It is currently 25 Sep 2017, 12:08

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Discrimination in wages paid in occupations that are

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1508

Kudos [?]: 1404 [0], given: 2

Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)

Show Tags

19 Jul 2010, 14:39
Another example:

Does it happen the same with "who"?

The percentage of high school graduates in the United States who go on to college is fifty-two, compared with Canada’s thirty-five percent, Great Britain’s fifteen, Japan’s fifteen, and West Germany’s fifteen.

"who go on to college" is modifying US or graduates?
Thanks,
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1404 [0], given: 2

Intern
Joined: 20 Jun 2010
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

19 Jul 2010, 20:19
245. Discrimination in wages paid in occupations that are predominantly male over the predominantly female have given rise to substantial differentials between the wage of housepainters and secretaries and between the wages of parking-lot attendants and library assistants.

(A) paid in occupations that are predominantly male over the predominantly female have
(B) paid in occupations that are predominantly make over those that are predominantly female have
(C) that favors predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female have
(D) that favors predominantly male occupations over those that are predominantly female has
(E) paid in predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female has

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

generally the idiom is X over y.

and here is we are comparing male Occupations to female. Is this not the wrong comparison.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 348

Kudos [?]: 1596 [1], given: 11

Location: San Francisco

Show Tags

26 Jul 2010, 11:32
1
KUDOS
Hey kevskesav,

In fact, that is the correct comparison. We're comparing occupations that are predominantly male to the predominantly female (occupations). They left out the noun, but that's because it's understood.

As for Noboru's example, yes, your example is grammatically correct, because even though the relative clause isn't directly touching what it modifies, that's because we already have another modifier (and they can't both touch) "of high school graduates" which ITSELF is then modified by "in the United States".

Hope that helps!

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 1596 [1], given: 11

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 958

Kudos [?]: 886 [0], given: 36

Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Chicago Booth - Class of 2015

Show Tags

26 Jul 2010, 12:23
Hi tommy

Thanks for awesome explanation ! In D "those" refers to occupations. But does occupations have gender? Is it grammatically correct to say -
occupations that are predominantly female?

Also in E, I think discrimination is wrt wages. I can interpret E as

discrimination in wages paid in predominantly male occupations over the wages paid in predominantly female occupations has ---> is this correct?
(E) paid in predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female has

thanks

TommyWallach wrote:
(D) that favors predominantly male occupations over those that are predominantly female has
COMPARISON: This gives us a noun and a clause again, just like A.
-tommy

Kudos [?]: 886 [0], given: 36

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 348

Kudos [?]: 1596 [1], given: 11

Location: San Francisco

Show Tags

26 Jul 2010, 12:34
1
KUDOS
Hey Nusma,

Well the sentence itself already says "predominantly male occupations", so it must be okay to imply that other occupations are predominantly female. It isn't that the word itself has a gender, it's just like saying "The boys soccer team".

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 1596 [1], given: 11

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 488

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 149

WE 1: 4 years Tech

Show Tags

27 Jul 2010, 05:10
nusmavrik wrote:
Hi tommy

Also in E, I think discrimination is wrt wages. I can interpret E as

discrimination in wages paid in predominantly male occupations over the wages paid in predominantly female occupations has ---> is this correct?
(E) paid in predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female has

thanks

TommyWallach wrote:
(D) that favors predominantly male occupations over those that are predominantly female has
COMPARISON: This gives us a noun and a clause again, just like A.
-tommy

Hi Tommy,
as pointed by nusmavrik above,shouldnt the comparison be parallel.
What i mean is
discrimination in wages paid in predominantly male occupations over the wages paid in predominantly female occupations has ---> is this correct?

HERE "discrimination in wages paid in predominantly male occupations " is parallel with "the wages paid in predominantly female occupations "
so in the following fragment
(E) paid in predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female has

"wages paid in predominantly male occupations " is not parallel with "the predominantly female "
Can u explain?Is it understood? It seems awkword
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 149

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1508

Kudos [?]: 1404 [0], given: 2

Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)

Show Tags

29 Jul 2010, 16:34
noboru wrote:
TommyWallach wrote:
Hey Noboru,

You're absolutely right on this front. Though I would argue that there's still a lack of clarity over which one is being modified (an issue that E resolves by removing the relative pronoun entirely), logic DOES tell us it must be discrimination, not wages. Luckily, C still has the verb error at the end of the sentence, so we don't have to make a decision on this alone.

Hope that makes sense. Occasionally relative pronouns DO have to modify something they don't touch (something that ALREADY has a modifier, so it's impossible for both modifiers to touch...in this case, the other modifier is "in wages"), but if you can avoid it, do so. : )

-t

Yes, for me it makes sense.

Here is another one. It has already been discussed here: sc-dr-sayre-s-lecture-48411.html but some issues are still there.

For me, "that" modifies episodes, which is plural, so it must be "illustrate". Between C and D, I prefer C, although I would prefer "among" rather than "between".

Dr. Sayre’s lecture recounted several little-known episodes in the relations between nations that illustrates what is wrong with alliances and treaties that do not have popular support.

(A) relations between nations that illustrates
(B) relation of one nation with another that illustrates
(C) relations between nations that illustrate
(D) relation of one nation with another and illustrate
(E) relations of nations that illustrates

Later on I will post the OA.
Many thanks.

Nobody is going to share his thoughts on the example above?
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1404 [0], given: 2

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 958

Kudos [?]: 886 [0], given: 36

Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Chicago Booth - Class of 2015

Show Tags

30 Jul 2010, 02:16
I will second Tommy . Besides his point, D has another problem. Discrimination in wages that favors predominantly male occupations over those that are predominantly female has -----> this means "discrimination" that favors predominantly male occupations over predominantly female occupations. Note that discrimination is wrt "wages" not wrt "occupations".

Compare with original sentence "Discrimination in wages paid - choice A
(E) at least hangs around the original meaning. Though it may not be 100% proof.
I can still work with the base sentence - "Discrimination in wages paid in" [predominantly male occupations] over the [wages paid in] predominantly female [occupations] has ---> ellipsis

Kudos [?]: 886 [0], given: 36

Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 3

Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 07:46
Discrimination in wages paid in occupations that are predominantly male over the predominantly female have given rise to substantial differentials between the wage of housepainters and secretaries and between the wages of parking-lot attendants and library assistants.

(A) paid in occupations that are predominantly male over the predominantly female have
(B) paid in occupations that are predominantly make over those that are predominantly female have
(C) that favors predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female have
(D) that favors predominantly male occupations over those that are predominantly female has
(E) paid in predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female has

thanks for the great exp tommy..
but yes..jus concentrating between has and have solves the question

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 3

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 488

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 149

WE 1: 4 years Tech

Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 13:53
SumeetGill wrote:
Also I think the subject here is "wages" and not "discrimination", so it needs a "have" and not "has".

Hey tommy i am digging up a very old topic.Hope u dont get irritated.
I have a very conceptual question.
MGMAT SC strategy guide suggests that we may eliminate the middlemen (propositional modifiers) to find the subject and verb.
so in the sentence
Discrimination in wages that favors predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female have given rise to substantial differentials between the wage of housepainters and secretaries and between the wages of parking-lot attendants and library assistants.
The that clause in the bolded part should modify discrimination when we eliminate "in wages" as "in wages" is a prepositional modifier.
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 149

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 488

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 149

WE 1: 4 years Tech

Show Tags

03 Sep 2010, 12:57
TommyWallach wrote:
Hey All,

Lots of conversation around this one, but it doesn't look like anyone's taken it apart piece by piece. Let's do that.

This is a tough question, because it is masquerading as a comparison question. I saw a lot of people mention comparison here, and there absolutely is one. However, none of them really compare the way I (and probably you) would like to see it, "Discrimination in wages paid in occupations that are predominantly male over those paid in occupations that are predominantly female..." Then we would get the comparison we want. But none of the answers do it, so comparison must not be the issue here. In reality, it's much simpler: this is a straight-forward subject-verb agreement question.

The two important splits are paid/favors, and have/has at the end.

Discrimination in wages paid in occupations that are predominantly male over the predominantly female have given rise to substantial differentials between the wage of housepainters and secretaries and between the wages of parking-lot attendants and library assistants.

(A) paid in occupations that are predominantly male over the predominantly female have
PROBLEM: The subject of "have" is "discrimination", which is singular, so we need "has". How do we know it's "discrimination", and not "wages" or "occupations"? Well, if you'd read the MGMAT Sentence Correction guide, you'd know! : ) The subject of a sentence will never be within a prepositional phrase. "in wages paid" is prepositional, as is "in occupations". This means "discrimination" is our subject, which is singular.

(B) paid in occupations that are predominantly make over those that are predominantly female have
PROBLEM: same as above.

(C) that favors predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female have
PROBLEM: Because "that" is a relative pronoun, we know that this phrase modifies "wages". This means "wages" must be the subject of "favors", so it should be "favor".

That's a rough one. Hope that helps!

-tommy

Hey tommy i am digging up a very old topic.Hope u dont get irritated.
I have a very conceptual question.
MGMAT SC strategy guide suggests that we may eliminate the middlemen (propositional modifiers) to find the subject and verb.
so in the sentence
Discrimination in wages that favors predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female have given rise to substantial differentials between the wage of housepainters and secretaries and between the wages of parking-lot attendants and library assistants.
The that clause in the bolded part should modify discrimination when we eliminate "in wages" as "in wages" is a prepositional modifier.
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 149

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 348

Kudos [?]: 1596 [1], given: 11

Location: San Francisco

Show Tags

03 Sep 2010, 13:16
1
KUDOS
Hey Munda,

I don't quite understand your question. The "that" clause modifies the big noun "discrimination in wages." It's sort of like saying:

"The Jack in the box that I got for Christmas is broken."

"in the box" is technically modifying "Jack", but really it's just one big noun "The Jack In The Box".

Also, the rule you're referencing is to deal with subject-verb agreement issues, not modifier issues. You get rid of middlemen to locate the subject and verb, not to figure out how the modifiers are working. You wouldn't want to get rid of middlemen to deal with modifiers, because middlemen ARE modifiers.

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 1596 [1], given: 11

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 488

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 149

WE 1: 4 years Tech

Show Tags

03 Sep 2010, 13:40
TommyWallach wrote:
Hey All,

(C) that favors predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female have
PROBLEM: Because "that" is a relative pronoun, we know that this phrase modifies "wages". This means "wages" must be the subject of "favors", so it should be "favor".
That's a rough one. Hope that helps!

-tommy

Tommy I am confused because in the bolded part above you have written that "favors modifies wages as the phrase beginning with "that" modifies wages and in the last post (quoted below )you have mentioned that "Jack in the box" has to be treated as a big noun.
TommyWallach wrote:
Hey Munda,

I don't quite understand your question. The "that" clause modifies the big noun "discrimination in wages." It's sort of like saying:

"The Jack in the box that I got for Christmas is broken."

"in the box" is technically modifying "Jack", but really it's just one big noun "The Jack In The Box".

Also, the rule you're referencing is to deal with subject-verb agreement issues, not modifier issues. You get rid of middlemen to locate the subject and verb, not to figure out how the modifiers are working. You wouldn't want to get rid of middlemen to deal with modifiers, because middlemen ARE modifiers.

-t

_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 149

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 192

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 15

Location: Prague
Schools: University of Economics Prague

Show Tags

03 Sep 2010, 15:24
Hi Tommy

Supposing that "THAT" refers here correctly to discrimination and there is no problem with clarity > could not be then C+D ruled out because Discrimination is only inanimate abstract term and as itself, discrimination cannot favor anything at all?

noboru wrote:
TommyWallach wrote:
Hey Noboru,

You're absolutely right on this front. Though I would argue that there's still a lack of clarity over which one is being modified (an issue that E resolves by removing the relative pronoun entirely), logic DOES tell us it must be discrimination, not wages. Luckily, C still has the verb error at the end of the sentence, so we don't have to make a decision on this alone.

Hope that makes sense. Occasionally relative pronouns DO have to modify something they don't touch (something that ALREADY has a modifier, so it's impossible for both modifiers to touch...in this case, the other modifier is "in wages"), but if you can avoid it, do so. : )

-t

Yes, for me it makes sense.

Here is another one. It has already been discussed here: sc-dr-sayre-s-lecture-48411.html but some issues are still there.

For me, "that" modifies episodes, which is plural, so it must be "illustrate". Between C and D, I prefer C, although I would prefer "among" rather than "between".

Dr. Sayre’s lecture recounted several little-known episodes in the relations between nations that illustrates what is wrong with alliances and treaties that do not have popular support.

(A) relations between nations that illustrates
(B) relation of one nation with another that illustrates
(C) relations between nations that illustrate
(D) relation of one nation with another and illustrate
(E) relations of nations that illustrates

Later on I will post the OA.
Many thanks.

_________________

You want somethin', go get it. Period!

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 15

Intern
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 49

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 5

Show Tags

16 Sep 2010, 07:58
TommyWallach wrote:
Hey All,

Lots of conversation around this one, but it doesn't look like anyone's taken it apart piece by piece. Let's do that.

This is a tough question, because it is masquerading as a comparison question. I saw a lot of people mention comparison here, and there absolutely is one. However, none of them really compare the way I (and probably you) would like to see it, "Discrimination in wages paid in occupations that are predominantly male over those paid in occupations that are predominantly female..." Then we would get the comparison we want. But none of the answers do it, so comparison must not be the issue here. In reality, it's much simpler: this is a straight-forward subject-verb agreement question.

The two important splits are paid/favors, and have/has at the end.

Discrimination in wages paid in occupations that are predominantly male over the predominantly female have given rise to substantial differentials between the wage of housepainters and secretaries and between the wages of parking-lot attendants and library assistants.

(A) paid in occupations that are predominantly male over the predominantly female have
PROBLEM: The subject of "have" is "discrimination", which is singular, so we need "has". How do we know it's "discrimination", and not "wages" or "occupations"? Well, if you'd read the MGMAT Sentence Correction guide, you'd know! : ) The subject of a sentence will never be within a prepositional phrase. "in wages paid" is prepositional, as is "in occupations". This means "discrimination" is our subject, which is singular.

(B) paid in occupations that are predominantly make over those that are predominantly female have
PROBLEM: same as above.

(C) that favors predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female have
PROBLEM: Because "that" is a relative pronoun, we know that this phrase modifies "wages". This means "wages" must be the subject of "favors", so it should be "favor".

(D) that favors predominantly male occupations over those that are predominantly female has
PROBLEM: Same as above.

(E) paid in predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female has

That's a rough one. Hope that helps!

-tommy

Tommy You rock! Thanks a ton mate!

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Posts: 146

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 37

Show Tags

16 Sep 2010, 11:21
Yeah...Really a rough one..Hope I don't get such question in my GMAT.
_________________

Thanks,
VP

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 37

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 348

Kudos [?]: 1596 [0], given: 11

Location: San Francisco

Show Tags

18 Sep 2010, 13:14
Hey Matthew,

You're absolutely right. Yes, LOGICALLY, we know that discrimination is the subject of "favor." I'm right to the extent that the use of the relative pronoun is unclear, because relative pronouns generally modify what they touch, which is "wages" here. However, YOU'RE right in that there are exceptions when you have an already modified noun, as we do here ("Discrimination in wages..." the first word is modified by the prepositional phrase "in wages").

Luckily, the verb at the end doesn't match if "discrimination" is the subject in C. And the pronoun usage is wrong in D. Those issues are more ironclad.

-tommy
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 1596 [0], given: 11

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4278

Kudos [?]: 7633 [0], given: 363

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)

Show Tags

13 Oct 2010, 00:50
The flaw in D is very basic. It says - wages that favors-, a singular verb for the plural wages
Of course, there may be arguments that - favors - stands for
the entire phrase - discrimination in wages and therefore the singular verb is justified. The right diction for such intent will be - discrimination in wages favouring

Secondly the phrase – predominantly male occupations over those that are predominantly female - can be as effectively expressed as - predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female

We can dismiss D on these counts. This leaves us with E
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Kudos [?]: 7633 [0], given: 363

Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Posts: 146

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

21 Nov 2010, 07:04
Lots of concepts discussed here. I learned lots of things from this post. Thanks all!!

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

21 Nov 2010, 19:03
sidbidus wrote:
245. Discrimination in wages paid in occupations that are predominantly male over the predominantly female have given rise to substantial differentials between the wage of housepainters and secretaries and between the wages of parking-lot attendants and library assistants.

(A) paid in occupations that are predominantly male over the predominantly female have
(B) paid in occupations that are predominantly make over those that are predominantly female have
(C) that favors predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female have
(D) that favors predominantly male occupations over those that are predominantly female has
(E) paid in predominantly male occupations over the predominantly female has

D seems correct all 3 red sections are aligned.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: SC - Wages   [#permalink] 21 Nov 2010, 19:03

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 44 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by