Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 23 Oct 2014, 06:16

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 1061
Location: CA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink] New post 15 Dec 2005, 00:05
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

55% (01:58) correct 45% (01:19) wrong based on 99 sessions
In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price-fixing and, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

(A) the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and
(B) the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, and
(C) the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia,
(D) a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,
(E) when the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional,

Official Guide 12 Question

GMAT Official Guide 12

Question: 45
Page: 43
Difficulty: 600

Find All Official Guide Questions

Video Explanations:
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount CodesKnewton GMAT Discount CodesManhattan GMAT Discount Codes
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 1709
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 15 Dec 2005, 00:23
I think it is 'D'.

A - 'and' before 'ruling' is a problem. ("ruling..." is a modifier)
B - awkward, 'and' before 'ruling' is a problem.
C - awkward
E - Incomplete sentence
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1493
Location: Germany
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 15 Dec 2005, 01:06
D)....passive voice is not good. but D) is best among the choices. participle phrase correctly modifies "court" !

C) is out b/c "unconstitutional" in C) is an adverb, modifying " declared. thats wrong.
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 996
Location: South Korea
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 15 Dec 2005, 01:34
The court can rule, but the minimum wage cannot rule.
Thus I vote for (D).
_________________

Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn :twisted: !

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 595
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 23 [1] , given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 15 Dec 2005, 07:23
1
This post received
KUDOS
I think C is better than D. "ruling" in C modifies the supreme court whereas it modifies a minimum wage in D.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 1709
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 15 Dec 2005, 20:18
TeHCM, OA/OE please... :zoom
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 1061
Location: CA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 15 Dec 2005, 21:27
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I chose D as well, but OA is C.

I still find C to be very awkward with unconstitutional preceding a noun.....:?

Here is the OE:

This sentence depends on the correct use of an idiom: the court declares x unconstitutional. The inverted form should be used here becaues of the long phrases involved: the court declares unconstitutional x . The Supreme Court is the subject of the sentence; declared is the verb. Ruling....contract acts a modifier describing the action of the main clause; because the modifier is subordinate to the main clause, the conjunction and must be omitted. And is used to join two independent clauses, not a clause and its modifier.

(C) Correct. In this sentence, the correct idiom is used, and the modifier is grammatically and logically attached to the main clause

(D) Passive voice construction is weak and wordy; its use causes the modifier to be misplaced and ambigous
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 1709
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 15 Dec 2005, 21:35
TeHCM wrote:
I chose D as well, but OA is C.

I still find C to be very awkward with unconstitutional preceding a noun.....:?

Here is the OE:

This sentence depends on the correct use of an idiom: the court declares x unconstitutional. The inverted form should be used here becaues of the long phrases involved: the court declares unconstitutional x . The Supreme Court is the subject of the sentence; declared is the verb. Ruling....contract acts a modifier describing the action of the main clause; because the modifier is subordinate to the main clause, the conjunction and must be omitted. And is used to join two independent clauses, not a clause and its modifier.

(C) Correct. In this sentence, the correct idiom is used, and the modifier is grammatically and logically attached to the main clause

(D) Passive voice construction is weak and wordy; its use causes the modifier to be misplaced and ambigous


the court declares x unconstitutional means, court declared that 'x' ('x' is already there) as unconstitutional

the court declares unconstitutional x can't mean "court declared that 'x' ('x' is already there) as unconstitutional"...it rather sounds like "court itself has declared something unconstitutional".

The inverted form should be used here becaues of the long phrases involved - I doubt it here.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 1061
Location: CA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 15 Dec 2005, 21:39
What can I say? :dunnow :roll:

Well I guess the only explanation that would make C correct is because in D, it sounds as if the minimum wage made the ruling...

BTW, this is from OG 11
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5252
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

Reviews Badge
 [#permalink] New post 15 Dec 2005, 22:37
declared constitutional/unconstitutional is commonly written.

Late, but (C)
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: SC doubt [#permalink] New post 06 Sep 2009, 08:12
D.
In the sentence "......ruling that it....", the "it" refers to the minimum wage.
C does not sound right, IMO.
What is the OA?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 333
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 171 [0], given: 13

Re: SC doubt [#permalink] New post 06 Sep 2009, 08:22
sakshiag28 wrote:
In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price fixing and, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

a) the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional, and
b) the supreme court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia, and
c) the supreme court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia,
d) a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court
e) when the supreme declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional,

Please answer with an explanation


answer is D.
1. use of 'and' is unnecessary.
2. use of 'and' is unnecessary, also it sounds like Supreme court itself was declared as unconstitutional.
3. Not clear.
4. Clearly conveys the meaning of the sentence.
5. Not clear.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 107
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 2

Reviews Badge
Re: SC doubt [#permalink] New post 06 Sep 2009, 11:02
'D' though it is passive choice. It refered correctly to the subject 'minimum wage' in the sentence.

OA?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 64
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 2

Re: minimum wage for women and children [#permalink] New post 13 Jun 2011, 23:26
krishnasty wrote:
In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price-fixing, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

A) the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and
B) the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, and
C) the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia,
D) a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court ,
E) when the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional,


declared as is unidiomatic
A - The sentence states that the women and children of DC is unconstitutional, the idea is non-sensical
B - Declared as - Not idiomatic
D - Grammatically the sentence is correct, but the sentence is in passive (Choice C is in active voice, hence I can deem this answer as incorrect)
E - Same as A, further In 1923 and using when is incorrect (redundant).
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 22
Location: NJ, USA
Schools: Cornell, CBS, NYU
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 2

Re: minimum wage for women and children [#permalink] New post 14 Jun 2011, 06:31
A. declared as not correct; ,and ruling not parallel to declared
B. declared as incorrect
C. correct.
D. passive
E. "when" is incorrectly used, declared as unidiomatic
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2296
Followers: 277

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink] New post 09 Jan 2014, 03:51
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 249
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 47

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: [#permalink] New post 09 Jan 2014, 03:52
automan wrote:
I think C is better than D. "ruling" in C modifies the supreme court whereas it modifies a minimum wage in D.


That is a perfect explanation.

I went with the "D is passive voice" too but clearly your approach is bulletproof. I completely missed that the present participle ruling actually modifies the whole preceding clause.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Posts: 74
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 5

Re: Re: [#permalink] New post 09 Jan 2014, 08:42
aeglorre wrote:
I went with the "D is passive voice" too but clearly your approach is bulletproof. I completely missed that the present participle ruling actually modifies the whole preceding clause.

Yes, and I also read somewhere that the structure is always incorrect: Passive voice+present participial phrase.

D has this structure and so, is incorrect.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 249
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 47

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Re: [#permalink] New post 09 Jan 2014, 09:29
ayushman wrote:
aeglorre wrote:
I went with the "D is passive voice" too but clearly your approach is bulletproof. I completely missed that the present participle ruling actually modifies the whole preceding clause.

Yes, and I also read somewhere that the structure is always incorrect: Passive voice+present participial phrase.

D has this structure and so, is incorrect.



Yeah it actually makes sense if there actually is such a rule. I mean passive voice has a "reverse" structure so to say, which completely flips subject and object and thus a present participle would interpret the object of active voice as the subject, in passive voice. And that clearly distorts the intended meaning, like in the above example.
Re: Re:   [#permalink] 09 Jan 2014, 09:29
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
12 Experts publish their posts in the topic In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women krishnasty 15 13 Jun 2011, 20:38
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women sakshiag28 12 06 Sep 2009, 04:08
1 Minimum wages Jivana 5 10 Aug 2009, 17:53
CR: Supreme Court haas_mba07 6 06 Aug 2006, 19:48
The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for a boksana 4 21 Nov 2004, 11:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.