Hi guys..i have a clarification...pls see the below line:
"Forget, for a moment, whether marginal rates are too high or too low."
my doubt is...when we go with the parallelism....should there be an extra "are" in the above sentence ("or are too low")?
If not, can someone please explain the reasoning.
Maybe i am getting confused here, but i really need to clear it.
Hey Guys!!!.. am in too....the first attempt was badly screwed up!! but the good thing is now i think what are the weaknesses...so any strategies so far?? SC was the weakest for me...and for that i have been using Manhattan GMAT...its really good...though i am not a genius i would like to say that when you read articles..or newspaper...try identifying the grammar in that.....though initially it will take lot of patience...but once you get in...you will hit the spot... Appreciate if someone can suggest some other ideas as well..or if there is anything wrong in my strategy...do let me know....
Guys..the answer is B...beats me too....
Since amount is singular, the verb needs to be has been, so you can eliminate (A) and (C). Amount of research is better than cause research (which makes no sense at any rate), leaving you with (B) and (E). (E) creates a misplaced modifier, so (B) is the correct choice.
Although the government's expenditures on law suits involving tobacco companies amounts to a sum dramatically lower than that spent by tobacco companies, many believe that the government should allocate no more funds to a battle they perceive as pointless.
(A) expenditures on law suits involving tobacco companies amounts to a sum dramatically lower than
(B) expenditures on law suits involving tobacco companies amount to a sum dramatically less than
(C) expenditures on law suits involving tobacco companies amount to a sum dramatically lower than
(D) law suit expenditures regarding tobacco companies amount to a dramatically lower sum than
(E) law suit expenditures against tobacco companies amounts to a sum dramatically lower than
An international study recently examined the effects of second-hand smoke on health. Surprisingly, although the dosages of harmful chemicals from second-hand smoke are so small that their effect should be negligible, the study found that nonsmoking spouses of smokers displayed an incidence of heart disease that was significantly greater than that of nonsmokers who were not as regularly exposed to second-hand smoke.
Each of the following, if true, could contribute to an explanation of the unexpectedly high incidence of heart disease in smokers' spouses EXCEPT:
(A) A disproportionately high number of people married to smokers are among the older segment of the married population, a group that inherently has a higher-than-average risk of heart disease.
(B) On average, more alcohol and coffee, both of which have been linked to heart disease, are consumed in the homes of smokers than in the homes of nonsmokers.
(C) A disproportionately high number of smokers are married to other smokers, and the risk of heart disease increases in proportion to the number of smokers living in a household.
(D) Smokers generally tend to live in higher-stress environments than do non-smokers, and stress is a factor associated with above average incidence of heart disease.
(E) A disproportionately high number of smokers live in areas with a high level of industrial pollutants, which have been shown to be a factor in increased risk of heart disease.