The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that the three women have consistently received unqualified support from labor.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Tenses + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.
• The simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.
• The simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature.

A: Trap. This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “unqualifying support “; the use of "unqualifying" leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the three women have consistently received unqualified support from labor. Further, Option A uses the passive voice construction “labor’s unqualifying support“, rendering it awkward and needlessly indirect.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “unqualifying support “; the use of "unqualifying" leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the three women have consistently received unqualified support from labor. Further, Option B incorrectly uses the simple present continuous tense verb “are...receiving” to refer to an event that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; please remember, the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present; the simple present continuous tense is only used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature.

C: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrase “unqualified support”, conveying the intended meaning – that the three women have consistently received unqualified support from labor. Further, Option C correctly uses the present perfect tense verb “have...received” to refer to an event that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present. Additionally, Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple present tense verb “receive” to refer to an event that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; please remember, the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present; the simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple present continuous tense verb “are receiving” to refer to an event that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; please remember, the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present; the simple present continuous tense is only used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

Additional Note: Please note that "unqualified" means "unconditional" or "without restrictions", while "unqualifying" is an uncommon work that means "disqualifying" or "making unfit".

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Simple Continuous Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Present Perfect" tense on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

I will go with C.

In A:
labor's unqualifying support --> labor's <unqualifying support > --> which may mean that .. labor has "qualifying support" and "unqualifying support" and we are referring to labor's <unqualifying support>

this doesn't make sense.

it should be unqualifying/unqualified labor's support --> unqualified <support of labor>

C is far better than A.

The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights and environmental protection, have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support.

(A) have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support
(B) are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor
(C) have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
(D) receive consistent and unqualified support by labor
(E) are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor

Solution:

(A) have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support
There is a issue in the meaning.
The support is modified by Labor. That is labor's suppport
And also the support is unqualified.
That means "unqualified" and "labor's" should be modifying support.
But in this option "labor’s unqualifying support" -> Support is modified by unqualified and qualified is modified by labor's -> which is illogical as labor's cannot modify unqualified.
Besides, "unqualifying" is not a word.

(B) are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor
The above issue is rectified but we have another issue.
Now the meaning is "liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights and environmental protection" this is modifying "The three women" and the sentence talks about why they are "liberal activists". They have become "liberal activists" because they received support (I have stripped support of all the adjectives).
That means they received the support sometime back and the support is still continuing -> So present perfect is applicable.
This option uses the present continuous -> it means that support is still continuing and it is for a very short duration, and that doesn't provide the require understanding.

For example: I am cycling now -> The actions started some time back and it is continuing for a "short" duration. The cycling cannot be for a day or a month or a whole year. In this question, we require a duration for at least a month or a year.

Besides, "unqualifying" is not a word.

(C) have consistently received the unqualified support of labor -> Correct

(D) receive consistent and unqualified support by labor
In this option, the adverb "consistently" is converted into consistent which is a performing a role of an adjective and is modifying the support. This changes the meaning drastically as we require the adverb "consistently" to modify receive (verb).

This is also a tense issue -> Simple present which suggests that it is always true -> which is illogical.


(E) are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor
In this option, the adverb "consistently" is converted into consistent which is a performing a role of an adjective and is modifying the support. This changes the meaning drastically as we require the adverb "consistently" to modify receive (verb).

‘Unqualifying’ means undeserving or without qualifications; ‘unqualified’ means absolute and full. Both are usable in their own contexts. But here ‘unqualifying’ doesn’t fit in. So A and B are out.

‘By labor’ is unidiomatic; the correct idiom is either ‘from labor’ or ‘of labor’ D and E are out. C is left.

Hallo Daagh,

There is no doubt that the right answer is C in this case but tell me whether the following sentence is wrong?

"Express Entry candidates who have a job offer supported by a Labor Market Assessment."

We read "supported by" on too many news paper articles.Are you saying they are wrong in most of the occasions??

"Labour" is not the point here. "Support" is the point.

"Support" as a noun takes "of" or "from", whereas "support" as a passive verb (or a participle) takes "by" (any transitive passive verb takes "by").

Correct: I have the support of / from Labour Union.
Correct: I am supported by Labour Union.
Wrong: I have the support by Labour Union.
Wrong: I am supported of / from Labour Union.

Please stop all the fancy explanations. RIGHT NOW !!

There is no such word as "UNQUALIFYING" . THE CORRECT WORD IS "NON-QUALIFYING" which means "NOT ELIGIBLE or NOT WORTHY"

On the other hand "UNQUALIFIED" is a correct word which means "TOTAL, COMPLETE, WITHOUT RESTRICTION"


Since we are talking about something that has happened to three woman in the past, therefore "have received" is correct. ("have" plural for 3 women, "received" for past action)

This combination of UNQUALIFIED + HAVE RECEIVED is found in OPTION C

C IS THE CORRECT ANSWER.

This question could be solved easily by using the intended meaning of the sentence on the first place,below:

The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights and environmental protection, have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support.

(A) have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support .........>unqualifying=not meeting some sort of standard for qualification.This is not the intended meaning
(B) are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor .......>Changed the time-frame to very short-term by using present continuous(Started almost recently) here
(C) have consistently received the unqualified support of labor ............>unqualified =without any sort of restriction or reservation,or simply not qualified,Correct
(D) receive consistent and unqualified support by labor ........>present -"universal truth" kind of sentence.No specific time frame
(E) are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor .......>Incorrect as answer Choice B

Correct Answer C

"C" for me.

The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights and environmental protection, have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support.

(A) have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support -unqualify is a modifier modifying support. And the support is given by labor. So, better way to write is unqualified support of labor.
(B) are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor -Change of tense. We need to show continuity so present perfect is required. Present continuous changes the intended meaning.
(C) have consistently received the unqualified support of labor -CORRECT
(D) receive consistent and unqualified support by labor -support by? We need support of
(E) are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor -support by? We need support of

A. Labour's is wrong.
B. We need present perfect
C. Bingo
D. Changes meaning (consistently is used as adverb in the original sentence). This option considered it as a diff action
E. same as D

The answer is C

'Unqualified" should modify support
The women were not supported by the labor rather they were given support .

The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights and environmental protection, have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support.

(A) have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support
(B) are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor
(C) have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
(D) receive consistent and unqualified support by labor
(E) are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor

'Unqualified means without reservation or hesitation, unconditional; unqualifying means undue, undeserving

You might see why A and B are out for meaning absurdly. C is the best because of the idiom as well as the use of the present perfect rather than the out of context present tense and present progressive.

Unqualifying = The opposite of qualifying.

Qualifying = training, serving to make fit or competent; limiting, restricting; attributing particular characteristics or qualities; moderating, modifying.

One definition of to qualify is "to limit".
In the SC above, to have "unqualified support" means to have "unlimited support".

In A and B, "unqualifying support" means that the support is not limiting something else. The intended meaning of the sentence is that the activists have the "unqualified support" (meaning the unlimited support) of labor. Eliminate A and B.

In D and E, "by labor" is not the correct idiom. X is "supported by" Y, but X receives the "support of" Y. Eliminate D and E.

The correct answer is C.

Unqualified = Giving support without any reservation/condition.

==> A and B are out.

D and E do not convey the meaning consistent with "consistently".

Answer is C.

The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights and environmental protection, have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support.


(A) have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support "Unqualifying" is not a word at all. Correct word is "unqualified". Eliminate.

(B) are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor Same error as (A). Eliminate.

(C) have consistently received the unqualified support of labor Correct answer. Above errors are rectified and no new errors are introduced.

(D) receive consistent and unqualified support by labor Meaning change. As per the original sentence, the "support" is modified by "unqualified" and "receive" is modified by "consistently". This option removes the adverb for "receive" and applies both "consistent" and "unqualified" to "support". Eliminate.

(E) are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor Same error as (D). Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

Hi avigutman - in option A and option B - i was curious what are your thoughts on the words "UNqualifying"

I thought the **opposite** word "Qualifying" was certainly a legitimate verb . Example in my head of the usage of the verb qualifying

Because of my latest win, I am qualifying for the finals.

Hence the opposite of "Qualifying" which works (I think per my sentence above ?) should be "Unqualifying" [Similar to the word "Disqualifying"]

Thus, per my thinking, "Unqualifying" is similar in meaning to "Disqualifying"

In this context of option A and option B specifically - "disqualifying" or "unqualifying" which are same in meaning do not make sense in this context as the Labor party is giving FULL SUPPORT

hence eliminate option a and option B

Fair reasoning or just got lucky ?

If you look up the definition of qualify, you’ll find this:
1a : to reduce from a general to a particular or restricted form
b : to make less harsh or strict
c : to alter the strength or flavor of
d : to limit or modify the meaning of
2 : to characterize by naming an attribute :
3a : to fit by training, skill, or ability for a special purpose
(1) : to declare competent or adequate
(2) : to invest with legal capacity

In your example you used definition 3a(1), I believe.

Which definition do you think the author was thinking of?

Posted from my mobile device

Hi avigutman - What the author is trying to convey - looking for something that says "Complete support" | 100 % backing | "Support through thick and thin" |

Amongst these given, 1a stated above is the POLAR opposite of what I am looking for.

Hence the answer must be 1a (but opposite flow)

Opposite of 1a, i.e Un-qualify) to expand from a particular or restricted form to a general form