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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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 and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
04 Mar 2022, 01:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
76% (01:29) correct
24%
(01:52)
wrong
based on 246
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Had the United States allowed the California Republic to remain independent after the Bear Flag Revolt rather than annexing it with military force, this "California nation" might have become the wealthiest nation in North America.
A) Had the United States allowed the California Republic to remain independent after the Bear Flag Revolt rather than annexing it with military force, this "California nation" might have become
B) With the United States annexing the California Republic after the Bear Flag Revolt instead of allowing it to remain independent, this "California nation" did not become
C) The United States annexed the California Republic after the Bear Flag Revolt and did not allow it to remain independent, to prevent it to become
D) The United States did not allow the California Republic to remain independent after the Bear Flag Revolt, it annexed it with military force instead, and this "California nation" did not become
E) The United States, by not allowing the California Republic to remain independent after the Bear Flag Revolt and, instead, by annexing it, it prevented this "California nation" from becoming
04 Mar 2022, 01:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Choice (A) follows the pattern of the idiom Had A done X rather than doing Y, in which the first verb ("Had … allowed") is in the subjunctive and the second ("annexing") as a gerund, and the independent clause after the comma is in the subjunctive. This is quite promising.
Choice (B) uses the preposition "with" as a quasi-subordinate conjunction, with the construction "with" [noun][participial phrase].
The GMAT considers this incorrect 100% of the time.
Also, the independent clause after the comma is in the indicative mood, giving the mistaken impression that the "California nation" actually existed.
(B) is not correct.
Choice (C), up to the comma, is promising—a factual statement of what the US did and didn't do, and the infinitive of purpose in the second half is fine, but unfortunately, this choices makes an idiom mistake.
The idiom with "to prevent" is "to prevent A from doing X", NOT "to prevent A to do X."
Because of this idiom mistake, (C) is not correct.
Choice (D) is an example of false parallelism, putting the three verbs of the sentence into the grammatical relationship of parallelism without considering their logical connection.
Everything is in the indicative, so the hypothetical nature of the "California nation" is lost.
Perhaps most significantly, this makes a major pronoun mistake: "it annexed it"—a repeated pronoun for two different antecedents.
[Once a pronoun such as it is "assigned" to a noun, that particular pronoun cannot stand in for a different noun. Note, however, that in one official question, the pronoun they refers to one group and their refers to another group. In that official sentence, the antecedent of each pronoun is clear and the two pronouns are not identical types.]
(D) is not correct.
Choice (E) has makes the double subject mistake: "The US [long modifier] it prevented …"
Either "the US" or "it" has to be the subject of "prevented": both cannot be the subject simultaneously.
Also, [" … annexing it, it prevented …"? No. This choice makes the same kind of repeated pronoun mistake found in (D).
(E) is not correct.
The only possible answer is (A).
MY NOTES
TAKEAWAY:
→ Had X done Y is a conditional.
Let's shorten and rephrase (A) slightly:
Had the United States allowed the California Republic to remain independent . . . , [then] this "California Republic" might have become . . . [very wealthy].
This sentence is a conditional. Watch:
• Had the United States allowed the California Republic to remain independent = IF the United States had allowed the California Republic to remain independent.
Notice that that in the "HAD" construction, the subject and verb are inverted and the IF is dropped.
Notice also that the main (result) clause precedes the IF (condition) clause.
Usually the setup is the other way around: If X had happened, [then] Y might have happened.
When you see inversion in conditional sentences, the word IF is often merely implied.
• In this conditional sentence, the time is the past and the situation is counter-factual (hypothetical).
I highly encourage you to try an SC question I posted (one of my favorite among non-official questions), here, and to read my analysis and explanation on that same thread in this post, here.
COMMENTS
kungfury42 , you asked
I admire your curiosity and your eagerness to learn.
Short answer: No. This one is idiomatic. (And grammatical.)
You can read about the idiomatic construction in Mike McGarry's blog post, here, in which this very question is discussed. (I cannot find that blog post elsewhere.)
This issue is labyrinthine.
This page, here might help to give you a sense of how complicated the issue can be.
The verb is actually [i]had allowed, not just allowed. Please see my notes above.
Although 99 percent of the time you all should avoid dictionary usage notes (which often do not reflect formal writing standards, never mind GMAC standards), this one excerpt from a dictionary might help. Go to this page..
In certain instances, "rather than" must be followed by a gerund ("annexing") and cannot be followed by the bare form of the verb ("annex").
One such instance occurs when the main verb is in the past tense, though that rule is not ironclad.
Had allowed (past perfect) controls, not the infinitive phrase that follows.
Let's take a look.
→ If the U.S. had allowed the CR to become independent rather than . . . the U.S. had annexed? Ouch.
→ If the U.S. had allowed the CR to become independent rather than annexing it . . . . Better.
→ If the U.S. had allowed the CR to become independent rather than annex it . . . / No. The past tense verb makes that "annex" sound bizarre.
(Remember, there is no implied "to annex" here, such that the bare form would be part of ellipsis. More on that issue in a moment.)
On the other hand, because the sentence is inverted, we can try out your idea and see whether inversion makes a difference:
→ Had the U.S. allowed the CR to become independent rather than annex it . . . /
I don't think so. (Again, "annex" does not equal shorthand for "to annex" because we are absolutely not eliding the verb "had allowed." There are two separate events and "allowed" does not connect them.
In fact, we need to signal that we are NOT "picking up," via ellipsis, "to become" and shortening its counterpart from "to annex" to simply "annex."
If rather than is acting as "instead of" would (a preposition), then rather than should be followed by a gerund (or noun).
This sentence is fine:
Had the U.S. allowed the CR to become independent instead of annexing it, . . . .
This sentence is not fine:
Had the U.S. allowed the CR to become independent instead of annex it, . . .
Rather than serves the same function as instead of in this case, and thus should be followed by a gerund (annexing).
Finally, when rather than serves as a preposition, the verbs will not be parallel. (I am trying hard to concoct a counterexample. I cannot do so.)
Good for you for being curious!
You had no idea that you were headed into a quagmire. Or perhaps you did.
In either event, I hope that I helped a bit.
Stay safe, everyone.
My thoughts are with the Ukrainians.
Quote:
MAGOOSH Official Explanation
Choice (A) follows the pattern of the idiom Had A done X rather than doing Y, in which the first verb ("Had … allowed") is in the subjunctive and the second ("annexing") as a gerund, and the independent clause after the comma is in the subjunctive. This is quite promising.
Choice (B) uses the preposition "with" as a quasi-subordinate conjunction, with the construction "with" [noun][participial phrase].
The GMAT considers this incorrect 100% of the time.
Also, the independent clause after the comma is in the indicative mood, giving the mistaken impression that the "California nation" actually existed.
(B) is not correct.
Choice (C), up to the comma, is promising—a factual statement of what the US did and didn't do, and the infinitive of purpose in the second half is fine, but unfortunately, this choices makes an idiom mistake.
The idiom with "to prevent" is "to prevent A from doing X", NOT "to prevent A to do X."
Because of this idiom mistake, (C) is not correct.
Choice (D) is an example of false parallelism, putting the three verbs of the sentence into the grammatical relationship of parallelism without considering their logical connection.
Everything is in the indicative, so the hypothetical nature of the "California nation" is lost.
Perhaps most significantly, this makes a major pronoun mistake: "it annexed it"—a repeated pronoun for two different antecedents.
[Once a pronoun such as it is "assigned" to a noun, that particular pronoun cannot stand in for a different noun. Note, however, that in one official question, the pronoun they refers to one group and their refers to another group. In that official sentence, the antecedent of each pronoun is clear and the two pronouns are not identical types.]
(D) is not correct.
Choice (E) has makes the double subject mistake: "The US [long modifier] it prevented …"
Either "the US" or "it" has to be the subject of "prevented": both cannot be the subject simultaneously.
Also, [" … annexing it, it prevented …"? No. This choice makes the same kind of repeated pronoun mistake found in (D).
(E) is not correct.
The only possible answer is (A).
MY NOTES
TAKEAWAY:
→ Had X done Y is a conditional.
Let's shorten and rephrase (A) slightly:
Had the United States allowed the California Republic to remain independent . . . , [then] this "California Republic" might have become . . . [very wealthy].
This sentence is a conditional. Watch:
• Had the United States allowed the California Republic to remain independent = IF the United States had allowed the California Republic to remain independent.
Notice that that in the "HAD" construction, the subject and verb are inverted and the IF is dropped.
Notice also that the main (result) clause precedes the IF (condition) clause.
Usually the setup is the other way around: If X had happened, [then] Y might have happened.
When you see inversion in conditional sentences, the word IF is often merely implied.
• In this conditional sentence, the time is the past and the situation is counter-factual (hypothetical).
I highly encourage you to try an SC question I posted (one of my favorite among non-official questions), here, and to read my analysis and explanation on that same thread in this post, here.
COMMENTS
kungfury42 , you asked
Quote:
[/quote]
I admire your curiosity and your eagerness to learn.
Short answer: No. This one is idiomatic. (And grammatical.)
You can read about the idiomatic construction in Mike McGarry's blog post, here, in which this very question is discussed. (I cannot find that blog post elsewhere.)
This issue is labyrinthine.
This page, here might help to give you a sense of how complicated the issue can be.
The verb is actually [i]had allowed, not just allowed. Please see my notes above.
Although 99 percent of the time you all should avoid dictionary usage notes (which often do not reflect formal writing standards, never mind GMAC standards), this one excerpt from a dictionary might help. Go to this page..
In certain instances, "rather than" must be followed by a gerund ("annexing") and cannot be followed by the bare form of the verb ("annex").
One such instance occurs when the main verb is in the past tense, though that rule is not ironclad.
Had allowed (past perfect) controls, not the infinitive phrase that follows.
Let's take a look.
→ If the U.S. had allowed the CR to become independent rather than . . . the U.S. had annexed? Ouch.
→ If the U.S. had allowed the CR to become independent rather than annexing it . . . . Better.
→ If the U.S. had allowed the CR to become independent rather than annex it . . . / No. The past tense verb makes that "annex" sound bizarre.
(Remember, there is no implied "to annex" here, such that the bare form would be part of ellipsis. More on that issue in a moment.)
On the other hand, because the sentence is inverted, we can try out your idea and see whether inversion makes a difference:
→ Had the U.S. allowed the CR to become independent rather than annex it . . . /
I don't think so. (Again, "annex" does not equal shorthand for "to annex" because we are absolutely not eliding the verb "had allowed." There are two separate events and "allowed" does not connect them.In fact, we need to signal that we are NOT "picking up," via ellipsis, "to become" and shortening its counterpart from "to annex" to simply "annex."
If rather than is acting as "instead of" would (a preposition), then rather than should be followed by a gerund (or noun).
This sentence is fine:
Had the U.S. allowed the CR to become independent instead of annexing it, . . . .
This sentence is not fine:
Had the U.S. allowed the CR to become independent instead of annex it, . . .
Rather than serves the same function as instead of in this case, and thus should be followed by a gerund (annexing).
Finally, when rather than serves as a preposition, the verbs will not be parallel. (I am trying hard to concoct a counterexample. I cannot do so.)
Good for you for being curious!
You had no idea that you were headed into a quagmire. Or perhaps you did.
In either event, I hope that I helped a bit.
Stay safe, everyone.
My thoughts are with the Ukrainians.
04 Mar 2022, 01:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
My answer is (A). It took me 01:21.
(A) This version appropriately uses what is called "the third conditional" to describe an unreal situation in the past. The reality is that the US did not allow the California Republic to remain independent.
(B) We have to be very cautious with the use of "with + Noun + Participle". If we read the sentence literally, it means that this "California nation" did not become the wealthiest nation together with the US annexing. It does not make much sense.
(C) For one thing, there should not be a comma before "to prevent".
Besides, "to prevent it to become" is shown as the explicit purpose of the US's action. This is highly likely to be the case.
(D) "it annexed it"! Such flexible use of "it" to refer to two precedents is not endorsed by GMAT.
(E) Many problems, one of which is double subject: The United States, it
(A) This version appropriately uses what is called "the third conditional" to describe an unreal situation in the past. The reality is that the US did not allow the California Republic to remain independent.
(B) We have to be very cautious with the use of "with + Noun + Participle". If we read the sentence literally, it means that this "California nation" did not become the wealthiest nation together with the US annexing. It does not make much sense.
(C) For one thing, there should not be a comma before "to prevent".
Besides, "to prevent it to become" is shown as the explicit purpose of the US's action. This is highly likely to be the case.
(D) "it annexed it"! Such flexible use of "it" to refer to two precedents is not endorsed by GMAT.
(E) Many problems, one of which is double subject: The United States, it
