "of ongoing nature" then we use progressive tense. we also tell that when action is "still going" we use present perfect.

please clarify this doubt. when to use present perfect and when to use continous?

one more point has come that why we cannt use labor's unqualifying support???

gmat.2008 wrote:sir ,

i still have a doubt.

we tell that When action is "of ongoing nature" then we use progressive tense. we also tell that when action is "still going" we use present perfect.

please clarify this doubt. when to use present perfect and when to use continous?

one more point has come that why we cannt use labor's unqualifying support???

Thanks for your question. It's true that the progressive tense is for actions of an "ongoing nature". But it's also important to think about the word that the participle is modifying.

In this case, "unqualifying/unqualified" is modifying the word "support." With the present participle, the "support" is the subject of the unqualifying. In the case of the past participle, the "support" is the object of the unqualifying. The latter case is the sensible one, because in this case it is labor (the subject) that is not qualifying their support (the object).

In this case, thinking about the tense of the participle is less useful than thinking about the subject and object of the participle.

Is that helpful?

that means this sentence can be formed in the following two ways:

1. three women are getting unqualifying support by labor.

2. three women have got unqualified support of labor.

please correct me.

Although this post appeared a long time ago, it still is best practice to clear up any errors.

“Unqualifying” is not a word that has entered the formal vernacular in the United States.

To apportion an agent to the participle “unqualifying” is nonsense, since no such word exists in formal writing.