In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two : GMAT Sentence Correction (SC)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 17 Jan 2017, 16:00

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 877
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 362 [0], given: 7

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2007, 09:08
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

81% (01:51) correct 19% (01:30) wrong based on 146 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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!
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by Skywalker18 on 02 Jan 2017, 19:12, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 179
Followers: 1

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

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2007, 09:41
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED

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

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 0

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2756
Location: New York City
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 850 [0], given: 4

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2007, 05:52
Is this question considered a subjunctive mood question?
Director
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 924
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2007, 06:53
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3384
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 2

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2007, 09:16
i dont think its subjenctive..however the idiom is "ruled ..that"..

A seems fine.
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 420 [0], given: 0

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 321
Location: Orange County, CA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 0

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2756
Location: New York City
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 850 [0], given: 4

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 931
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 0

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 130
Schools: IIMA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 66

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 !!!

Current Student
Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Posts: 92
Schools: Rotman '17 (A)
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V38
GMAT 2: 0 Q0 V0
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 5

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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!
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10529
Followers: 918

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2016, 22:01
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.
Math Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 935
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 379 [0], given: 58

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2017, 19:18
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.

We need that to introduce a clause to describe SC's ruling.

(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 - restitution .. because of its is unidiomatic
Also pronoun their and they are used to refer to 2 different antecedents - Incorrect
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of - Pronoun issue similar to B and that is needed
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized - Pronoun issue similar to B and that is needed
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of - that is needed to introduce a clause

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two   [#permalink] 02 Jan 2017, 19:18
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
8 Because the Supreme Court has ruled that 11 07 May 2014, 18:28
Although the Supreme Court ruled as long ago as 1880 that 4 12 Jul 2008, 02:36
Although the Supreme Court ruled as long ago as 1880 that 7 18 Feb 2008, 17:49
Although the Supreme Court ruled as long ago as 1880 that 5 15 Jan 2008, 02:15
1 Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution in 13 09 Jan 2008, 07:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by