OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONProject SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC2)
THE PROMPTQuote:
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 paidSimply remove the word "to" and you have the "bare infinitive":
laugh, listen, be paidI 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 splitsNot 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 paidKEEP
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.
COMMENTSPhdstanford73 , 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.