|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5289
Followers: 17
Kudos [?]:
91
[0], given: 0
|
Brought before a military tribunal for crimes that he claims [#permalink]
 14 Oct 2005, 00:38
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Brought before a military tribunal for crimes that he claims not to have committed, the soldier`s lawyer vehemently denied that the young man had any part in the wrongdoing.
(A) the soldier`s lawyer vehemently denied that the young man had any part in the wrongdoing
(B) the lawyer retained by the soldier vehemently denied that he had had any part in the wrongdoing
(C) the lawyer retained by the soldier vehemently denied that the young man has had any part in the wrongdoing
(D) the soldier vehemently denied that he had any part in the wrongdoing
(E) the soldier vehemently denied that he had had any part in the wrongdoing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 12
Location: Somewhere
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I think subject is solder so left D and E.
I vote for E because it uses "had had" (the action that happed before he denied)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 425
Location: India, Chennai
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
GMATT73 wrote: Brought before a military tribunal for crimes that he claims not to have committed, the soldier`s lawyer vehemently denied that the young man had any part in the wrongdoing.
(A) the soldier`s lawyer vehemently denied that the young man had any part in the wrongdoing
(B) the lawyer retained by the soldier vehemently denied that he had had any part in the wrongdoing
(C) the lawyer retained by the soldier vehemently denied that the young man has had any part in the wrongdoing
(D) the soldier vehemently denied that he had any part in the wrongdoing
(E) the soldier vehemently denied that he had had any part in the wrongdoing
My answer is D. It is the soldier who stands the trial, not the lawyer. I choose D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1913
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
55
[0], given: 0
|
yes, my choice is D coz "he" modifies " the soldier" .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 462
Location: New York
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Go with D.
Eliminate A, B and C for wrong reference.
Between D and E, I chose D because the extra "had" is not necessary
GMATT73 wrote: Brought before a military tribunal for crimes that he claims not to have committed, the soldier`s lawyer vehemently denied that the young man had any part in the wrongdoing.
(A) the soldier`s lawyer vehemently denied that the young man had any part in the wrongdoing
(B) the lawyer retained by the soldier vehemently denied that he had had any part in the wrongdoing
(C) the lawyer retained by the soldier vehemently denied that the young man has had any part in the wrongdoing
(D) the soldier vehemently denied that he had any part in the wrongdoing
(E) the soldier vehemently denied that he had had any part in the wrongdoing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 202
Location: New York
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
complicated wrote: I think subject is solder so left D and E.
I vote for E because it uses "had had" (the action that happed before he denied)
I am comfused over the same issue. What is the OA? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 38
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
i would stick with A
all the sentences modify the lawyer who was brought in the court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 119
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I would go for D. Whu had had in E? What does it mean? Please explain...
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1133
Location: CA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
E.
"had had" is past perfect. Used if we need to point to an event Before some other event in the past.
A,B,C streight out. We should not attribute crime to lawyer 
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5134
Location: Singapore
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 0
|
We need the noun 'soldier' to come first. So we need to consider D or E>
Between the two, E is a better choice. We need the past perfect form 'had had' to imply that the soldier has nothing to do with the wrongdoing. The first 'had' is for the for past tense nature of the sentence (solider brought before...) and the second 'had' is even further back behind the timeline as the wrongdoing occured before the trial.
E is the best choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3439
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 11
Kudos [?]:
134
[0], given: 2
|
D is OK. I think simple past would do...we are not differentiating between two events..at least i dont see the logic of the two events..
brought before W, the solider denied that he had anything to do with XYZ, is fine...
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1741
Location: Dhaka
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
I will choose E.
Firstly, it uses correct modifier and secondly it uses correct past perfect tense.
_________________
hey ya......
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1913
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
55
[0], given: 0
|
"denied that" here start an indirect speech.
Imagine we were in that court and heard the soldier's direct denying, he would say this way " I have no part in the wrongdoing"  . Of coz, he would use present tense here to describe a fact . If he had denied " I had no part in the wrongdoing" , it would have meant that he, at the time at the court, had a part in wrongdoing. Anyway, it's only my opinion 
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1745
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
E. i think we need PP tense to express an event that happenbed earlier than the later one in a sequence of events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5289
Followers: 17
Kudos [?]:
91
[0], given: 0
|
OA is E.
Explanation:
Spot the Error:
The descriptive phrase, "brought before...committed", indicates the modifier is being tested.
Rule and Fix:
A Modifier must be as close as possible to the thing it describes, in this case the phrase should modify the solider not the lawyer.
POE:
A, B, and C all place the lawyer directly after the phrase causing the phrase to modify the lawyer.
Chunk and Compare:
Compare D to E.
The difference is in the verbs. D uses the simple past (had) while E uses the Past Perfect (had had). Since there are 2 past events in the sentence that must be ordered (brought before the tribunal and denying) the past perfect is most appropiate.
Reread your choice:
Choose E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, Marcab, Narenn, GetThisDone
|
close
