Tricky SC Grail question - Expert Request

[mundasingh123]

i found 3 threads on BTG but none of them had any expert replies .
They all had member replies only so could an Expert answer how to reach the OA . This SC is very tricky
The proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or modify a number of popular
tax breaks, including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income
tax rates could be reduced across the board.

A. would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced
B. will repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates
can be reduced
C. will repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, which includes the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced
D. would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so as to reduce income tax rates
E. would repeal and modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced

[sameerballani]

imo D
oa?

i found 3 threads on BTG but none of them had any expert replies .
They all had member replies only so could an Expert answer how to reach the OA . This SC is very tricky
The proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or modify a number of popular
tax breaks, including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income
tax rates could be reduced across the board.

A. would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced
B. will repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates
can be reduced
C. will repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, which includes the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced
D. would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so as to reduce income tax rates
E. would repeal and modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced

[mundasingh123]

imo D
oa?

i found 3 threads on BTG but none of them had any expert replies .
They all had member replies only so could an Expert answer how to reach the OA . This SC is very tricky
The proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or modify a number of popular
tax breaks, including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income
tax rates could be reduced across the board.

A. would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced
B. will repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates
can be reduced
C. will repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, which includes the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced
D. would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so as to reduce income tax rates
E. would repeal and modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced

I noticed You were 1 of the contributors to the discussion on aristotle prep Forums . You should have known the OA. AFAIK B

[singh181]

non underlined part of the sentence talks about the "proposed simplification". "would" is an incorrect usage here since "would" is used when talk about hypotheical events or future from past.
a,d and e can be removed.
"including" is used when we want to list a subset from a big category.
"The trainer told me about various weight reducing exercises, including cardio and lifting." so, [c] can be removed. "which" modifies the noun before it "tax breaks", but "deductibility of mortgage interest payments" is a subset of "a number of popular tax breaks".

IMO B

[mundasingh123]

Hi Thanks to all for the replies . But Alas we are again headed towards a dead end . I need an Expert to comment on this .
"would " is not only used for hypothetical situations but also for conditional situations. Would is a conditional tense . I dont see anything that makes the use of would unacceptable .
The Modification that is a result of the proposed change could also be part of a hypothesis .

[aspirant2011]

The proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could be reduced across the board.

A. would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could be reduced --------> would and could in the same sentence should be avoided,moreover would represents past tense but the tax code is proposed and therefore we require simple future will....

B. will repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates can be reduced

C. will repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, which includes the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could be reduced ----> changes the intended meaning

D. would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so as to reduce income tax rates ----> wrong idiom

E. would repeal and modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could be reduced

[xxpatzz]

IMO A


I also found this article from Seattle Times, and (A) was used in the article, hope this may help.

https://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... 2013400863&

[Brian@VeritasPrep]

Hey mundasingh,

Thanks for the PM! Interesting - you know...I wonder how well-written this question is in a GMAT context. Everyone's saying 'B' but my first thought on this is that "would" should be better than "will" because it's a "proposed" law, so we don't know for sure that anything WILL happen...just what WOULD happen if the law does, indeed, come to fruition. And that would eliminate B (and C).

I'd say that E, then, has an awkward meaning with "repeal AND modify" laws, since once it's repealed it's gone...there's nothing left to modify. So "OR" in A and D is preferable. I'd say that they're probably going for A...I don't even know that I'm completely against the idiom in D like so many are, but the meaning is a little off. They're not repealing these tax breaks to directly lower tax rates...that's a different step altogether. So the phrasing "so that tax rates could be lowered across the board", by introducing another verb, seems more logical with the intended meaning.

So that's my explanation for A... As with any practice problem the process is probably much more important than the result, so hopefully the logic makes sense. I know that my answer contradicts the supposed "OA" but I'm pretty confident in the process here on this question...

[aspirant2011]

Hey mundasingh,

Thanks for the PM! Interesting - you know...I wonder how well-written this question is in a GMAT context. Everyone's saying 'B' but my first thought on this is that "would" should be better than "will" because it's a "proposed" law, so we don't know for sure that anything WILL happen...just what WOULD happen if the law does, indeed, come to fruition. And that would eliminate B (and C).

I'd say that E, then, has an awkward meaning with "repeal AND modify" laws, since once it's repealed it's gone...there's nothing left to modify. So "OR" in A and D is preferable. I'd say that they're probably going for A...I don't even know that I'm completely against the idiom in D like so many are, but the meaning is a little off. They're not repealing these tax breaks to directly lower tax rates...that's a different step altogether. So the phrasing "so that tax rates could be lowered across the board", by introducing another verb, seems more logical with the intended meaning.

So that's my explanation for A... As with any practice problem the process is probably much more important than the result, so hopefully the logic makes sense. I know that my answer contradicts the supposed "OA" but I'm pretty confident in the process here on this question...

Hi Brian,

Request you to clarify on one thing i.e can would & could used in the same sentence????? please share the examples for such usage

[sameerballani]

Hi Brian.
I had few things to clarify.
1) I chose option D, which is not grammatical wrong but changes the original meaning of option A, which by itself is correct. So probably the reason to go with option A is to preserve the intended meaning. Is my understanding correct? the usage: So as to . is it correct?

2) Could you please clarify on the usage of
could v/s can
might v/s may be v/s probably v/s
would v/s will

3) Also, do u expect such a question on GMAT?

Thanks

Hey mundasingh,

Thanks for the PM! Interesting - you know...I wonder how well-written this question is in a GMAT context. Everyone's saying 'B' but my first thought on this is that "would" should be better than "will" because it's a "proposed" law, so we don't know for sure that anything WILL happen...just what WOULD happen if the law does, indeed, come to fruition. And that would eliminate B (and C).

I'd say that E, then, has an awkward meaning with "repeal AND modify" laws, since once it's repealed it's gone...there's nothing left to modify. So "OR" in A and D is preferable. I'd say that they're probably going for A...I don't even know that I'm completely against the idiom in D like so many are, but the meaning is a little off. They're not repealing these tax breaks to directly lower tax rates...that's a different step altogether. So the phrasing "so that tax rates could be lowered across the board", by introducing another verb, seems more logical with the intended meaning.

So that's my explanation for A... As with any practice problem the process is probably much more important than the result, so hopefully the logic makes sense. I know that my answer contradicts the supposed "OA" but I'm pretty confident in the process here on this question...

[Frankenstein]

the usage: So as to . is it correct?

Hi,
'so as to' is unidiomatic. Hence, incorrect. In order to make it correct add an adjective after 'so'.
'so [adjective] as to...' is correct.

[Brian@VeritasPrep]

Good questions, Sameer.

First, I'd be really careful about eliminating an entire phrase like "so as to" just on the basis of its being "unidiomatic". There are plenty of fairly well-respected resources that claim a legitimate uses for "so as to" as a valid idiom, and I know I've used it in my own speech and writing. A couple examples:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/so+as+to
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/so%20as%20to

I'd look for logical meaning problems or other main-category grammar problems before I start looking at idioms. You just can't be great at idioms...there are too many, too many unique usages, etc. If I had to pick the least-useful study strategy that anyone can employ, it's a reliance on the word "unidiomatic" - I'd argue that at least 1/3 of the time you see it used in these forums it's wrong. That phrase may not have been idiomatically correct in a particular sentence, but that doesn't mean that it's universally an incorrect sequence of words!

For example, one of the OG questions that calls "so as to" unidiomatic is this one:

In 1527 King Henry VIII sought to have his marriage to Queen Catherine annulled so as to marry Anne Boleyn.

But the problem isn't that "so as to" as a sequence of three words is dead wrong in any circumstance. It's that its meaning is more of a "I did this so that that would result" kind of thing, and here the annulment doesn't directly lead to the new marriage. Those are two separate actions. You could, though, say that:

"I put on boots so as to keep my feet dry while hiking"

Because putting on the boots directly led to keeping my feet dry.

But I digress a little on this question... My main point with the Boelyn example is that the solution might say "unidiomatic" but that doesn't mean that it's ALWAYS unidiomatic...it could just be wrong in that case. I'll go on record as saying that the word "unidiomatic" in a solution to a GMAT problem is lazy. I'm sure I've done it and I know that the OG does it - it may be correct, but it pretty literally means "it's just wrong", but doesn't give you any indication of whether it's ALWAYS wrong or wrong IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE. Don't mistake the latter for the former!

To the other questions:

1) "so as to" here is used incorrectly in the same way as the Boelyn example above. One action - repealing tax breaks - doesn't directly lead to the suggested result, the lowering of rates across the board. So you can't say "I repealed tax breaks so as to lower taxes across the board". You need to add a cause/effect in there of two different actions: "I repealed tax breaks so that we could instead create a lower tax structure across the board for everyone."

2) These are tricky just because there are multiple uses for most of these words. I think the big difference you're looking for is:

"Could" is conditional; "Can" is definite, and the same difference pretty much holds for "would" (conditional) vs. "will" (definite).

So...

If I were four inches taller I could dunk a basketball. (this is a hypothetical)

vs.

I can dunk a basketball. (this is definite)

But you'd also use "could" in a past-tense:

When I was 16 and in better shape I could dunk a basketball.

So it's difficult to give you a quick definition of each term...

3) Yeah, I certainly think you could see this - the Boelyn example is from the OG, so it was official. Just keep in mind that the MEANING is critical...the idioms will sort themselves out if you're up to speed on the major categories and the meaning.

I hope that helps...

[mundasingh123]

Thanks Brian . The so as to concept has been very helpful

[mundasingh123]

Thanks for the PM! Interesting - you know...I wonder how well-written this question is in a GMAT context. Everyone's saying 'B' but my first thought on this is that "would" should be better than "will" because it's a "proposed" law, so we don't know for sure that anything WILL happen...just what WOULD happen if the law does, indeed, come to fruition. And that would eliminate B (and C).

Hi bRian had this law been enacted , would the use of "will " have been justified ?

[Brian@VeritasPrep]

Hi bRian had this law been enacted , would the use of "will " have been justified ?

Yes! Because at that point the law WILL do something:

The new budget, passed yesterday by Congress, will devote twice as much funding to...

The recently-passed law will require all citizens to...

At the point that the law is definite, its results "will" be what they are. But if it's proposed, then "would" is better because it's still uncertain.