|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
23 Dec 2020, 00:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
77% (01:15) correct
23%
(01:22)
wrong
based on 411
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A harsh new tobacco law in Australia has encountered massive resistance from big tobacco companies that argue the new rules abuse intellectual property rights and diminish the value of their trademarks.
A) argue the new rules abuse intellectual property rights and diminish the value of their trademarks.
B) argue on the grounds of intellectual property rights being violated and trademark values being diminished by the new rules.
C) argue that the new rules intellectually abuse property rights and devalue their trademarks.
D) argue that the new rules abuse intellectual property rights and devalue their trademarks.
E) argue that the new rules abuse property rights intellectually and devalue their trademarks.
23 Dec 2020, 00:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
THE PROMPT
→ Argue must be followed by that.
→ In speech, people often drop the word that after many verbs.
On the GMAT, do not drop the word that when the verb requires it.
For a very good overview of verbs that idiomatically are followed by a that-clause, go here.
• adjective vs. adverb
→ intellectual (no -ly) is an adjective (what kind of property rights? Intellectual property rights.)
→ intellectually is an adverb that means "in an intellectual manner" or "pertaining to the intellect"
THE OPTIONS
• diminish the value is a long-winded way to say devalue
• argue must be followed by that
ELIMINATE A
• this construction is abominable
→ I almost never eliminate on the basis of style until the very end, but option B remains barely under consideration because it is a train wreck of passivity.
→ uncomfortably passive and ineffective because of that passive construction.
Noun phrases are not usually as effective as active verbs.
This sentence is a prime example of that tendency.
→ compare
-- argue on the grounds of IP rights being violated
to
-- argue that the new rules abuse intellectual property right
No contest.
The second construction is shorter, crisper, and more effective than the first is.
→ this phrasing is also inapt:
on the grounds of trademark values being diminished by the new rules
KEEP, tentatively.
→ Human beings do things in an intellectual manner.
• nonsensical meaning, part 2: property rights cannot be "intellectually abused."
→ property rights do not have brains or intellects that can be abused
ELIMINATE C
→ (D) correctly uses argue that
→ (D) uses concise, precise, sensible, and parallel phrasing: abuse intellectual property rights and devalue their trademarks
Much better than option B. Eliminate B.
KEEP D
→ property rights do not have intellects that can be abused
→ nor do rules have the agency to abuse anything or anyone in an intellectual manner.
Rights cannot do anything in an intellectual manner because they don't have brains.
ELIMINATE E
The best answer is D.
COMMENTS
These answers range from very good to excellent.
As I took a satellite view, I noticed very different but equally effective styles of reasoning and writing—and that situation is exactly what we want.
Kudos to all.
Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC1)
THE PROMPT
Quote:
• Some verbs—especially but not only reporting verbs—must be followed by that.
→ Argue must be followed by that.
→ In speech, people often drop the word that after many verbs.
On the GMAT, do not drop the word that when the verb requires it.
For a very good overview of verbs that idiomatically are followed by a that-clause, go here.
• adjective vs. adverb
→ intellectual (no -ly) is an adjective (what kind of property rights? Intellectual property rights.)
→ intellectually is an adverb that means "in an intellectual manner" or "pertaining to the intellect"
THE OPTIONS
Quote:
• diminish the value is a long-winded way to say devalue
• argue must be followed by that
ELIMINATE A
Quote:
• this construction is abominable
→ I almost never eliminate on the basis of style until the very end, but option B remains barely under consideration because it is a train wreck of passivity.
→ uncomfortably passive and ineffective because of that passive construction.
Noun phrases are not usually as effective as active verbs.
This sentence is a prime example of that tendency.
→ compare
-- argue on the grounds of IP rights being violated
to
-- argue that the new rules abuse intellectual property right
No contest.
The second construction is shorter, crisper, and more effective than the first is.
→ this phrasing is also inapt:
on the grounds of trademark values being diminished by the new rules
KEEP, tentatively.
Quote:
• nonsensical meaning, part 1: inanimate object such as rules cannot do anything "intellectually" (in an intellectual manner).
→ Human beings do things in an intellectual manner.
• nonsensical meaning, part 2: property rights cannot be "intellectually abused."
→ property rights do not have brains or intellects that can be abused
ELIMINATE C
Quote:
• looks good
→ (D) correctly uses argue that
→ (D) uses concise, precise, sensible, and parallel phrasing: abuse intellectual property rights and devalue their trademarks
Much better than option B. Eliminate B.
KEEP D
Quote:
• as in option C, intellectually does not work
→ property rights do not have intellects that can be abused
→ nor do rules have the agency to abuse anything or anyone in an intellectual manner.
Rights cannot do anything in an intellectual manner because they don't have brains.
ELIMINATE E
The best answer is D.
COMMENTS
These answers range from very good to excellent.
As I took a satellite view, I noticed very different but equally effective styles of reasoning and writing—and that situation is exactly what we want.
Kudos to all.
My answer is (D). It took me 01:32 with most of time spent deciding between option (A) and (D).
(A) Looks ok. In formal writing, "that" after "argue" should not be omitted. Keep for now.
(B) "being violated" and "being diminished" are awkward; the passive voice is not as effective as the active voice.
Also, if we remove "being", the sentence still works. If that is the case, "being" is definitely redundant.
B can be eliminated.
(C) "intellectually abuse property rights" is a rather novice (and whimsical) construction. It has the connotation that such "abuse" is perpetrated "intellectually", which is appreciative in tone.
(D) Very similar to (A) with the following 2 differences.
d.1 "that" is provided after "argue".
d.2 One verb "devalue" is used in the place of "diminish the value of", saving three words.
Now, both changes argue in favor of D. That is why I ultimately chose (D).
(E) "abuse property rights intellectually" is similar to "intellectually abuse property rights"
(A) Looks ok. In formal writing, "that" after "argue" should not be omitted. Keep for now.
(B) "being violated" and "being diminished" are awkward; the passive voice is not as effective as the active voice.
Also, if we remove "being", the sentence still works. If that is the case, "being" is definitely redundant.
B can be eliminated.
(C) "intellectually abuse property rights" is a rather novice (and whimsical) construction. It has the connotation that such "abuse" is perpetrated "intellectually", which is appreciative in tone.
(D) Very similar to (A) with the following 2 differences.
d.1 "that" is provided after "argue".
d.2 One verb "devalue" is used in the place of "diminish the value of", saving three words.
Now, both changes argue in favor of D. That is why I ultimately chose (D).
(E) "abuse property rights intellectually" is similar to "intellectually abuse property rights"
