The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for

Who can explain the OA, i.e. how "for having" can be parallel with "of stashing"?

Thanks beforehand.

i went for C, D could be best option if it were for stashing
_________________

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for having....and....of stashing

Excused for is the correct idiom I guess, and having and stashing for ||ism?

I still don't get how 'of stashing' is correct

Bumping for review and further discussion*.

*New project from GMAT Club!!! Check HERE

i hope somebody explains this OA...i dont get it at all

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for having purposely provided murder photos to the media and then stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting his claim of innocence.

The question is to test verb tense and parallellism

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror
1.for having purposely provided murder photos to the media
and then
2. stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting his claim of innocence.

clearly not parallel.

As the first list starts with verbing modifier, the second as well should start with verding

So down with options D & E.

(E) of stashing such money as he received to hide evidence that would be supportive of
as he received in past tense. Should be in past perfect.
also supportive of his claim of innosence - unidiomatic.

So ans is D.

Hope it helps.
Kudos pls if it helps

D is Correct

It is important to know the structure of the sentence.

Main Clause :- (Subject)The judge (Main Verb)told (Direct Object)the jury that..........
Subordinate Clause :- (Subject)he (Verb)had excused (Object)a juror (Compound Predicate)for having purposely provided murder photos to the media and then stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting his claim of innocence.

The compound predicate should contains two predicates (Two reasons for which Juror had been excused), that are parallel to each other.

Predicate 1 :- for having purposely provided murder photos to the media (Adjectival Clause - Modifying the object - Juror)
Predicate 2 :- then stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting his claim of innocence. :- The verb stashed makes this part an independent clause referring to The Judge and thus is not parallel to Predicate 1. So A is out.

B) INCORRECT - for the same reason cited in Choice A

C) INCORRECT - for the same reason cited in Choice A

D) CORRECT - This choice converts the independent clause in Adjectival Phrase which is parallel to first predicate.

E) INCORRECT - Wordy structures :- such money as, that would be supportive of....

Hope that helps!

Kindly explain the use of "had received" in the OA. What is the past tense with respect to which "had received money" is furthur past?It must be that the juror first showed the photo & then he got the money?

What am I missing??

Sorry, folks, but this sentence makes absolutely no sense. You may accuse someone of stashing, but you don't excuse them of stashing. Also, what does "hide evidence supporting his claim of innocence" mean? That he would prefer to be found guilty? Wouldn't he instead hide evidence contradicting his claim of innocence????

Who came up with this sentence anyway--Paris Hilton???? No, couldn't be--in that case, it would contain at least 4 or 5 "like"s.

Sorry, but this still does not make sense to me.

We obviously deal with a parallel structure here, but "excuse so. of sth." is unidiomatic IMO.

Can someone comment on this?

What's parallel to what here, I did not see a satisfying answeer? ' of stashing' is parallel to what?

Just try to read it carefully and realize who does the action of stashing the money refers to!

In A,B and C , stashed refers to judge. Which is wrong. The judge didn't stash the money.

Read 'excused the juror' followed by 'of stashing'.

Excused the juror of stashing.

Excuse someone of something

Sent from my XT1562 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hi sayantanc2k mikemcgarry egmat VeritasPrepKarishma

Can you explain to me why in option D (which is supposed to be correct by GMAT Timer) GMAT uses preposition of while the correct idiom is excuse for?

Many thanks!
_________________

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for having purposely provided murder photos to the media and then stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting his claim of innocence.

(A) stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting
(B) stashed such money as he received to hide evidence supporting
(C) stashed the money he had received to hide evidence that would support
(D) of stashing the money he had received to hide evidence that would support
(E) of stashing such money as he received to hide evidence that would be supportive of

Experts, please explain why in option D (which is supposed to be correct by GMAT Timer) GMAT uses preposition of while the correct idiom is excuse for?

Many thanks!
_________________

This is just a bad question. Leave it.
_________________

Sorry folks, this question is deeply, deeply flawed. The parallelism in (D) seems to be saying that the judge "excused a juror of stashing the money..." -- and that makes absolutely zero sense.

I don't know where this one came from, but please don't spend any more time worrying about it.


_________________

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.


_________________