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

It is currently 23 Sep 2018, 05:24

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women

  post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 1020
Location: CA
In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Dec 2005, 01:05
10
38
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (01:00) correct 45% (01:09) wrong based on 1849 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Edit: This discussion has retired. Find the new thread HERE


In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price-fixing and, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

(A) the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and
(B) the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, and
(C) the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia,
(D) a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,
(E) when the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional,
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1448
Location: Germany
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Dec 2005, 02:06
1
D)....passive voice is not good. but D) is best among the choices. participle phrase correctly modifies "court" !

C) is out b/c "unconstitutional" in C) is an adverb, modifying " declared. thats wrong.
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 567
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Dec 2005, 08:23
3
1
I think C is better than D. "ruling" in C modifies the supreme court whereas it modifies a minimum wage in D.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 1020
Location: CA
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Dec 2005, 22:27
1
1
I chose D as well, but OA is C.

I still find C to be very awkward with unconstitutional preceding a noun.....:?

Here is the OE:

This sentence depends on the correct use of an idiom: the court declares x unconstitutional. The inverted form should be used here becaues of the long phrases involved: the court declares unconstitutional x . The Supreme Court is the subject of the sentence; declared is the verb. Ruling....contract acts a modifier describing the action of the main clause; because the modifier is subordinate to the main clause, the conjunction and must be omitted. And is used to join two independent clauses, not a clause and its modifier.

(C) Correct. In this sentence, the correct idiom is used, and the modifier is grammatically and logically attached to the main clause

(D) Passive voice construction is weak and wordy; its use causes the modifier to be misplaced and ambigous
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 1627
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Dec 2005, 22:35
TeHCM wrote:
I chose D as well, but OA is C.

I still find C to be very awkward with unconstitutional preceding a noun.....:?

Here is the OE:

This sentence depends on the correct use of an idiom: the court declares x unconstitutional. The inverted form should be used here becaues of the long phrases involved: the court declares unconstitutional x . The Supreme Court is the subject of the sentence; declared is the verb. Ruling....contract acts a modifier describing the action of the main clause; because the modifier is subordinate to the main clause, the conjunction and must be omitted. And is used to join two independent clauses, not a clause and its modifier.

(C) Correct. In this sentence, the correct idiom is used, and the modifier is grammatically and logically attached to the main clause

(D) Passive voice construction is weak and wordy; its use causes the modifier to be misplaced and ambigous


the court declares x unconstitutional means, court declared that 'x' ('x' is already there) as unconstitutional

the court declares unconstitutional x can't mean "court declared that 'x' ('x' is already there) as unconstitutional"...it rather sounds like "court itself has declared something unconstitutional".

The inverted form should be used here becaues of the long phrases involved - I doubt it here.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
B
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5062
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Dec 2005, 23:37
declared constitutional/unconstitutional is commonly written.

Late, but (C)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 282
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Sep 2009, 09:22
sakshiag28 wrote:
In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price fixing and, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

a) the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional, and
b) the supreme court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia, and
c) the supreme court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia,
d) a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court
e) when the supreme declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional,

Please answer with an explanation


answer is D.
1. use of 'and' is unnecessary.
2. use of 'and' is unnecessary, also it sounds like Supreme court itself was declared as unconstitutional.
3. Not clear.
4. Clearly conveys the meaning of the sentence.
5. Not clear.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 44
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jun 2011, 00:26
krishnasty wrote:
In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price-fixing, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

A) the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and
B) the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, and
C) the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia,
D) a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court ,
E) when the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional,


declared as is unidiomatic
A - The sentence states that the women and children of DC is unconstitutional, the idea is non-sensical
B - Declared as - Not idiomatic
D - Grammatically the sentence is correct, but the sentence is in passive (Choice C is in active voice, hence I can deem this answer as incorrect)
E - Same as A, further In 1923 and using when is incorrect (redundant).
Retired Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4542
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Nov 2012, 10:15
1
3
@ Sachin,

You mean choice D I suppose, but your reasoning does not apply in modifiers. . You see, the modifier is separated from the previous noun --Supreme Court -- by a comma. When a present participle is acting as an adverbial modifier, then it modifies the entire previous clause rather than the previous noun or the closest noun.

What you say applies to relative pronouns such as which, that, who, when, where etc, which are mostly supposed to refer to the touching nouns or the closes nouns {of course, except in some special contexts)
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Retired Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4542
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Nov 2012, 22:39
2
The gist of the passive voice sentence in D is: A minimum wage was declared illegal by the Supreme court. This act must have been done by
A body of people such as Supreme court or the Legal Dept and so on. The declaration could not have been made by the minimum wage. For a logical predication, it requires SC to act as the doer of the action. That is the reason it requires a clause which is active rather than passive.

This is my opinion.
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 57
Schools: Jones '15
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Nov 2012, 13:43
In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price-fixing, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

A) the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and declared and ruling not parallel
B) the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, and declared and ruling not parallel
C) the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, Correct
D) a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia was declared nconstitutional by the Supreme Court , passive voice.
E) when the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, ruling modifes what?
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
G
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2680
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2012, 07:56
15
16
Hi Sachin,

When a verb-ing modifier is preceded by a comma, it always modifies the entire preceding clause. The verb-ing modifier denotes an action and this action must make sense with the subject of the preceding clause. Let’s take a set of simple examples to understand this usage:

a. Ria maintains a diary, writing her day-to-day accounts.

Here, “writing” is preceded by a comma. Hence, it modifies the entire preceding clause. This modifier explains HOW Ria maintains a diary. She does so by writing her daily accounts. The verb-ing modifier “writing” denotes an action. This action makes sense with the subject of the clause “Ria” because “Ria” does the action of writing.

b. A diary is maintained by Ria, writing her day-to-day accounts.

By writing this sentence in passive voice, we change the subject of the preceding clause that the comma + verb-ing modifier “writing” modifies. This modification does not make sense because the action denoted by “writing” does not make sense with the subject of the clause “A diary”. “A diary” does not perform the action of “writing”. Ria did that action. Hence, this sentence is incorrect.

Now study choices C (correct choice) and D of the official question:

Choice C: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, ruling that it was a form of price-fixing, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

Choice D: In 1923, a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, ruling that it was a form of price-fixing, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

In choice C, “ruling” makes sense with “the Supreme Court” because the SC did the action of ruling and hence the modification is correct.

In choice D, the subject is “a minimum wage”. This subject does not make sense with the action denoted by “ruling”. Hence, this modification is incorrect.

Usage of “Verb-ing” Modifiers has been explained in detail in our concept named “Modifiers – Verb-ing”. This concept is listed under Level 1 Preview Concepts that are free for everyone. Just go to e-gmat.com, register for free and learn the concept. There are quizzes for your practice as well.

Hope this helps. :)
Thanks.
Shraddha.
_________________












| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Posts: 70
Location: United States
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 May 2013, 00:27
There a mistake in this explanation when it comes to Verbing modifier . It modifies an entire clause not not just the subject of the sentence .


Quote:
Hi Sachin,

When a verb-ing modifier is preceded by a comma, it always modifies the entire preceding clause. The verb-ing modifier denotes an action and this action must make sense with the subject of the preceding clause. Let’s take a set of simple examples to understand this usage:

a. Ria maintains a diary, writing her day-to-day accounts.

Here, “writing” is preceded by a comma. Hence, it modifies the entire preceding clause. This modifier explains HOW Ria maintains a diary. She does so by writing her daily accounts. The verb-ing modifier “writing” denotes an action. This action makes sense with the subject of the clause “Ria” because “Ria” does the action of writing.

b. A diary is maintained by Ria, writing her day-to-day accounts.

By writing this sentence in passive voice, we change the subject of the preceding clause that the comma + verb-ing modifier “writing” modifies. This modification does not make sense because the action denoted by “writing” does not make sense with the subject of the clause “A diary”. “A diary” does not perform the action of “writing”. Ria did that action. Hence, this sentence is incorrect.

Now study choices C (correct choice) and D of the official question:

Choice C: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, ruling that it was a form of price-fixing, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

Choice D: In 1923, a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, ruling that it was a form of price-fixing, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

In choice C, “ruling” makes sense with “the Supreme Court” because the SC did the action of ruling and hence the modification is correct.

In choice D, the subject is “a minimum wage”. This subject does not make sense with the action denoted by “ruling”. Hence, this modification is incorrect.

Usage of “Verb-ing” Modifiers has been explained in detail in our concept named “Modifiers – Verb-ing”. This concept is listed under Level 1 Preview Concepts that are free for everyone. Just go to e-gmat.com, register for free and learn the concept. There are quizzes for your practice as well.

Hope this helps. :)
Thanks.
Shraddha.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 290
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2013, 19:24
krishnasty wrote:
In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price-fixing, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

A) the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional, and
B) the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia, and
C) the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia,
D) a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia was declared nconstitutional by the Supreme Court ,
E) when the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional,


The split here is to decide whether the part in the end of the underlined part is a modifier or a parallel element . , and -> doesn't qualify as parallel element as the ruling was the decision of the supreme court. Hence A and B are gone. E is gone because when is used for representing time.

Between D and C the modifier usage guides us to choose C as in D the modifier ruling is modifying a minimum wage and that's not the case. ruling is the supreme court action Hence C is the correct answer choice.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 787
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2013, 01:33
1
fozzzy wrote:
Can someone provide a detailed analysis for this question. Thanks!

In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price fixing and, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

IF YOU READ THIS clearly you can see that ==>meaning coming out to be ==>SUPREME COURT DECLARED A MINIMUM WAGE....which is wrong as per the meaning ...actual context is that supreme court declared this wage as unconstitutional.
hence there is a modfier placement error. hence A .WRONG
MOREOVER placement of AND after comma makes complete independent clause but in actual context it is describing the previous clause.

a) the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional, and
WRONG
b) the supreme court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia, and
MEANING IS AWKWARD: AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL supreme court declared a minimum wage.....so WRONG
use OF AND is wrong
c) the supreme court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia,
CORRECT.
d) a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court
WRONG
PASSIVE VOICE.
ruling AFTER commma is modifying minimum wage hence wrong.
e) when the supreme declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional,
WRONG
this is FRAGMENT As the sentence doesnt seems to be complete.
moreover there is a modifier error same as A

hope it helps
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...



GMAT RCs VOCABULARY LIST: http://gmatclub.com/forum/vocabulary-list-for-gmat-reading-comprehension-155228.html
learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APt9ITygGss

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 987
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2013, 11:37
Whenever you spot an and, please make sure the structure following the and is grammatically similar with something preceding the and (for the simple reason that and joins two or more entities).

In A, and B, the structure following the and is: (and) ruling that it was a form of price fixing
But there is nothing preceding the and that is grammatically similar to this structure.

So, A and B would have been better if the non-underlined portion had: ..and ruled.. (and not ..and ruling..), because in that case the portions before and after and would have been grammatically similar: ...the supreme court declared...and ruled...

Reiterating, the structure in A and B: ...the supreme court declared...and ruling... is not a grammatically parallel structure.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 168
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jan 2014, 10:29
ayushman wrote:
aeglorre wrote:
I went with the "D is passive voice" too but clearly your approach is bulletproof. I completely missed that the present participle ruling actually modifies the whole preceding clause.

Yes, and I also read somewhere that the structure is always incorrect: Passive voice+present participial phrase.

D has this structure and so, is incorrect.



Yeah it actually makes sense if there actually is such a rule. I mean passive voice has a "reverse" structure so to say, which completely flips subject and object and thus a present participle would interpret the object of active voice as the subject, in passive voice. And that clearly distorts the intended meaning, like in the above example.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4664
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Feb 2014, 16:54
5
1
sakshiag28 wrote:
In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional, and ruling that it was a form of price fixing and, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

A) the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional, and
B) the supreme court declared as unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia, and
C) the supreme court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia,
D) a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court
E) when the supreme declared a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia as unconstitutional,

kinjiGC wrote:
Hi Mike,
Can you please explain this OG
Thanks, Kinjal

Dear Kinjal,
I'm happy to respond. :-) Here's my analysis.

Split #1: the idiom for "declare." The word declare idiomatically does not take a preposition --- the correct idiom is simply "to declare X Y", where X is some noun and Y is some judgement.
... to declare the assailant guilty ...
... to declare the new discovery invalid ...
... to declare the soup delicious ...

There is no preposition between the noun and the judgement. Putting the preposition "as" into this structure is incorrect:
... to declare the assailant as guilty ...
Every answer choice with the word "as" before the word "unconstitutional" makes this same mistake. On the basis of this split, we immediately can eliminate choices (A), (B), and (E). (Each one of those also has other problems!!)

After one split, we are down to only two choices. Choices (C) & (D) are both grammatically and idiomatically correct. The profound difference is in Rhetorical Construction. For more on that, see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/rhetorical ... orrection/
Choice (C) is strong, direct, sleek, and powerful. Choice (D) is passive, indirect, flaccid, and mealy-mouthed. The choice between them is stark. Choice (C) is much better, and is clearly the best answer.

Notice that the modifying phrase beginning with the word "ruling" is a verb modifier, a.k.a. an adverbial phrase. Unlike noun modifiers, these are not subject to the Touch Rule, so we don't have to contort the first half of the sentence into a grammatical pretzel just so that the words "supreme court" are touching that modifier. For more on the Touch Rule, see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/modifiers- ... orrection/

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4664
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Apr 2014, 15:35
1
russ9 wrote:
Hi Mike,

In answer choice C, isn't it idiomatically incorrect? Declared a X(minimum wage) as Y(unconstitutional)?

thanks

Dear russ9
With all due respect, I don't believe the word "as" even appears in choice (C).

You are perfectly correct that declare X as Y would be idiomatically incorrect.

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4664
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jun 2014, 11:41
himanshujovi wrote:
Hi Mike as always your explanation are crisp. Out of curiosity , which verb is the above highlighted verb modifier referring to ?

Dear himanshujovi,
Thank you for your kind words. I'm happy to respond. :-)

Here's the OA version:
In 1923, the supreme court declared unconstitutional a minimum wage for women and children in the district of Columbia, ruling that it was a form of price fixing and, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.
The participle "ruling" is a verb-modifier, or one might say a "clause modifier" --- there's actually not a sharp distinction between a verb modifier and a clause modifier. It provides the content of the court's decision, the effect of their action. This is typical for a verb modifier.
I told Kevin he was very smart, making him feel good about himself.
The bond market fell precipitously, sending stocks into a panic.
At Austerlitz, Napoleon crushed the Third Coalition, bringing an end to the Holy Roman Empire.
In each one, the first part, in green, is an independent clause, and the second part, in purple, is a verb-modifier giving the effect of the action, the result.

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

GMAT Club Bot
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women &nbs [#permalink] 27 Jun 2014, 11:41

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 32 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women

  post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.