Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 11:16 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 11:16

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 344
Own Kudos [?]: 2411 [82]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 782
Own Kudos [?]: 2583 [19]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42104 [5]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
SVP
SVP
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 2004
Own Kudos [?]: 1899 [4]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Singapore
Send PM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
(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
- 'their' does not have a clear referent

(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of
- ruled two NY counties to owe restitution is wrong.

(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized
- wrong. suggests indians unlawfully seized their own lands.

(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
- ruled on the restitution is wrong

A it is.
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 29
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [4]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: India
Send PM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
The clause has to start with a proper subordinating coujunction - that. so C, D and E or out.

It is either A or B. ' X owed Y to Z for some reason ' is the idiomatic usage.

The Answer is A.
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 587
Own Kudos [?]: 3156 [0]
Given Kudos: 322
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE:Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Send PM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
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 Onedida 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

I know that the correct idiom for the above question is

"Owed restitution to X for Y"

However, I am not convinced with the explanation that "their" in Option (B) is ambiguously referring to "Indians" because when we say

X owed restitution to Y: We know that X has done some damage to Y that is why it owes restitution to Y.

For instance : If (B) is changed to

that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of

It should be correct as "first their" in the underlined portion should correctly refer to X(counties) and "second their" present in the non-underlined portion correctly refers to "Indians".

If "THEIR" in the underlined part is incorrect , then the "THEIR" in the non-underlined part should also be incorrect. However, as the SECOND THEIR is present in non-underlined part it is presumed to be correct.

Please advise whether the usage of "FIRST THEIR" is correct or not and my reasoning is PROPER or not?

Quoted from MGMAT SC Guide for pronoun reference:

Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny
cellulose fibers, which THEYallege give THEM the strength of cast iron.

What nouns do they and them refer to? We might ~ that they refers to researchers (who
claim something) and that them refers to new "nano-papers" However, in reality, both they
and them have ambiguous antecedents. Either pronoun could refer to researchers or to "nanopapers.
"


After reading above explanation why is the case that "their" in the non-underlined part correctly refers to "Indians".

Rgds,
TGC!
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 587
Own Kudos [?]: 3156 [0]
Given Kudos: 322
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE:Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Send PM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
Hi Kyle,

Glad that you replied.

However, I have one more query concerned to your reply.

because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands.....

In your post, you said that the Second THEIR refers to ancestral lands. However, indeed the 'ancestral lands'
is preceded by second THEIR.

Plz can you clarify that even if we omit FIRST THEIR why the SECOND THEIR present in the non-underlined portion
isn't ambiguous.

Per the meaning of the sentence as I explained in my OLD POSTS the FIRST THEIR perfectly refers to what it wants to refer.

Furthermore,

Can you apply MGMAT SC Guide suggested filtering for ambiguous pronouns here?

Number -> Gender - > Proximity -> Repeats -> Case.

Rgds,
TGC!
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 782
Own Kudos [?]: 2583 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
Expert Reply
TGC wrote:
Hi Kyle,

Glad that you replied.

However, I have one more query concerned to your reply.

because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands.....

In your post, you said that the Second THEIR refers to ancestral lands. However, indeed the 'ancestral lands'
is preceded by second THEIR.

Plz can you clarify that even if we omit FIRST THEIR why the SECOND THEIR present in the non-underlined portion
isn't ambiguous.

Per the meaning of the sentence as I explained in my OLD POSTS the FIRST THEIR perfectly refers to what it wants to refer.

Furthermore,

Can you apply MGMAT SC Guide suggested filtering for ambiguous pronouns here?

Number -> Gender - > Proximity -> Repeats -> Case.

Rgds,
TGC!


The 2nd "their" is connected to the ancestral lands, but "lands" is not the antecedent. Those were the ancestral lands of the Oneida Indians, so the antecedent for the 2nd "their" is Oneida Indians. The problem in this sentence isn't with pronoun ambiguity. The meaning of the sentence would be pretty clear if either one of the two pronouns (their) were omitted. The problem is that "their" appears two times in the sentence and has a different antecedent each time. The GMAT does not allow for switching antecedents in the same sentence.

I really wouldn't worry about suggested filtering for ambiguity. Focus on pronoun number agreement, use pronoun replacement to ensure proper meaning and make sure that pronouns don't switch antecedents and you should be just fine.

KW
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 871
Own Kudos [?]: 8554 [0]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: United States
Send PM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
If we real full sentence, B, C and D are out immediately. Only A and E remain.

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
Correct.

Complete (B)............ that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
Double "their" ==> clearly wrong.

Complete (C) ............two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
Double "their" ==> clearly wrong.

Complete (D) ............on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
"they" and "their" are not clear ==> wrong.

(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of[/quote]
Wrong. Ruled that..... ==> correct idiom. But "ruled on the restitution that" changes meaning.

Hope it helps.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Nov 2012
Status:Manager
Affiliations: Manager
Posts: 100
Own Kudos [?]: 407 [0]
Given Kudos: 111
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Sustainability
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V33
GPA: 3
WE:Supply Chain Management (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
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 - Restitution to X for doing Y is correct
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of - Restitution to X because of Y is incorrect. ‘Because of’ is redundant. Always a 'Noun' or 'Noun phrase' comes after ‘Because of’. '[their] unlawful seizure of [their] ancestral lands' does not look right.
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of - 'Ruled Counties' looks wrong. Some connections word should come after ruled. '[their] unlawful seizure of [their] ancestral lands' does not look right.
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized - 'Ruled On' is not right in this context. 'Rule on' means ruling on somebody like ''British ruled on Indians''.
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of - Same as D.

Correct me if i am wrong.... :roll:
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2101
Own Kudos [?]: 8809 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
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

Answer A
Intern
Intern
Joined: 31 Aug 2020
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
KyleWiddison wrote:
WinWinMBA 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


I'm responding to a PM on this question. There are plenty of interesting issues here.

First, let's tackle the issue with the subjunctive mood. The verb "rule" may be used in the subjunctive mood to give the impression of uncertainty, but in this sentence the author has chosen the indicative mood to imply the certainty of the ruling. We know that the subjunctive is not used because none of the answer choices have the proper subjunctive structure - subjunctive verb + that + infinitive verb form without "to" (example: I demand that he go to school.) The subjunctive structure is the same in present tense and past tense (example: I demanded that he go to school.) To have subjunctive, the sentence would have to read - ...the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties OWE...

Even though we aren't using the subjunctive mood, the structure of the sentence does require the use of "that". The ruling of the Supreme Court is a clause, so we need the "that" to set off a new clause. We can't say, "The Supreme Court ruled two counties" because that means the Supreme Court is now the ruler of the counties. If we say, "The Supreme Court ruled on the restitution/on the counties" the meaning has changed from the original and we are no longer talking about the ruling that required restitution from the two counties. We can eliminate C, D, and E on this basis.

Now on to the issue of pronoun ambiguity. I've posted several times that the GMAT seems to be ambivalent to pronoun ambiguity. What the GMAT seems to be consistent with is the requirement of the same antecedent with a pronoun. In answer choice B, the pronoun "their" appears 2 times ("...two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands..."). The first appearance is a bit ambiguous, but the meaning seems pretty clear that the counties were the ones to unlawfully seize ancestral lands, so the antecedant for "their" is the counties. The second occurance of "their" refers to ancenstral lands, which were clearly owned by the Oneida Indians, so the antecedant for "their" has switched from counties to Indians. That is a switch that is not allowed by the GMAT so we can eliminate answer choice B (this is also an issue in C & D).

That leaves answer choice A...

KW


Hi Kyle, thank you for your response.
If you could also explain how the meaning changes because of the use of "Rule on" in choice E that will be helpful!

The way I am thinking about the construction is - "The judge ruled on the case" is a correct sentence (as far as I know). Therefore, in this construction as well, wouldn't it make sense to say "The judge ruled on the restitution that [modifier clause]", meaning that the judge is ruling on the particular restitution.

Please let me know your thoughts on this, a little confused here!
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Posts: 233
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 139
Send PM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
WinWinMBA wrote:
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


Is (C) wrong because of "their"?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Posts: 233
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 139
Send PM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
KyleWiddison wrote:
WinWinMBA 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


I'm responding to a PM on this question. There are plenty of interesting issues here.

First, let's tackle the issue with the subjunctive mood. The verb "rule" may be used in the subjunctive mood to give the impression of uncertainty, but in this sentence the author has chosen the indicative mood to imply the certainty of the ruling. We know that the subjunctive is not used because none of the answer choices have the proper subjunctive structure - subjunctive verb + that + infinitive verb form without "to" (example: I demand that he go to school.) The subjunctive structure is the same in present tense and past tense (example: I demanded that he go to school.) To have subjunctive, the sentence would have to read - ...the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties OWE...

Even though we aren't using the subjunctive mood, the structure of the sentence does require the use of "that". The ruling of the Supreme Court is a clause, so we need the "that" to set off a new clause. We can't say, "The Supreme Court ruled two counties" because that means the Supreme Court is now the ruler of the counties. If we say, "The Supreme Court ruled on the restitution/on the counties" the meaning has changed from the original and we are no longer talking about the ruling that required restitution from the two counties. We can eliminate C, D, and E on this basis.

Now on to the issue of pronoun ambiguity. I've posted several times that the GMAT seems to be ambivalent to pronoun ambiguity. What the GMAT seems to be consistent with is the requirement of the same antecedent with a pronoun. In answer choice B, the pronoun "their" appears 2 times ("...two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands..."). The first appearance is a bit ambiguous, but the meaning seems pretty clear that the counties were the ones to unlawfully seize ancestral lands, so the antecedant for "their" is the counties. The second occurance of "their" refers to ancenstral lands, which were clearly owned by the Oneida Indians, so the antecedant for "their" has switched from counties to Indians. That is a switch that is not allowed by the GMAT so we can eliminate answer choice B (this is also an issue in C & D).

That leaves answer choice A...

KW


Hi KyleWiddison

How does (C) change the meaning?
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17220
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne