• Vikas Verma
  • 12 karma

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 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 will hit the spot... Appreciate if someone can suggest some other ideas as well..or if there is anything wrong in my let me know....

thanks guys!!

Options 1,2,3 are out as noun is plural
Option 4 seems closest... although "gaps" is now "gap".
This changes the meaning!
Option 5 incorrect because of the usage of reduction (noun form)

the correct option should have been: "have not significantly reduced the gaps that exist"

puys... pls let me know if i m making a mistake here!!

4 is the most appropriate...out of the given options, we are always required to put only the most appropriate choice, even if it may look little abnormal...
  • 1 Like  
Guys..the answer is 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
realtachyon - To answer your question about marks is similar to answering the question " Did you ever Sleep with a partner or not?" - "Either you did" or "You did not". There is nothing in between. You either win it all, or you lose it all. Either your judgment is rewarding, or it isn't. We all will have to live with that, in the gmat world!

Take it easy..

Goood example...right on target..
deepakraam Says
I wud go with option B

i too went for B...but the explanation says its wrong... sometimes it is really wierd...

Can anyone tell me if there is always one correct answer in critical reasoning? and what happens if we select second best answer (not the one GMAT thinks is best). We get zero or we get some marks? I believe selecting the answer is based on every individual's judgement.
Hi ,

My choice would be Option-C: Logically its better than other options.

cheers !


Answer is C:

Reason: (C): The study focuses entirely on nonsmokers married to smokers. Cases in which smokers are married to other smokers fall outside of this scope, so (C) has no power to clear up the mystery at hand.
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.
I think it`s option E........
what`s the OA???

Here are the facts: In the early years, the prisons were 82% full, and just over 9% of the total possible occupancy arrived each year in the form of new prisoners. Now that the latter figure is down to 7.3%, the author is surprised that the prisons are more full: 89% full. She evidently expects that as one figure drops, so should the other. The key is seeing that she is focusing on the trend in incoming prisoners only, when the totals take into account all prisoners. Consider the long-termers. If the average length of sentences of all prisoners is increasing, then it's small wonder that the prisons are more crowded now, even if a smaller percentage of the inmates are newcomers. That's what (A), the correct answer, is all about.
(B) Where the prisoners came from has no impact on how many are, or should be, here in this state.
(C) Nothing in the evidence concerns the nature of crime, so no information about what landed these people in jail in the first place can resolve the paradox.
(D) A "proposed revision" is way too weak. Was it instituted? And even if it was, what effect would it have? There's no way to know, so (D) is irrelevant and does nothing to clear up what the author considers to be a surprising result.
(E), even if true, begs the question of why the percentage of the prison total entering the system is lower than years ago, but the prisons are fuller. All (E) says is that fewer criminals are getting off scot free.
  • 1 Like