GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 24 Sep 2019, 02:02

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling pla

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4250
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling pla  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 18 Oct 2018, 05:14
2
32
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (01:19) correct 45% (01:21) wrong based on 1351 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote to curb potential fraud.

(A) A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote to curb potential fraud.

(B) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.

(C) A proposed law will require citizens to curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places when they vote.

(D) A proposed law will curb potential fraud by requiring citizens to vote at polling places with photo ID.

(E) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law requires citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 62: Sentence Correction

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

_________________

Originally posted by souvik101990 on 25 Jul 2017, 21:09.
Last edited by Bunuel on 18 Oct 2018, 05:14, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2823
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling pla  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2017, 21:10
6
8
This question is pretty much 100% about meaning. Some really nice explanations are already below, so I'll try to keep these short.

Quote:
(A) A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote to curb potential fraud.

I think we would all love to vote to curb potential fraud, but that's clearly not the intended meaning of the sentence. (A) is gone.

Quote:
(B) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.

This looks good. In order to curb potential fraud, a proposed law would make people bring ID when the vote. And the verb "would" makes sense, too: the proposed law isn't in effect yet, so the conditional is correct. Keep (B).

Quote:
(C) A proposed law will require citizens to curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places when they vote.

There are a few issues here. "Will require" is a little bit too certain, since the law has only been proposed; "would" is better. It's a little bit of a stretch to say that citizens "curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places," but that's not necessarily wrong -- it just makes more sense to say that the law curbs fraud by requiring ID, as in answer choice (B). And "they" is a little bit further from "citizens" than we'd ideally like.

There's no single factor that makes (C) DEFINITELY wrong, but there's enough goofiness here to make it an inferior choice to (B).

Quote:
(D) A proposed law will curb potential fraud by requiring citizens to vote at polling places with photo ID.

The phrase "polling places with photo ID" makes it sound like the polling places themselves have photo ID, and that doesn't make much sense. "Will" is also not ideal here. (D) is out.

Quote:
(E) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law requires citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.

"Requires" is the wrong verb tense here, since the law hasn't taken effect yet. "They" is also arguably a little bit ambiguous. And sure, pronoun ambiguity isn't an absolute rule (as discussed in this YouTube video), but (B) is clearly better than (E).
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
##### General Discussion
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Dec 2014
Posts: 357
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V45
GPA: 3.85
WE: Design (Energy and Utilities)
Re: A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling pla  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 26 Jul 2017, 01:21
2
Citizens ..... when they vote to curb potential fraud? Wow. Great idea. I would love to vote to curb potential fraud, who won't?

But, is that the intended meaning here? Nopes, I'm afraid not. The meaning is: to curb the potential fraud, citizens have to bring their ID along with them when they come to vote.

(A) A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote to curb potential fraud. Not the intended meaning.

(B) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote. Correct. Intended meaning + subjunctive 'would' + to form of verb. Perfect!

(C) A proposed law will require citizens to curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places when they vote. Duhh! Not the intended meaning again.

(D) A proposed law will curb potential fraud by requiring citizens to vote at polling places with photo ID. Vote with a photo ID? Hilarious.

(E) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law requires citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote. Requires? It is a law of the land or what?
_________________
12345aBcDeFgHiJkLmNoPqRsTuVwXyZ67890

Originally posted by DigitsnLetters on 25 Jul 2017, 21:58.
Last edited by DigitsnLetters on 26 Jul 2017, 01:21, edited 2 times in total.
Intern
Joined: 16 Oct 2017
Posts: 18
A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling pla  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2018, 11:26
2

When to use WILL/WOULD ?

(1) Use WILL to refer to some event that will happen in the future in relation
to the present

(2) And use WOULD to refer to the future in the past.

In the question Proposed is written which means past therefore we will use constructions which have WOULD in them.
If it would have been proposal instead of proposed we would have used WILL.

(C) A proposed law will require citizens to curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places when they vote.

(D) A proposed law will curb potential fraud by requiring citizens to vote at polling places with photo ID.

So eliminate C and D.

Now we're are left with A, B and E

(A) A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote to curb potential fraud.

Option A completely destroys the intended meaning and sounds as if people are voting to curb potential fraud.

Between option B and E :-

Option E though grammatically correct but is incorrect Because -
(E) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law requires citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.

E is stating a fact that is - proposed law requires which is incorrect because proposal won't require anything. It will be the 'Passed' Law that will require something.

Until the Law is passed it is just a proposal and proposal doesn't mandate anyone to do something. So requires with proposal is incorrect.

Hence the Correct Answer is Option B.

Manager
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Posts: 227
Re: A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling pla  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2018, 03:33
GMATNinja wrote:
This question is pretty much 100% about meaning. Some really nice explanations are already below, so I'll try to keep these short.

Quote:
(A) A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote to curb potential fraud.

I think we would all love to vote to curb potential fraud, but that's clearly not the intended meaning of the sentence. (A) is gone.

Quote:
(B) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.

This looks good. In order to curb potential fraud, a proposed law would make people bring ID when the vote. And the verb "would" makes sense, too: the proposed law isn't in effect yet, so the conditional is correct. Keep (B).

Quote:
(C) A proposed law will require citizens to curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places when they vote.

There are a few issues here. "Will require" is a little bit too certain, since the law has only been proposed; "would" is better. It's a little bit of a stretch to say that citizens "curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places," but that's not necessarily wrong -- it just makes more sense to say that the law curbs fraud by requiring ID, as in answer choice (B). And "they" is a little bit further from "citizens" than we'd ideally like.

There's no single factor that makes (C) DEFINITELY wrong, but there's enough goofiness here to make it an inferior choice to (B).

Quote:
(D) A proposed law will curb potential fraud by requiring citizens to vote at polling places with photo ID.

The phrase "polling places with photo ID" makes it sound like the polling places themselves have photo ID, and that doesn't make much sense. "Will" is also not ideal here. (D) is out.

Quote:
(E) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law requires citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.

"Requires" is the wrong verb tense here, since the law hasn't taken effect yet. "They" is also arguably a little bit ambiguous. And sure, pronoun ambiguity isn't an absolute rule (as discussed in this YouTube video), but (B) is clearly better than (E).

Could you please explain a little bit more about the usage of would conditional as is used in statement b?
dont we require an "if" statement for conditionals?
chetan2u daagh
Posted from my mobile device
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7846
Re: A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling pla  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2018, 18:19
rahulkashyap wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
This question is pretty much 100% about meaning. Some really nice explanations are already below, so I'll try to keep these short.

Quote:
(A) A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote to curb potential fraud.

I think we would all love to vote to curb potential fraud, but that's clearly not the intended meaning of the sentence. (A) is gone.

Quote:
(B) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.

This looks good. In order to curb potential fraud, a proposed law would make people bring ID when the vote. And the verb "would" makes sense, too: the proposed law isn't in effect yet, so the conditional is correct. Keep (B).

Quote:
(C) A proposed law will require citizens to curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places when they vote.

There are a few issues here. "Will require" is a little bit too certain, since the law has only been proposed; "would" is better. It's a little bit of a stretch to say that citizens "curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places," but that's not necessarily wrong -- it just makes more sense to say that the law curbs fraud by requiring ID, as in answer choice (B). And "they" is a little bit further from "citizens" than we'd ideally like.

There's no single factor that makes (C) DEFINITELY wrong, but there's enough goofiness here to make it an inferior choice to (B).

Quote:
(D) A proposed law will curb potential fraud by requiring citizens to vote at polling places with photo ID.

The phrase "polling places with photo ID" makes it sound like the polling places themselves have photo ID, and that doesn't make much sense. "Will" is also not ideal here. (D) is out.

Quote:
(E) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law requires citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.

"Requires" is the wrong verb tense here, since the law hasn't taken effect yet. "They" is also arguably a little bit ambiguous. And sure, pronoun ambiguity isn't an absolute rule (as discussed in this YouTube video), but (B) is clearly better than (E).

Could you please explain a little bit more about the usage of would conditional as is used in statement b?
dont we require an "if" statement for conditionals?
chetan2u daagh
Posted from my mobile device

Hi..

Here would is not used in conditional form but as a possibility of something.
However in B, I am really not sure if it makes sense..
On one hand we are saying proposed law that is it is already made and being discussed now and on the other hand we are not sure what it contains..

It could have been correct in many other ways..
# To curb potential fraud, a new law would require.....
# A proposed law requiring .... would curb potential fraud.

So B may be the best here, but 'would' just not fits in and c
_________________
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 632
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GPA: 3.95
WE: Operations (Real Estate)
Re: A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling pla  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2018, 05:17
GMATNinja daagh mikemcgarry DmitryFarber chetan2u please can u help with option E:
The law is "proposed" and not yet implemented .
The verb tense "would" will be inappropriate here as the law that is PROPOSED REQUIRES bla bla bla. If we add "would" we are basically uncertain about the plan and what it actually is proposing..
It's more like we are making a guess about the proposed alaw.

In contrast to B, E is much clearer.
The law is proposed and if implemented, the law will require bla bla bla.... here we are certain as to what actually the law will do

Secondly, the law is PROPOSED and has not yet been implemented so using the verb "would" would be redundant right?
proposal itself tells us that this thing hasnt happened.
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 632
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GPA: 3.95
WE: Operations (Real Estate)
A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling pla  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2018, 13:05
ishan95jaiswal wrote:

When to use WILL/WOULD ?

(1) Use WILL to refer to some event that will happen in the future in relation
to the present

(2) And use WOULD to refer to the future in the past.

In the question Proposed is written which means past therefore we will use constructions which have WOULD in them.
If it would have been proposal instead of proposed we would have used WILL.

(C) A proposed law will require citizens to curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places when they vote.

(D) A proposed law will curb potential fraud by requiring citizens to vote at polling places with photo ID.

So eliminate C and D.

Now we're are left with A, B and E

(A) A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote to curb potential fraud.

Option A completely destroys the intended meaning and sounds as if people are voting to curb potential fraud.

Between option B and E :-

Option E though grammatically correct but is incorrect Because -
(E) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law requires citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.

E is stating a fact that is - proposed law requires which is incorrect because proposal won't require anything. It will be the 'Passed' Law that will require something.

Until the Law is passed it is just a proposal and proposal doesn't mandate anyone to do something. So requires with proposal is incorrect.

Hence the Correct Answer is Option B.

Proposed law: law- noun , proposed- adjective

What you did is separate the adjective and then turn it into a noun and exploit the noun meaning.

According to your reasoning , I can fairly say - a discriminatory law will not be fair to every race.

law- noun , discriminatory - adjective
Law- noun , discrimination- noun

So ACCORDING TO YOU, discrimination will be fair . But the law will not be fair. Or vice versa.. but both cannot be fair and unfair at the same time ( according to your analysis)

Similarly, the above analysis, stands for both B and E and every option that has "proposed law" and hence the same error persists in every option.

So I can fairly state that, " proposed law" is faulty but that fault persists in every option. Cool

Moving forward,

Proposal - Something which is proposed, or offered for consideration or acceptance

Now when you write a law , do you write it with "possibility", I mean if you pass a law , can I ( according to you) challenge the law by saying it is useless as it says " would" and hence has no certainty..

Usage of would :
1) when talking about future with respect to past
2) when you are not certain about the result

To curtail bla bla bla, a proposed law -
Has this thing happened in the past? If so how do you know? The author could be talking about the future... The law has been "proposed" that is true ,but has the law been abolished and is it implemented to state that the proposed law was in the past? Yes the action of proposing is in the past but the context is still in present
Why? Because I have proposed it for a goal , has that goal reached?no is the law implemented?no...

A proposed law requires is not a fact- your reasoning !
Fact- something which is true.
Now when I propose something , I make a memo of it, at least a proposed law is something solid and has clear indications as to what it will, if passed, require.
So a proposed law can require- proposed law can have requirements and it is a fact... Fact is not what generally is true...fact is what is true...

Now when writting a proposal, the concerns/demands/ requests are fairly stated . And then published forward for consideration.
If I say a proposed law "would " require , I haven't yet drafted a proposal and submitted it and hence I'm still unsure what exactly I'm going to propose .
This is not the case in this question because we are certain on our goal and we have already proposed a law...so there's no uncertainty with respect to requirements...

I agree with the Frist part - would is used in past...
But disagree with rest of your analysis...
Especially the part where you broke down the "proposal - law"...

Posted from my mobile device
A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling pla   [#permalink] 25 Oct 2018, 13:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by