Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Jul 0911:00 AM PDT
-12:30 PM PDT
Welcome to the M7 MBA Spotlight Series, featuring MIT Sloan School of Management! This video is part of GMAT Club’s exclusive MBA Spotlight event, where top business schools meet prospective applicants like you.- Jun 30
08:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
Join us June 30th for 2 weeks of GMAT questions (just 8 per day) to help with your prep and to compete with your fellow GMAT Clubbers for a chance to win a prize fund of $30,000 for you and your team-mates! - Jul 01
01:00 AM EDT
-11:00 PM EDT
More Target Test Prep students are earning 100th percentile GMAT scores. Don’t settle for less when the Target Test Prep course gives you everything you need to score high on the GMAT. Start your 5-day free trial today. - Jul 08
01:00 AM EDT
-11:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep. 
Jul 0809:30 AM EDT
-10:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.- Jul 08
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Did you know that there are test accommodations available for the GMAT exam? Not enough people do! In this informative video, Jason Northrup, GMAC’s Senior Manager for Testing Accommodations, joins GMAT Ninja founder Charles Bibilos - Jul 08
11:30 AM EDT
-01:30 PM EDT
An interactive 2-hour class by Aditya Kumar to Establish clear structures & guidelines to enhance your decision-making and improve your speed and accuracy in Algebra. 
Jul 0808:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!- Jul 10
11:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
In our conversation, Kishore talks about how strategically he used data analytics to identify high impact areas to focus on as well as his early morning study routine (3 AM prep!) that optimized his GMAT preparation. 
Jul 1211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Jul 1311:00 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.- Jul 15
08:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
02 Oct 2020, 00:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
55% (01:49) correct
45%
(02:20)
wrong
based on 555
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A judge in New York recently ruled that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes should be in total paid out a sum of $6.2 million, coming from personal and business assets that were seized after an undercover investigation that was directed by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS.
A) that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes should be in total paid out a sum of $6.2 million, com-ing from personal and business assets that were seized after an undercover investigation that was directed by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
B) that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes be paid out a total of $6.2 million, which was seized in personal and business assets following an undercover investiga¬tion by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
C) that the state must pay out $6.2 million to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes, with the money having come from the sale of personal and business assets, which were seized after an undercover investigation that was directed by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
D) that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes ought to be paid out a total of $6.2 million, which were from selling the personal and business assets that were seized following an undercover investigation led by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
E) that the state must pay out to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes a total of $6.2 million, derived from the sale of personal and business assets that were seized follow-ing a joint U.S. Postal Service and IRS investigation
02 Oct 2020, 00:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
THE PROMPT
A judge ruled that victims of a Ponzi scheme be paid a sum of $6.2 million.
Did you catch what I just did to the verb? I used the command subjunctive construction. (See below.)
The word ruled is a "bossy" verb.
When a judge rules, she issues orders.
An order is a command: most of the time, you will be tested on the command subjunctive in a "bossy" verb situation.
Another possibility is that you will be tested on a "bossy" verb that is followed by an infinitive.
→ That is, some "bossy" verbs can take the command subjunctive structure OR be followed by an infinitive. (ask, beg, intend, order, prefer, urge)
→ Here is one example with the verb require:
Correct: The judge required that the defendant pay a fine.
Correct: The judge required the defendant to pay a fine.
• Structure of command subjunctive?
bossy verb + THAT + noun/object + bare infinitive
→ Bare infinitive
These versions are the "regular" infinitives: to laugh, to listen, to be paid
Simply remove the word "to" and you have the "bare infinitive": laugh, listen, be paid
I don't fool around with the explanations that instructs us to use the third person singular. (I think. It's something weird.)
This way is a lot easier:
Drop the word TO from the infinitive. The end. The result is the verb you need for the command subjunctive.
• finding the splits
Not every split is important.
The first split you find is not necessarily the one on which you should focus.
On the other hand, if the first split you find involves subject/verb agreement, verb tense, noun/pronoun agreement, or obvious noun modifier mistakes, I would focus on that first split.
And so I did.
→ In long sentences with long underlined portions, I immediately look for the main subject (judge) and main verb (ruled).
→ The only words that change much before the first comma are the verbs.
THE OPTIONS
→ Speakers of British English, be a bit careful. In B.E., the use of should in commands is acceptable. Not so on the GMAT.
→ Should is used to describe a moral obligation, not a judge's command.
• in total and sum are redundant
• style: back-to-back that-clauses make this sentence verbose and labored.
ELIMINATE A
• I see no error.
• This option is straightforward; its prose is more concise and direct than that of all the other options
• command subjunctive is used properly: ruled that . . . the victims . . . be paid
KEEP
→ Correction: A judge . . . ruled that the state pay out $6.2 million . . . .
• illogical: why is the state paying the money for a Ponzi scheme?
Watch the meaning: A judge . . . ruled that the state . . . pay out $6.2 million to the 613 victims . . .
Maybe the state will be the distributor of money seized by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS, but that fact is not clear.
• with the money having come from is poorly phrased and clunky compared to the language in option B (
ELIMINATE C
• the plural verb were does not agree with the singular subject $6.2 million. A sum is a collective, singular noun.
• even if the verb were corrected to the singular was, that verb is incomplete; we need a something'ed (the money was collected or was seized, for example)
ELIMINATE D
• Like C, illogical: why would the state have to pay money to Ponzi scheme victims?
• poor diction (not a big decision point)
. . . the state pay out to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes a total of $6.2 million
→ the direct object of the verb pay out is $6.2 million. (What was paid out? $6.2 million.)
→ the indirect object of the verb pay out is 613 victims (To whom was the money paid?)
Option E uses VERB + INDIRECT object + DIRECT object
-- often this order does not matter
-- in this case, the order matters because we must read a lot of words about to whom something was given before we even know what that something was.
Correction: . . . the state pay out a total of $6.2 million to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes
→ We can switch that order—we just typically have a much shorter indirect object, this way:
Correct: Pierre gave the chocolates to Lise.
Correct: Pierre gave Lise the chocolates.
Do not worry if you did not notice the strange phrasing.
But do start reading.
ELIMINATE E
The answer is B.
COMMENTS
Phdstanford73 , welcome to SC Butler.
I am always glad to see new and newish people posting.
(I am always glad to see you all.)
All of the answers are correct. A few do a good job of explaining the concepts that underlie why an option is wrong.
Smiley faces go to correct answers with little to no explanation.
Kudos go to correct answers that contain explanations. Nice work.
Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC2)
THE PROMPT
Quote:
A judge in New York recently ruled that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes should be in total paid out a sum of $6.2 million, coming from personal and business assets that were seized after an undercover investigation that was directed by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS.
• MEANING?A judge ruled that victims of a Ponzi scheme be paid a sum of $6.2 million.
Did you catch what I just did to the verb? I used the command subjunctive construction. (See below.)
The word ruled is a "bossy" verb.
When a judge rules, she issues orders.
An order is a command: most of the time, you will be tested on the command subjunctive in a "bossy" verb situation.
Another possibility is that you will be tested on a "bossy" verb that is followed by an infinitive.
→ That is, some "bossy" verbs can take the command subjunctive structure OR be followed by an infinitive. (ask, beg, intend, order, prefer, urge)
→ Here is one example with the verb require:
Correct: The judge required that the defendant pay a fine.
Correct: The judge required the defendant to pay a fine.
• Structure of command subjunctive?
bossy verb + THAT + noun/object + bare infinitive
→ Bare infinitive
These versions are the "regular" infinitives: to laugh, to listen, to be paid
Simply remove the word "to" and you have the "bare infinitive": laugh, listen, be paid
I don't fool around with the explanations that instructs us to use the third person singular. (I think. It's something weird.)
This way is a lot easier:
Drop the word TO from the infinitive. The end. The result is the verb you need for the command subjunctive.
• finding the splits
Not every split is important.
The first split you find is not necessarily the one on which you should focus.
On the other hand, if the first split you find involves subject/verb agreement, verb tense, noun/pronoun agreement, or obvious noun modifier mistakes, I would focus on that first split.
And so I did.
→ In long sentences with long underlined portions, I immediately look for the main subject (judge) and main verb (ruled).
→ The only words that change much before the first comma are the verbs.
THE OPTIONS
Quote:
A) A judge in New York recently ruled that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes should[ be in total paid out a sum of $6.2 million, coming from personal and business assets that were seized after an undercover investigation that was directed by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS.
• In formal U.S. English and on the GMAT, do not use the modal verb should with commands→ Speakers of British English, be a bit careful. In B.E., the use of should in commands is acceptable. Not so on the GMAT.
→ Should is used to describe a moral obligation, not a judge's command.
• in total and sum are redundant
• style: back-to-back that-clauses make this sentence verbose and labored.
ELIMINATE A
Quote:
B) A judge in New York recently ruled that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes be paid out a total of $6.2 million, which was seized in personal and business assets following an undercover investigation by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS.
• I see no error.
• This option is straightforward; its prose is more concise and direct than that of all the other options
• command subjunctive is used properly: ruled that . . . the victims . . . be paid
KEEP
Quote:
C) A judge in New York recently ruled that the state must pay out $6.2 million to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes, with the money having come from the sale of personal and business assets, which were seized after an undercover investigation that was directed by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS.
• as we see in option B, ruled requires the command subjunctive. The word must is not part of that construction.→ Correction: A judge . . . ruled that the state pay out $6.2 million . . . .
• illogical: why is the state paying the money for a Ponzi scheme?
Watch the meaning: A judge . . . ruled that the state . . . pay out $6.2 million to the 613 victims . . .
Maybe the state will be the distributor of money seized by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS, but that fact is not clear.
• with the money having come from is poorly phrased and clunky compared to the language in option B (
ELIMINATE C
Quote:
D) A judge in New York recently ruled that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes ought to be paid out a total of $6.2 million, which were from selling the personal and business assets that were seized following an undercover investigation led by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS.
• just as is the case with the word should in option A, the phrase ought to is not used in the command subjunctive• the plural verb were does not agree with the singular subject $6.2 million. A sum is a collective, singular noun.
• even if the verb were corrected to the singular was, that verb is incomplete; we need a something'ed (the money was collected or was seized, for example)
ELIMINATE D
Quote:
E) A judge in New York recently ruled that the state must pay out to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes a total of $6.2 million, derived from the sale of personal and business assets that were seized following a joint U.S. Postal Service and IRS investigation.
• as in C, we do not use must in the command subjunctive structure• Like C, illogical: why would the state have to pay money to Ponzi scheme victims?
• poor diction (not a big decision point)
. . . the state pay out to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes a total of $6.2 million
→ the direct object of the verb pay out is $6.2 million. (What was paid out? $6.2 million.)
→ the indirect object of the verb pay out is 613 victims (To whom was the money paid?)
Option E uses VERB + INDIRECT object + DIRECT object
-- often this order does not matter
-- in this case, the order matters because we must read a lot of words about to whom something was given before we even know what that something was.
Correction: . . . the state pay out a total of $6.2 million to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes
→ We can switch that order—we just typically have a much shorter indirect object, this way:
Correct: Pierre gave the chocolates to Lise.
Correct: Pierre gave Lise the chocolates.
Do not worry if you did not notice the strange phrasing.
But do start reading.
ELIMINATE E
The answer is B.
COMMENTS
Phdstanford73 , welcome to SC Butler.
I am always glad to see new and newish people posting.
(I am always glad to see you all.)
All of the answers are correct. A few do a good job of explaining the concepts that underlie why an option is wrong.
Smiley faces go to correct answers with little to no explanation.
Kudos go to correct answers that contain explanations. Nice work.
General Discussion
02 Oct 2020, 01:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
A judge in New York recently ruled that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes should be in total paid out a sum of $6.2 million, coming from personal and business assets that were seized after an undercover investigation that was directed by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS.
Explanation:
A) that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes should be in total paid out a sum of $6.2 million, com-ing from personal and business assets that were seized after an undercover investigation that was directed by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
Incorrect.Redundant usage of 'Total' and 'Sum'
B) that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes be paid out a total of $6.2 million, which was seized in personal and business assets following an undercover investiga¬tion by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
Correct.Subjunctive form(verb-"RULED" +THAT+victims +BE....) used correctly. Grammatically and logically valid.
C) that the state must pay out $6.2 million to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes, with the money having come from the sale of personal and business assets, which were seized after an undercover investigation that was directed by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
Incorrect.Awkward structure.Missing subjunctive usage...usage of having
D) that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes ought to be paid out a total of $6.2 million, which were from selling the personal and business assets that were seized following an undercover investigation led by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
Incorrect.Subject verb agreement error.Relative modifier 'Which' i.e 6.2 million (Singular entity) takes Singular verb-'WAS'
E) that the state must pay out to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes a total of $6.2 million, derived from the sale of personal and business assets that were seized follow-ing a joint U.S. Postal Service and IRS investigation
Incorrect.Changes the meaning"Undercover" is replaced by "Joint"
Hence B is the correct answer.
Explanation:
A) that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes should be in total paid out a sum of $6.2 million, com-ing from personal and business assets that were seized after an undercover investigation that was directed by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
Incorrect.Redundant usage of 'Total' and 'Sum'
B) that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes be paid out a total of $6.2 million, which was seized in personal and business assets following an undercover investiga¬tion by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
Correct.Subjunctive form(verb-"RULED" +THAT+victims +BE....) used correctly. Grammatically and logically valid.
C) that the state must pay out $6.2 million to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes, with the money having come from the sale of personal and business assets, which were seized after an undercover investigation that was directed by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
Incorrect.Awkward structure.Missing subjunctive usage...usage of having
D) that the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes ought to be paid out a total of $6.2 million, which were from selling the personal and business assets that were seized following an undercover investigation led by the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS
Incorrect.Subject verb agreement error.Relative modifier 'Which' i.e 6.2 million (Singular entity) takes Singular verb-'WAS'
E) that the state must pay out to the 613 victims of one of the most noteworthy Ponzi schemes a total of $6.2 million, derived from the sale of personal and business assets that were seized follow-ing a joint U.S. Postal Service and IRS investigation
Incorrect.Changes the meaning"Undercover" is replaced by "Joint"
Hence B is the correct answer.
