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

It is currently 24 Oct 2014, 17:01

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 a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 881
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 158 [0], given: 7

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2007, 09:08
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

80% (01:40) correct 20% (01:04) wrong based on 8 sessions
360.In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

Can we have some explanations, please!
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 179
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2007, 09:41
Answer is A

correct idiom is: owed restitution to X for Y
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2007
Posts: 583
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Re: 1000 SC - #360 [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2007, 09:48
botirvoy wrote:
360.In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

Can we have some explanations, please!



BCD has misplaced modifier. E is awkward and changes meaning.
A is the obvious choice.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2769
Location: New York City
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 257 [0], given: 4

 [#permalink] New post 02 Aug 2007, 05:52
Is this question considered a subjunctive mood question?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 931
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 02 Aug 2007, 06:53
bmwhype2 wrote:
Is this question considered a subjunctive mood question?


I don't think so....
"owed" is past.

In subjunctive we say,

1. The company asked that employees not accept offers from other companies.

2. Teacher asked that James submit his project before Monday.

Regards,
Brajesh
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3403
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 2

 [#permalink] New post 02 Aug 2007, 09:16
i dont think its subjenctive..however the idiom is "ruled ..that"..

A seems fine.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2593
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 198 [0], given: 0

Re: 1000 SC - #360 [#permalink] New post 02 Aug 2007, 17:09
botirvoy wrote:
360.In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

Can we have some explanations, please!


Nothing wrong w/ A here.

B: insertion of "their" is ambigous
C: again "their" has no proper referent
D: they is ambigious
E: ruled on the restitution? NY ruled that X owes restitution, they didn't rule on it? it is akward.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 321
Location: Orange County, CA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 02 Aug 2007, 21:46
Narrowed down between A and B.

I liked answer A b/c it was less wordy than answer B.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2769
Location: New York City
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 257 [0], given: 4

 [#permalink] New post 04 Aug 2007, 15:05
b14kumar wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
Is this question considered a subjunctive mood question?


I don't think so....
"owed" is past.

In subjunctive we say,

1. The company asked that employees not accept offers from other companies.

2. Teacher asked that James submit his project before Monday.

Regards,
Brajesh


Thanks. I also went for A but wondered why it was in past tense.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 932
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

Re: 1000 SC - #360 [#permalink] New post 05 Aug 2007, 02:09
botirvoy wrote:
360.In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

Can we have some explanations, please!


agreed with A.

B & C are wrong for the use of " because of being..." "for their unlawful..." usually wrong on the GMAT

D Who does "they" refer to ? the Indians? Doesn't clear refer back to the NY counties like it should

E very ackward structure. Seems to say the court ruled on the restitution.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 114
Schools: IIMA
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 63

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink] New post 06 Jul 2014, 20:42
obviously A is winner

Let me trow some light on B and C if you closely look at b it is almost same as A except the part "because of their unlawful seizure of" their is ambiguous here . See non underlined part their unlawful seizure of . whose land and who sized ambiguous is not it ?

If a pronoun is used in sentence it will be have one antecedent wherever it is used. Also it is better to place modifiers as close to thing which it is modifying .
_________________

If you are not over prepared then you are under prepared !!!

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

CAT Tests
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink] New post 30 Aug 2014, 03:57
Remove the fluff and see :

A. that the two NY counties owed restitution .... for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands ....
B. that the two NY counties owed restitution .... because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands ...

A makes more sense!
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two   [#permalink] 30 Aug 2014, 03:57
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Because the Supreme Court has ruled that dqtuan9627 0 07 May 2014, 18:28
4 Experts publish their posts in the topic In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two WinWinMBA 26 15 Jun 2005, 14:57
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two SimaQ 5 18 Mar 2006, 09:00
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two WinWinMBA 0 18 Jun 2005, 21:20
The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for a boksana 4 21 Nov 2004, 11:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two

  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®.