NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 16:25 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 16:25
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

In the remote western province of China, the prevailing

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
 1   2   
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
skim
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Mar 2009
Posts: 54
Own Kudos [?]: 1698 [30]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   29 Jun 2009, 10:31
5
Kudos
25
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

79% (01:13) correct 21% (01:24) wrong based on 1414 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles, which are a staple in the region, rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.

(A) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(B) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, and prompts allegations that noodle shop owners had
(C) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners
(D) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(E) raised from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A
avatar
topher
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 226
Own Kudos [?]: 866 [4]
Given Kudos: 6
 Q49  V39
Re: bowl of noodles [#permalink] New post   29 Jun 2009, 11:19
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
I'll go with A on this one.

B is wrong b/c "prompts allegations" is in the incorrect tense.
E is wrong b/c "raised" is not correct.

I think the verb "rose" is the simple past tense and the "had colluded" is supposed to be the past perfect. The "had colluded" indicates that this action of fixing prices occurred before the prices actually rose. So A fits the bill.
User avatar
skim
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Mar 2009
Posts: 54
Own Kudos [?]: 1698 [2]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: bowl of noodles [#permalink] New post   29 Jun 2009, 19:29
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Dear All,

Thanks for the engaging discussion. The official explanation is as follows:

There are three actions in the underlined portion of the sentence. The logical time line is that (1) the noodle shop owners (allegedly) colluded to fix their prices, so (2) the price of a bowl of noodles suddenly increased, causing (3) the allegations against the noodle shop owners. All three actions took place in the past. The original sentence uses the simple past “rose” to indicate that the second action took place in the past. The construction “rose…prompting allegations” correctly indicates the cause and effect relationship between the second and third actions. Finally, the use of the past perfect “had colluded” correctly indicates that the alleged collusion took place prior to the other two past actions.

(A) CORRECT. The original sentence avoids all of the errors in the other choices.

(B) The construction “rose…and prompts” fails to convey the cause and effect relationship between the price increase and the leveling of allegations against the noodle shop owners. Furthermore, the use of the present tense “prompts” is incorrect: according to the original sentence, the allegations have already been made.

(C) The use of the past perfect “had risen” and the simple past “colluded” reverses the time line of events, illogically suggesting that the prices increased before the noodle shop owners colluded to raise their prices.

(D) The use of the past perfect “had risen” with the past perfect “had colluded” illogically suggests that the price increase and the alleged collusion occurred simultaneously. Furthermore, when correctly using the past perfect tense, the sentence must also have some other action in the simple past tense; here there is no such simple past action.

(E) The verb “to rise” is an irregular verb. The simple past tense is not “raised,” but rather “rose.”



Regards,

skim
User avatar
stoy4o
Manager
Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 58
Own Kudos [?]: 379 [1]
Given Kudos: 165
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   08 Mar 2013, 19:43
1
Kudos
mun23 wrote:
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles, which are a staple in the region, rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.
(A)rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(B)rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, and prompts allegations that noodle shop owners had
(C)had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners
(D)had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(E)raised from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had

Need explanation


Nutshell: PRICE = SUBJECT; ROSE = MAIN VERB; TIME = OVERNIGHT.

C) and D) are out because of "had risen". Since time of action was mentioned "overnight", no need for past pefect.

B) - out because of tense sequence error. First it mentions past tense "rose" overnight; then it changes to simple tense "prompts"; additionally there should not be a comma before "and prompts" since this would be a list of two. Thirdly, there is no valid list for parallelism/comparison in the meaning of the sentence.
E) "raise" is not the correct verb used.

A) CORRECT: #1) correct verb tense "rose"; #2) the phrase "prompting. ..." gives a description to why prices rose.
User avatar
L
TheNightKing
VP
VP
Joined: 18 Dec 2017
Posts: 1170
Own Kudos [?]: 991 [1]
Given Kudos: 421
Location: United States (KS)
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Send PM
Re: In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   08 Dec 2019, 13:03
1
Kudos
skim wrote:
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles, which are a staple in the region, rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.

(A) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(B) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, and prompts allegations that noodle shop owners had
(C) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners
(D) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(E) raised from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had


Just imagine the sequence of events.!

The prices went up overnight. And allegations show that noodle shop owners colluded prior to the raise in the price.

We have 2 events. Shop owners colluded happened prior and then prices were raised. So the first action will take had and second one will be simple past tense.

C and D are gone.

E is incorrect because "raised" is not correct. Usage of "rose" is appropriate.

A) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(B) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, and prompts allegations that noodle shop owners had Creating False Parallelism. Besides, there is nothing that prompts can be parallel to.

A is correct!
User avatar
GMATaddict
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 90
Own Kudos [?]: 71 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
 Q44  V44
Send PM
Re: bowl of noodles [#permalink] New post   29 Jun 2009, 13:11
skim wrote:
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles, which are a staple in the region, rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.

(A) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(B) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, and prompts allegations that noodle shop owners had
(C) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners
(D) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(E) raised from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had


I'm always horrible with verb tenses, but I'm really not sure about this, but I hope I get a clearer view as I type this out.

So we have two events: a rise in prices (which occurred first), and allegations (which logically followed the rise in prices). So I guess according to the rules the earlier event would have to take the past perfect? So (C)... I guess?

On the other hand, we may interpret this as 3 different events: the collusion (which came first), followed by a rise in prices, which in turn prompted allegations. If that order must be expressed in the correct sequence through grammar, then perhaps (A) does the best job of this?

I'm really not sure. Is there an official explanation?
avatar
topher
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 226
Own Kudos [?]: 866 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
 Q49  V39
Re: bowl of noodles [#permalink] New post   29 Jun 2009, 13:26
I believe C reverses the logical order of the actions.

In answer C you are saying the prices "had risen" because the owners "colluded." I may be wrong, but I think the past perfect "had + verb" is supposed to be linked to the action that occurred BEFORE.

So what I am saying is in answer A, you are saying the prices "rose" because the owners "had colluded." So in this case, the collusion happened before, so you use the past perfect, and the prices rose later, so you use the simple past.

I believe my reasoning is correct, but I may be wrong. What is the OA?
User avatar
pleonasm
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 266
Own Kudos [?]: 156 [0]
Given Kudos: 24
Location: PDX
Concentration: Entrepreneurship
 Q44  V40
Send PM
Re: bowl of noodles [#permalink] New post   29 Jun 2009, 13:51
GMATaddict wrote:
skim wrote:
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles, which are a staple in the region, rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.

(A) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(B) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, and prompts allegations that noodle shop owners had
(C) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners
(D) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(E) raised from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had


I'm always horrible with verb tenses, but I'm really not sure about this, but I hope I get a clearer view as I type this out.

So we have two events: a rise in prices (which occurred first), and allegations (which logically followed the rise in prices). So I guess according to the rules the earlier event would have to take the past perfect? So (C)... I guess?

On the other hand, we may interpret this as 3 different events: the collusion (which came first), followed by a rise in prices, which in turn prompted allegations. If that order must be expressed in the correct sequence through grammar, then perhaps (A) does the best job of this?

I'm really not sure. Is there an official explanation?


A simpler way to look at this.

....the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.

The primary verb 'rise' has to be in the past tense and the resulting/continuing clause should either be in continuous (prompting) or past (it prompted). Another part to look out for is the usage of 'that' .. 'that should always be qualified with past perfect verb ... in this case 'had colluded'.

Hope this helps
User avatar
skg
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 26
Own Kudos [?]: 465 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
Re: bowl of noodles [#permalink] New post   29 Jun 2009, 18:50
A is the best option.
Rose is simple past
Had colluded in past perfect
User avatar
skim
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Mar 2009
Posts: 54
Own Kudos [?]: 1698 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: bowl of noodles [#permalink] New post   29 Jun 2009, 19:23
GMATaddict wrote:
skim wrote:
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles, which are a staple in the region, rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.

(A) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(B) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, and prompts allegations that noodle shop owners had
(C) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners
(D) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(E) raised from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had


I'm always horrible with verb tenses, but I'm really not sure about this, but I hope I get a clearer view as I type this out.

So we have two events: a rise in prices (which occurred first), and allegations (which logically followed the rise in prices). So I guess according to the rules the earlier event would have to take the past perfect? So (C)... I guess?

On the other hand, we may interpret this as 3 different events: the collusion (which came first), followed by a rise in prices, which in turn prompted allegations. If that order must be expressed in the correct sequence through grammar, then perhaps (A) does the best job of this?

I'm really not sure. Is there an official explanation?


Hi GMATaddict,

Precisely the case - I thought that the former scenario as demonstrated by you was the case in point. It could be the case that there are only two events - i.e. the rise in prices, and then the allegations. It turns out that there are indeed 3 different events, as exemplified in your latter scenario. Hence the OA is (A).

Regards,

skim
User avatar
skim
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Mar 2009
Posts: 54
Own Kudos [?]: 1698 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: bowl of noodles [#permalink] New post   29 Jun 2009, 19:25
topher wrote:
I believe C reverses the logical order of the actions.

In answer C you are saying the prices "had risen" because the owners "colluded." I may be wrong, but I think the past perfect "had + verb" is supposed to be linked to the action that occurred BEFORE.

So what I am saying is in answer A, you are saying the prices "rose" because the owners "had colluded." So in this case, the collusion happened before, so you use the past perfect, and the prices rose later, so you use the simple past.

I believe my reasoning is correct, but I may be wrong. What is the OA?


Hi topher,

Indeed, choice (C) reverses the order of the actions.

Regards,

skim
User avatar
mun23
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Status:struggling with GMAT
Posts: 99
Own Kudos [?]: 1528 [0]
Given Kudos: 46
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Send PM
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   08 Mar 2013, 12:43
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles, which are a staple in the region, rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.
(A)rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(B)rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, and prompts allegations that noodle shop owners had
(C)had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners
(D)had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(E)raised from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had

Need explanation
avatar
vigneshceg
Intern
Intern
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 38
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
Schools: Fisher '16 (M$)
GPA: 4
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   14 Mar 2013, 21:30
mun23 wrote:
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles, which are a staple in the region, rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.
(A)rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(B)rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, and prompts allegations that noodle shop owners had
(C)had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners
(D)had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(E)raised from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had

Need explanation


I`m confused with the clause "that noodle shop owners had" had is right here ?
allegation is accusing someone and the allegation event occurred after the price rice . Can someone explain ?
User avatar
mun23
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Status:struggling with GMAT
Posts: 99
Own Kudos [?]: 1528 [0]
Given Kudos: 46
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Send PM
Re: In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   15 Mar 2013, 06:53
In option A "prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had" here i am confused with the use of had.
User avatar
Rock750
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2012
Status:Final Lap
Posts: 190
Own Kudos [?]: 1284 [0]
Given Kudos: 85
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.54
WE:Project Management (Retail Banking)
Send PM
Re: In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   15 Mar 2013, 07:24
mun23 wrote:
In option A "prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had" here i am confused with the use of had.


Hi mun23,

There are two actions performing in the past (the prevailing price rose ; noodle shop owners had colluded) but the second was done and finished before the first one and in this case, we use the past perfect (had colluded) to show that while we use simple past for the first.

Hope that helps !
User avatar
Archit143
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Status:Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Posts: 734
Own Kudos [?]: 1857 [0]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Schools: Cox '16 (S) AGSM '16 Tulane '16 (S) McCombs '16 (S) Neeley '16 (S) Jones '16 (S) ISB '15 (D) MIT-LGO '16 (M)
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Send PM
Re: In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   15 Mar 2013, 07:58
mun23 wrote:
In option A "prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had" here i am confused with the use of had.


Hi
Lets look it like a normal event.
The shop owners colluded to raise the price of the noodle, finally they reached a common conclusion to raise the price from 27 to 31 cents.
So as you can see there are two events and both are related to each other.
Oldest event or former: They colluded
Latest event : Price raised
So since the events are related to each othr, hence the verbs must be presented in correct sequential manner. ie the former one must be preceded by past perfect ie had and later must use simple past.

Be very careful in identifying whetehr the verbs used are related to each other or not. If they aren't then use of past perfect for former will be considered wrong.

Consider Kudos If my post helps!!!


Archit
User avatar
doe007
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 236
Own Kudos [?]: 788 [0]
Given Kudos: 70
Re: In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   22 Apr 2013, 20:19
All duplicate threads on this topic have been merged.

Please check and follow the Guidelines for Posting in Verbal GMAT forum before posting anything.
User avatar
G
sasyaharry
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2016
Posts: 205
Own Kudos [?]: 267 [0]
Given Kudos: 50
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
Schools: Wharton Exec '22 (A) Haas EWMBA '23 (A)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   19 Jul 2017, 13:12
Remove the fluff.

In the remote western province of China, the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles, which are a staple in the region, rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.

Notice that the original sentence uses the correct verb tense 'rose' Eliminate C,D and E

Between A and B, the answer choice B uses incorrect tense with 'prompts'.
User avatar
S
Nunuboy1994
Director
Director
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Posts: 569
Own Kudos [?]: 118 [0]
Given Kudos: 167
Location: United States
Schools: Yale '18
GMAT 1: 650 Q43 V37
GRE 1: Q157 V158
GPA: 2.66
Send PM
Re: In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   14 Aug 2017, 21:49
skim wrote:
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles, which are a staple in the region, rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.

(A) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(B) rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, and prompts allegations that noodle shop owners had
(C) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners
(D) had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had
(E) raised from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had


A uses the correct tense of the verb "rise." The prices rose over night. Also we need a past perfect verb because what the sentence is implying that that the raising prices attracted skepticism that noodle shop owners had done something in the past prior to the raising of the prices.

A
avatar
S
HimanshuW11
Manager
Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 62
Own Kudos [?]: 107 [0]
Given Kudos: 71
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 620 Q41 V34
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink] New post   14 May 2018, 02:47
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing price for a large bowl of noodles, which are a staple in
the region, rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had colluded to fix their prices.

The issue here under consideration is a double past event. One that the "prices rose” and other are the allegations that “shop owners colluded”. Double past is required of two reasons:
The events aren’t taking place at the same time.
The allegations provide us the evidence that the shop owners colluded earlier then the raise of price.
Hence D goes out.

A. rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had (shows cause and effect.) Correct

B. rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, and prompts allegations that noodle shop owners had

(“and” Changing the meaning of the sentence.) Which makes the sentence sounds as if there were two things with the prices of large bowl of noodles: 1. They rose from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight. 2. They prompt allegation that noodle shop owners had colluded.
Hence B goes out.

C. had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners

This confuses the sequence of events. Logical sequence of events is
Shop owners colluded.
Prices rose.
Allegations prompted.
Option C suggests that Prices rose first and then the shop owners colluded.

D. had risen from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had

The issue here under consideration is a double past event. One that the "prices rose” and other are the allegations that “shop owners colluded”. Double past is required of two reasons:
The events aren’t taking place at the same time.
The allegations provide us the evidence that the shop owners colluded earlier then the raise of price.
Hence D goes out.

E. raised from 27 cents to 31 cents overnight, prompting allegations that noodle shop owners had

Raised in GMAT is used for 2 purposes 1. Raise a bet. 2. Salary
So E goes out.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
In the remote western province of China, the prevailing [#permalink]
14 May 2018, 02:47
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions