unqualified vs unqualifying

This topic has expert replies
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Thanked: 1 times

unqualified vs unqualifying

by gmat.2008 » Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:22 am
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??

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 28
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:770

Re: unqualified vs unqualifying

by amitchell » Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:34 am
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,
Andrew Mitchell

GMAT Instructor
Assistant Director of GMAT & GRE
Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 102
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Location: toronto
Thanked: 5 times

by vaishalijain7 » Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:51 pm
which tense is appropriate in this case, present perfect or present continuous, and why?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 28
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:770

by amitchell » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:19 pm
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. :D
Andrew Mitchell

GMAT Instructor
Assistant Director of GMAT & GRE
Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Thanked: 1 times

why not labor's unqualifying support?

by gmat.2008 » Sat May 23, 2009 1:41 am
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???

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 28
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:770

Re: why not labor's unqualifying support?

by amitchell » Tue May 26, 2009 6:39 am
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?
Andrew Mitchell

GMAT Instructor
Assistant Director of GMAT & GRE
Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Thanked: 1 times

support by/support of

by gmat.2008 » Fri May 29, 2009 9:53 pm
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.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: 05 Feb 2022

Re: unqualified vs unqualifying

by Fdambro294 » Fri Apr 01, 2022 7:50 pm
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.