The first sentence talks of middle-income families being hit.. and the next part is substantiating how they are hit.. A, D and E start off with 'and' which doesn't feel right!!
B is incorrect because the ', furthermore' construct does not fit with rest of sentences.. Hence left with C.
As the housing affordability gap widens, middle-income families are especially hard-hit, and these families can no longer qualify to buy homes, and rising rental rates force them to use far more than the standard 25 percent of their incomes for housing, leaving them with no equity or tax write-offs to offset the expenditures. (A) and these families can no longer qualify to buy homes, and (B) since these families can no longer afford to buy homes, furthermore (C) for these families can no longer afford to buy homes, yet (D) and these families can no longer afford to buy homes; however, (E) and these families can no longer afford to buy homes, for Please help....
1.At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards. (A) land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards (B) land, a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniards (C) land, respected by the Spaniards and a pre-Columbian form of ownership (D) land in which a pre-Columbian form of ownership was respected by the Spaniards (E) land that had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards
In this case we are determining only 1 thing: 'purpose' of existence.
The remaining part 'the religious significance that the drawings on the walls of the caves held, and the order in which the caves were constructed.' is just explaining what the purpose is and is not other things in parallel with the purpose! Hope this helps
The remaining part 'the religious significance that the drawings on the walls of the caves held, and the order in which the caves were constructed.' is just explaining what the purpose is and is not other things in parallel with the purpose!
Even though the answer may be B but I am not fully convinced. Don't you think that taking the other details such as 'the religious significance that the drawings...' as an explanation of what the purpose is and not other things in parallel with the purpose is an assumption we are not free to make?
The purpose of their existence may be different from the religious significance or their order. In that case they must be taken in parallel to 'the purpose', right ?
1.At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards. (A) land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards Very awkward. (B) land, a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniardsform of ownership of the pre-Columbians is too Wordy (C) land, respected by the Spaniards and a pre-Columbian form of ownershipCorrect (D) land in which a pre-Columbian form of ownership was respected by the SpaniardsChanges the meaning of the sentence (E) land that had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards'That had been' changes the meaning. Did they stop respecting it?
B for bingo...b for bulls eye. good job. Can someone please explain this: but what is much easier to determine are the purpose of their existence, the religious significance that the drawings on the walls of the caves held, and the order in which the caves were constructed. Why is "are" incorrect? I believe the correct construction is "what is much easier to determine arethe X, the Y and the Z". Is the list that I have created wrong?
In this case we are determining only 1 thing: 'purpose' of existence.
The remaining part 'the religious significance that the drawings on the walls of the caves held, and the order in which the caves were constructed.' is just explaining what the purpose is and is not other things in parallel with the purpose! Hope this helps
@jawaharnr - going by what you said: the sentence reads like this:
but what is much easier to determine is the purpose of . - This means "much easier to determine the purpose of the religious significance that the drawings on the walls of the caves held" - doesn't appeal so much. It should rather be - "much easier to determine the religious significance that the drawings on the walls of the caves held"
The remaining part 'the religious significance that the drawings on the walls of the caves held, and the order in which the caves were constructed.' is just explaining what the purpose is and is not other things in parallel with the purpose!
Even though the answer may be B but I am not fully convinced. Don't you think that taking the other details such as 'the religious significance that the drawings...' as an explanation of what the purpose is and not other things in parallel with the purpose is an assumption we are not free to make?
The purpose of their existence may be different from the religious significance or their order. In that case they must be taken in parallel to 'the purpose', right ?
The confusion here is : If we read the sentence like:- but what is much easier to determine are . -it makes sense.
BUT
if we read it like: but what is much easier , , and . - does not make sense. The problem with the 2nd construction is that if we do not distribute "to determine" among all three the sentence does not make sense. To write the sentence in simpler form - "but what is much easier to determine is the purpose, the significance and the order" - If this is not a list then -"but what is much easier to determine the significance and the order"-should stand true. But the latter is ungrammatical/meaningless.
Good point buddy.... I must admit, on re-reading the entire statement several times, especially the last part, I feel (A) is the right option and not (B) !!
The remaining part 'the religious significance that the drawings on the walls of the caves held, and the order in which the caves were constructed.' is just explaining what the purpose is and is not other things in parallel with the purpose!
Even though the answer may be B but I am not fully convinced. Don't you think that taking the other details such as 'the religious significance that the drawings...' as an explanation of what the purpose is and not other things in parallel with the purpose is an assumption we are not free to make?
The purpose of their existence may be different from the religious significance or their order. In that case they must be taken in parallel to 'the purpose', right ?
@jawaharnr - going by what you said: the sentence reads like this:
but what is much easier to determine is the purpose of . - This means "much easier to determine the purpose of the religious significance that the drawings on the walls of the caves held" - doesn't appeal so much. It should rather be - "much easier to determine the religious significance that the drawings on the walls of the caves held"
The confusion here is : If we read the sentence like:- but what is much easier to determine are . -it makes sense.
BUT
if we read it like: but what is much easier , , and . - does not make sense. The problem with the 2nd construction is that if we do not distribute "to determine" among all three the sentence does not make sense. To write the sentence in simpler form - "but what is much easier to determine is the purpose, the significance and the order" - If this is not a list then -"but what is much easier to determine the significance and the order"-should stand true. But the latter is ungrammatical/meaningless.
Good point buddy.... I must admit, on re-reading the entire statement several times, especially the last part, I feel (A) is the right option and not (B) !!
Here is the official explanation:
This sentence contains a subject-verb agreement error. The subject of the second clause is what is much easier to determine, an unusual singular subject. However, the verb are is plural; the correct answer will change are to is. Choice D fails to fix the original error. Choices C, D, and E introduce and use plural verbs, have and are, to describe the action of a singular subject, the exact year. Choice B changes are to is in the second clause and is the best answer. Choice B is correct.
As the housing affordability gap widens, middle-income families are especially hard-hit, and these families can no longer qualify to buy homes, and rising rental rates force them to use far more than the standard 25 percent of their incomes for housing, leaving them with no equity or tax write-offs to offset the expenditures. (A) and these families can no longer qualify to buy homes, and (B) since these families can no longer afford to buy homes, furthermore (C) for these families can no longer afford to buy homes, yet (D) and these families can no longer afford to buy homes; however, (E) and these families can no longer afford to buy homes, for
IMO.. Answer is C.
The first sentence talks of middle-income families being hit.. and the next part is substantiating how they are hit.. A, D and E start off with 'and' which doesn't feel right!!
B is incorrect because the ', furthermore' construct does not fit with rest of sentences.. Hence left with C.
Hi, can you elaborate on the yet? Yet is supposed to indicate a contrast. So, if we use 'yet' we should say, they can no loner afford to buy homes, yet low interest loans offered by some banks help many to borrow and manage their monthly houseold expenses. Can't really say this Ifeel - they can't afford to buy homes, yet they can't afford the high rent
B fits. The first part gives the reason. Second part adds to that. Basically my understanding is this - they can't afford to buy. and furthermore, they can't afford to rent also. what do you think?
The Economist is NOT the only print media whom I've seen committing grammatical or spelling mistakes. I remember when I used to read The Hindu, there was a column about the mistakes being committed in their printing edition. So let's not make a mountain of a tweet. Accidents happen, buddy!
Strange, First I thought it's sort of like a taken for granted thing, but then I googled this phrase "what is much easier to" And it gave many sentences that use is/are correctly.
Why some specific rule for determine alone, is not clear from the explanation
The Economist is NOT the only print media whom I've seen committing grammatical or spelling mistakes. I remember when I used to read The Hindu, there was a column about the mistakes being committed in their printing edition. So let's not make a mountain of a tweet. Accidents happen, buddy!
Oh No. I didn't mean to raise any controversy. It was just purely a discussion, rather I was confirming if I was right. I think I have 2 weeks to 2 go for the test...I believe its taking over ....
BTW: here is your signature: You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.
Is the highlighted part grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be "I represent all the sins you never had the courage to commit"...
Disclaimer: This is purely a question and does not represent any other intention in any way.
hi . i m in dire need of sm tips ..to improve my verbal ability . i m toooo week in sentence correction...plz tell me frm wr should i start??
easy that one. start by reading the Manhattan GMAT SC book. you might probably get a softcopy from google. That gives a picture of what GMAT desires, rather, what the US desires.
Then do the OG, 10 or 11 or 12. Utlize what you would have learnt from the book. Even if you get the answer right, read the explanation given.
By this time, you should no longer be in dire need..
The Economist is NOT the only print media whom I've seen committing grammatical or spelling mistakes. I remember when I used to read The Hindu, there was a column about the mistakes being committed in their printing edition. So let's not make a mountain of a tweet. Accidents happen, buddy!
well really truly, I am not a US fanatic. In fact I stayed there for abt a year and did not much feel at home. After this declaration, maybe this will help to answer why: 😁
About us
The Economist, Economist.com and CFO Europe are trading names of: The Economist Newspaper Limited Registered in England and Wales. No.236383 VAT no: GB 340 436 876 Registered office: 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG
But, all in all, I still believe that the Brits should create and own the rules of the language.
And the sentence is correct, might I wish to add.
The company name is General Motors, not General Motor.
So if you want a possessive, you gotta put the ' after Motors - General Motors' cars. The company is a US company by the way.. not that they should be discriminated against because of that.
Oh No. I didn't mean to raise any controversy. It was just purely a discussion, rather I was confirming if I was right. I think I have 2 weeks to 2 go for the test...I believe its taking over ....
BTW: here is your signature: You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.
Is the highlighted part grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be "I represent all the sins you never had the courage to commit"...
Disclaimer: This is purely a question and does not represent any other intention in any way.
Hey, Good to see you are learning from every possible sentence. Keep it up! If I say 'I represent all the sins', I'm missing the object. Representing whom? So, 'I represent to you all the sins' has an object 'you'. I represent to you. Hope we clear on this? All the very best for your exam. Keep learning!
Peace!
PS: Saying 'I represent all the sins' won't be wrong, either. But it would tweak the real meaning.
easy that one. start by reading the Manhattan GMAT SC book. you might probably get a softcopy from google. That gives a picture of what GMAT desires, rather, what the US desires.
Then do the OG, 10 or 11 or 12. Utlize what you would have learnt from the book. Even if you get the answer right, read the explanation given.
By this time, you should no longer be in dire need..
well really truly, I am not a US fanatic. In fact I stayed there for abt a year and did not much feel at home. After this declaration, maybe this will help to answer why: 😁
About us
The Economist, Economist.com and CFO Europe are trading names of: The Economist Newspaper Limited Registered in England and Wales. No.236383 VAT no: GB 340 436 876 Registered office: 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG
But, all in all, I still believe that the Brits should create and own the rules of the language.
And the sentence is correct, might I wish to add.
The company name is General Motors, not General Motor.
So if you want a possessive, you gotta put the ' after Motors - General Motors' cars. The company is a US company by the way.. not that they should be discriminated against because of that.
Hey, I follow the UK English more. I use ONLY Brits slangs in my conversation, no room for any other region's slangs. And I think English was NOT that perplexing as it has turned now, just because of certain discrepancies we have in the UK and the US English. To me, Brits have always been the sole decorator of the English language. Probably that's the reason why we call the UK the English! About the mistake in the Economist, I wasn't referring to the one you have pointed out. I feel in the sentence 'What....' there should be an (!) or a (?). The period (.) at the end doesn't justify the sentence, I feel so. Pleasure talking to you.
The contrast indicated by 'yet' is the families not being able to afford a hope yet having to shell out more than 25% of their income due to rising rental rates... thats why (C)
Also, I am not sure the grammatical construction of (B) is right.. furthermore usually adds credence to an original idea or presents a new parallel idea and is usually logically independent.. so to have it immediately after a comma seems out of place..
EX: The acceleration performance of this car model is very poor; furthermore, its fuel consumption is extremely high.
In addition (Not using furthermore to avoid confusion!! ) there should ideally be a comma after furthermore which is not present here.. hence (B) is not the answer
just my 2 cents though :-o
Can we have the corrent answer as well please!!
As the housing affordability gap widens, middle-income families are especially hard-hit, and these families can no longer qualify to buy homes, and rising rental rates force them to use far more than the standard 25 percent of their incomes for housing, leaving them with no equity or tax write-offs to offset the expenditures. (A) and these families can no longer qualify to buy homes, and (B) since these families can no longer afford to buy homes, furthermore (C) for these families can no longer afford to buy homes, yet (D) and these families can no longer afford to buy homes; however, (E) and these families can no longer afford to buy homes, for
Hi, can you elaborate on the yet? Yet is supposed to indicate a contrast. So, if we use 'yet' we should say, they can no loner afford to buy homes, yet low interest loans offered by some banks help many to borrow and manage their monthly houseold expenses. Can't really say this Ifeel - they can't afford to buy homes, yet they can't afford the high rent
B fits. The first part gives the reason. Second part adds to that. Basically my understanding is this - they can't afford to buy. and furthermore, they can't afford to rent also. what do you think?
....