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

It is currently 22 Oct 2014, 16:47

Starting Soon!

Live Q&A Session with HKU Admissions Team | Join the chat room to participate.


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

Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 606
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 14:13
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
628. Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires anyone who buys more than 5 percent of a company’s stock make a public disclosure of the purchase.
(A) make
(B) will also make
(C) to make
(D) must make
(E) must then make

Is it a case of subnjunctive?
S
_________________

Regards, S

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 31
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 14:49
I choose (C). Since I believe "who buys" is a future action, I believe a parallel action in "to make" must occur.
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 16 Feb 2005, 17:30
C it is

correct idiom I believe is "require... to".... we need "to" in the statement!
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 606
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 18:09
the OA is mentioned as C but I am not sure about the accuracy- I intend to take as jpv. Will wait for gurus to respond. Paul or anandnk kind of folks.
S
_________________

Regards, S

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 905
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 18:30
surya_s:
I got it.. (C) may be correct...

All subjunctive mood questions have two clauses. for ex:
If I were u, I would not go there.

Check question no 227. OG.

Judicial rules in many states require that the identities of all prosecution witnesses are made known to defendants so they can attempt to rebut the testimony, but the Constitution explicitly requires only that the
defendant have the opportunity to confront an accuser in court.

(A) that the identities of all prosecution witnesses are made known to defendants so they can attempt to rebut
(B) that the identities of all prosecution witnesses be made known to defendants so that they can attempt to rebut
(C) that the defendants should know the identities of all prosecution witnesses so they can attempt a rebuttal of
(D) the identities of all prosecution witnesses should be made known to defendants so they can attempt rebutting
(E) making known to defendants the identities of all prosecution witnesses so that they can attempt to rebut

In OG question, a dependent cluase has been introduced using "that". That is why it is subjunctive mood.

Our question does not have such construction. So, it can be (C).

Guys, please help.. whether I am right... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
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 16 Feb 2005, 19:00
guys

idiom is require.....blah blah blah..to

In your OG question, you can eliminate all, but A and B, since law requires witness name be made known....B is the right answer!
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 19:05
"Require X to ..." or "Require that X + infinitive stem" are the right idioms
The second is the subjunctive mood by introducing a command "that". Since the original question does not have "that", first idiom takes precedence. Idioms are those things that you have to just recognize, it is indeed more difficult for non-natives.
jpv, I agree with the fact that subj. mood introduces two clauses. There are different subj. mood forms but all of them do introduce clauses. The catch here was to know that the non-underlined part did not have "that" to introduce the subjunctive mood or second idiom form.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 606
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 19:19
Paul wrote:
"Require X to ..." or "Require that X + infinitive stem" are the right idioms
The second is the subjunctive mood by introducing a command "that". Since the original question does not have "that", first idiom takes precedence. Idioms are those things that you have to just recognize, it is indeed more difficult for non-natives.
jpv, I agree with the fact that subj. mood introduces two clauses. There are different subj. mood forms but all of them do introduce clauses. The catch here was to know that the non-underlined part did not have "that" to introduce the subjunctive mood or second idiom form.

Thanks Paul
'infinitive stem' by this do you mean the infinitive form of verb lacking to?
_________________

Regards, S

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 19:22
:yes it's infinitive form without "to"
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 606
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 19:26
Thanks a ton Paul and jpv for clearing the structure of subjunctive- namely two clauses introduced by that. plz correct me if I have got it wrong.
S
_________________

Regards, S

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 905
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 19:33
surya_s
it is not necessary that the clauses in SM will be joined with "that". It will be of independent/dependent clause type pattern. See the same example (without "that")..
If I were u, I would not go there.

I, myself, learnt this concept today. :-D
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 674
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 26 Feb 2005, 21:12
jpv/Paul:

I still have a doubt about the subjunctive mood. In your explanation you have mentioned about a infnitive stem without "to" . Does this mean when a sentence has "that" then we should nt be using "to"? Please explain.

What is the variety "that" provides to the sentence that was originally asked by in OG 227 which jpv was asking.

Are idioms to be used in conjunction with the usage of the subjunctive mood?

May be dumb questions but please answer

Thanks
  [#permalink] 26 Feb 2005, 21:12
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 On account of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) doc amgelcer 3 21 Sep 2013, 06:56
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 malkov 4 09 May 2012, 03:17
1 Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ykaiim 9 05 May 2010, 03:27
The National Security Act of 1947 created a national eyunni 5 19 Nov 2007, 19:18
Securities act dreamgmat1 9 11 Jul 2007, 21:09
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

  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®.