The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in

Hi avigutman - i think i see what you are saying is : Given the women are recieving something -- it makes sense to be in the passive voice. Hence "unqualified" [past participle and indicative of passive voice] makes more sense

For your other examples, given you are recieving "access" or recieving a drivers license : it makes sense to be in the past participle.

I don't think there is anything wrong about the present participle in a sentence like this :

Obama's unqualifying support towards Biden is clear

Here i think the present participle should be okay as Obama is the one actually performing the action

Ah, but Obama isn't unqualifying Biden, so I don't think passive/active voice is relevant here:
Obama is supporting Biden, and that support is unqualified.

Do these help?

Your unfettering access to the beach is guaranteed
Your unfettered access to the beach is guaranteed.

This unrestricting drivers licence is hard to get.
This unrestricted drivers licence is hard to get.

Sorry avigutman - i am not sure i understand the last post.

i) I don't understand what you mean when you say "Ah, but Obama isn't unqualifying Biden. I thought the present participle has to do with Obama only, nothing to do with Biden.
ii)Are you saying, all the 4 highlghts in yellow are good to go ?

Sorry I should’ve clarified: I’m asking you what you think. Present participle? Past participle? Both? In your opinion, what works in these examples?

Posted from my mobile device

Hi avigutman - Starting with drivers licenses first.

Between 3 and 4 - both make sense in different contexts

3) Here the drivers license specifically is giving you access to restricted areas (Say a bank safe) - the drivers license is performing an action (i.e. action as in giving you acess to the bank safe)
4) Here the drivers license has action done upon it. So this most likely is referring to a **type** of drivers license

Between 1 and 2 - first does not make sense whereas the 2nd i think is okay.
1) I don't think the present participle makes sense. Access by itself cannot be performing the action of "unrestricting"
2) I think this makes sense. Because "Access" has had action done upon it. [the action of being unrestricted is forced upon the subject "Access"]

jabhatta2 perfect analysis!! Now, can you apply the same thinking to the original phrase, and to your example about Obama and Biden?

Hi avigutman

A) The three women, have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support
B) The three women, have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
C) Obama's unqualifying support towards Biden is clear

A) I think in sentence A - my mistake was thinking "labor" was the subject and thus the performer of the "unqualifying". Actually the subject is Support. It's as if the Support somehow is performing the action of "Unqualifying" which does not make logical sense.

B) I think unqualified support indicates action is being done on support. It's referring to a "Type" of support which makes more sense.

C) Sentence C like sentence A, I think this may not be right because "Obama" is not the subject of unqualifying. It's support that is the subject and support cannot be performing the act of unqualifying.

I think you have to use "Unqualifying" in the past participle (indicating a type of Support) and not in the present participle because you cannot say

i) Unqualifying Obama = does not make sense
ii) Unqualifying support of Obama = does not make sense as "Support" cannot be peforming the action of "Unqualifying"
iii) Unqualified support of Obama = i think makes sense as its a type of "support"

Very well done!!

Thanks so much avigutman for all your help

(A) have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support
unqualifying provides ambigious meaning

(B) are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor
are isn't the right use of tense

(C) have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
This nails the meaning and tense hence let us hang on to it

(D) receive consistent and unqualified support by labor
by isn't the right usage added on recieve isn't the right usage

(E) are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor
Similar reasoning as D

Hence IMO C

this problem is about tense.

simple present, and present perfect is used frequently and are basic tense. but this dose not mean we master these basic tenses.

it is funny that we master these tenses by reading some explanations of experts who are native speakers. some persons said we do not need to be grammarian to excel on gmat. this is correct. but we do need to master basic grammar points to excel on gmat.

we need to read a grammar book to master the basic points of grammar. we do not need to learn hard and not basic grammar points. gmat test only the basic point of grammar. this is absolutely correct and so, we need to focus on basic points when reading grammar books. so, be careful when you read grammar books.

I Have failed gmat many years. so, I want to give you the helping words.

now, I consider myself too ambitious to make you understand simple tense and present perfect tense with a few lines of words. you need to read a few pages in good grammar books to master these tenses to solve this problem properly

simple tense is used to show an event existing at the moment of speaking or an event exist indefinitely , before, in and after moment of speaking

present perfect is used to connect event past to present time.

those are 2 sentences which will help you learn grammars books.

only present perfect is fit . only choice C is fit

read about tenses in good grammar books. and dont read the not basic points. you yourself find out which points are basic and which points are not

Hi GMATNinja - i see you used 'tense' to eliminate Option B / Option D and Option E here

Given the adverb "consistently " implied the verb started in the past - we can eliminate tenses that are in the present tense / present continous

But dont we say the following :

(i) I am receiving money consistently from Jack
(ii) The sun is rising in the east for the last 10,000 years
(iii) X runs 10 kms daily

The present continous / present tense in these purple sentences (am recieving / is rising /runs ) seem okay to me even though the adverbs in the bold {consistently / for the last 10,000 years / daily) something that started in the past

Thoughts on my usage of the tenses against the adverbs in purple - are they really wrong ? I certainly woul be okay with these sentences in the purple.

Hello jabhatta2,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubts.

The first and second sentences you have presented here are, unfortunately, incorrect. The third sentence is correct, as it refers to a habitual action rather than to one that started in the past and continues into the present, meaning the use of the simple present tense verb "runs" is correct. Please remember, habitual actions are best conveyed through the simple present tense.

The first and second sentences refer to actions that began in the past and continue into the present, as conveyed through the "consistently..." phrases, meaning the correct verb for the first and second sentences are the present perfect continuous tense verbs "have been receiving" and "has been rising", respectively.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

I'd be careful about trying to create a rule here. While the present tense didn't seem logical in this question, it's not true that you could never use a present tense verb with "consistently."

For instance:

"Matisse Thybulle is consistently the best defensive player -- and the worst offensive player -- on the floor."

This seems fine to me, since the sentence is describing a current general state of affairs, as opposed to an action that's actually happening right now.

So I wouldn't necessarily say that your first sentence is a definitive error -- it could be a general state of affairs that you're getting money from someone.

However, because the second sentence specifies a specific timeframe that stretches far into the past ("for the last 10,000 years"), the present tense is wrong there.

And the third sentence seems fine because the time period "daily" could, again, be a current state of affairs.

The takeaway: universal rules won't work here. You need to think about the logic and context of each sentence you see to decide whether the verb tense seems right. And if you're not sure, then try not to use verb tense as a decision point. Simple as that.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi GMATGuruNY - Could you please explain what you meant in the yellow.

Are you saying in A and in B -

The Support itself is performing the action of unqualifying ?

If so, why do you say that ?

I thought in A and B -- it was clear that "labor" was performing the action of unqualifying .

Analysts are concerned about the company's falling stock price.
Here, the company is clearly not falling; the STOCK PRICE is falling.
The possessive in blue implies the following:
A FALLING STOCK PRICE is attributed to the company.

The same line of reasoning applies to A and B.
A: labor's unqualifying support
Here, labor is not unqualifying; the SUPPORT Is unqualifying.
The possessive in blue conveys the following:
UNQUALIFYING SUPPORT is attributed to labor.
_________________

Thank you so much GMATGuruNY --

I agree with what you wrote in yellow above and to me, there is actually nothing wrong in saying -The SUPPORT Is unqualifying.

SUPPORT Is unqualifying makes sense to me because

1) In my head, To qualify means To limit.

• Thus to To UN-qualify means to be limitless / be infinite / reaching the sky / having no boundries.

Thus, going back to the yellow statement you mention

Here, labor is not unqualifying; the SUPPORT Is unqualifying.

The yellow makes logical sense because

- The SUPPORT is unlimited / the SUPPORT is infinite / the SUPPORT knows no boundries
- This type of support is attributed to the labor party

I dont see why SUPPORT Is unqualifying. is perhaps wrong

unqualifying is not a real word, even if it can be found in some dictionaries.
I just typed unqualifying into Google.
The search did not reveal a single book or article with the word unqualifying.

In your latest post, you state that the support is unlimited.
The proper synonym for unlimited is UNQUALIFIED, as in the OA:
the UNQUALIFIED support of labor
_________________

Hi GMATGuruNY - if you dont know unqualifying is NOT a real word - is there any other way to eliminate A and B ? Trying to figure out a way to eliminate A and B using meaning / logic.

ii) I was wondering if verb-tense (marked in reds in the pic) was a genuine split ?