Gmatprep SC again

[hwiya320]

Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes from the tranquil waters of puget Sound, a judge overturne dthe ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.

b) of their violating state laws to allow

c) that it violates state laws that allowed

d) that it violated state laws allowing

e) teh state laws were being violated allowing

oa = D

[ronniecoleman]

What Ron ( Manhattan ) said :

choice (e) is TOTALLY wrong. if you can't kill choice (e) quickly, you should read through a large number of correct answers to SC questions in the official guides, just for the purpose of internalizing the writing style of the correct answers.
i can't overestimate the importance of becoming comfortable with the writing style of the gmat. in the same way you can classify language as 'shakespearean' or 'faulkner-esque' at a glance, you can also classify language as to whether you might see it on the gmat. once you achieve a certain degree of this familiarity, choice (e) and its ilk will begin to look ridiculous.

the formal reasons why choice (e) is wrong: 1, it uses the passive voice for no good reason whatsoever, and, 2, more importantly, it says only that state laws were being violated; it doesn't at all indicate the crucial fact that the ban violated the state laws. that's baaaaaadd bad bad.

choice (c) is wrong because the tenses don't make sense. 'violates' is in the present tense, but 'allowed' is in the past tense. either one of these tenses could potentially make sense individually, but the combination is absurd: you can't violate (present tense) a law that used to allow something (past tense). if you're going to violate the law in the present tense, then whatever part of the law was violated had better carry over into the present tense.
interestingly, all 3 other tense combinations make sense: violates/allows, violated/allows (if the law is still in effect), and violated/allowed (if the law is no longer in effect).

choice (d) circumvents this issue altogether by employing the participle form (-ing). despite its name (it's formally called the "present participle"), this form is NOT necessarily a present-tense construction; rather, it has no inherent tense at all, and merely adopts the tense of whatever verbs in the sentence do have a tense. therefore, in choice (d), 'allowing' takes place in the past tense, simultaneously with 'violated'.

[Vignesh.4384]

What Ron ( Manhattan ) said :

choice (e) is TOTALLY wrong. if you can't kill choice (e) quickly, you should read through a large number of correct answers to SC questions in the official guides, just for the purpose of internalizing the writing style of the correct answers.
i can't overestimate the importance of becoming comfortable with the writing style of the gmat. in the same way you can classify language as 'shakespearean' or 'faulkner-esque' at a glance, you can also classify language as to whether you might see it on the gmat. once you achieve a certain degree of this familiarity, choice (e) and its ilk will begin to look ridiculous.

the formal reasons why choice (e) is wrong: 1, it uses the passive voice for no good reason whatsoever, and, 2, more importantly, it says only that state laws were being violated; it doesn't at all indicate the crucial fact that the ban violated the state laws. that's baaaaaadd bad bad.

choice (c) is wrong because the tenses don't make sense. 'violates' is in the present tense, but 'allowed' is in the past tense. either one of these tenses could potentially make sense individually, but the combination is absurd: you can't violate (present tense) a law that used to allow something (past tense). if you're going to violate the law in the present tense, then whatever part of the law was violated had better carry over into the present tense.
interestingly, all 3 other tense combinations make sense: violates/allows, violated/allows (if the law is still in effect), and violated/allowed (if the law is no longer in effect).

choice (d) circumvents this issue altogether by employing the participle form (-ing). despite its name (it's formally called the "present participle"), this form is NOT necessarily a present-tense construction; rather, it has no inherent tense at all, and merely adopts the tense of whatever verbs in the sentence do have a tense. therefore, in choice (d), 'allowing' takes place in the past tense, simultaneously with 'violated'.

I think that the "allowing" in option D does not take the past tense.
The bad is no more since it was overturned by the judge. so use "violated".
But however the state laws are still in effect. So they are using "allowing".

We will have to wait and see what Ron says. I could be wrong

[ronniecoleman]

What Ron ( Manhattan ) said :

choice (e) is TOTALLY wrong. if you can't kill choice (e) quickly, you should read through a large number of correct answers to SC questions in the official guides, just for the purpose of internalizing the writing style of the correct answers.
i can't overestimate the importance of becoming comfortable with the writing style of the gmat. in the same way you can classify language as 'shakespearean' or 'faulkner-esque' at a glance, you can also classify language as to whether you might see it on the gmat. once you achieve a certain degree of this familiarity, choice (e) and its ilk will begin to look ridiculous.

the formal reasons why choice (e) is wrong: 1, it uses the passive voice for no good reason whatsoever, and, 2, more importantly, it says only that state laws were being violated; it doesn't at all indicate the crucial fact that the ban violated the state laws. that's baaaaaadd bad bad.

choice (c) is wrong because the tenses don't make sense. 'violates' is in the present tense, but 'allowed' is in the past tense. either one of these tenses could potentially make sense individually, but the combination is absurd: you can't violate (present tense) a law that used to allow something (past tense). if you're going to violate the law in the present tense, then whatever part of the law was violated had better carry over into the present tense.
interestingly, all 3 other tense combinations make sense: violates/allows, violated/allows (if the law is still in effect), and violated/allowed (if the law is no longer in effect).

choice (d) circumvents this issue altogether by employing the participle form (-ing). despite its name (it's formally called the "present participle"), this form is NOT necessarily a present-tense construction; rather, it has no inherent tense at all, and merely adopts the tense of whatever verbs in the sentence do have a tense. therefore, in choice (d), 'allowing' takes place in the past tense, simultaneously with 'violated'.

I think that the "allowing" in option D does not take the past tense.
The bad is no more since it was overturned by the judge. so use "violated".
But however the state laws are still in effect. So they are using "allowing".

We will have to wait and see what Ron says. I could be wrong

no allowing is not related to tense, but allowing is acting as a modifier... as mentioned by RON.....

Eg

i had a order allowing me to go ..

allowing me to go is modifier phrase modifying order....

[NSNguyen]

how to solve this kind of question?
why the key is D? What is wrong with C?

[4meonly]

Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes from the tranquil waters of puget Sound, a judge overturne dthe ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.

c) that it violates state laws that allowed


C implies that judge banned the law that already was baned


laws that allowed ----> means that in earlier law allowed, not it doesn allow. What for to ban the law that already doesnt allow?

[ankurmit]

I am reopening this old thread.

I am confused between c and D.

Can anyone help?

[aspirant2011]

Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes from the tranquil waters of puget Sound, a judge overturne dthe ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.

b) of their violating state laws to allow

c) that it violates state laws that allowed

d) that it violated state laws allowing

e) teh state laws were being violated allowing

oa = D

grounds that is an idiom.......left with c and d, in option C it states "that it violates state laws" --------> this is in present tense but the latter part says "that allowed" --------> the laws allowed and are not valid now and therefore cancels "violates state laws" as the laws allowed something in past............c could have been a better option if if it would have been written as below-

that it violates state laws that allow

i hope it clears........