It is currently 24 Jun 2017, 07:29

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 1053
Location: CA
In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2005, 01:05
3
KUDOS
24
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (01:00) correct 50% (01:15) wrong based on 1148 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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,

Official Guide 12 Question

 Question: 45 Page: 43 Difficulty: 600

Find All Official Guide Questions

Video Explanations:
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480
Location: Germany

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2005, 02:06
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
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 591

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2005, 08:23
2
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I think C is better than D. "ruling" in C modifies the supreme court whereas it modifies a minimum wage in D.
VP
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 1053
Location: CA

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2005, 22:27
1
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 1689

### Show Tags

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.
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5218

### Show Tags

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

Late, but (C)
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 320

### Show Tags

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,

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.
Manager
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 63
Re: minimum wage for women and children [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3966
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2012, 10:15
1
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
@ 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)
_________________

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

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3966
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2012, 22:39
2
KUDOS
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.
_________________

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

Manager
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 68
Schools: Jones '15
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2096
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2012, 07:56
7
KUDOS
Expert's post
9
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________

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

Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Posts: 80
Location: United States
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Re: In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2013, 00:27
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,

I will answer by eliminating the options.

a) , and- What it is used for. To connect two clauses. Now if you look at what follows ,and is "ruling" which an indication that ,+ing form is required to show outcome of certain action.
b) eliminate for the same reason.
c) Correct
d) passive construction
e) the modifier when conveys that when supreme court declared a minimum wage something else also happened which is not the intended meaning.
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 329
Re: In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 832
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2013, 01:33
1
KUDOS
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...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Director
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 665
Location: Bangalore, India
Re: In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 (GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle)
http://www.EducationAisle.com

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at Amazon.in and Flipkart

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

Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 219

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4128
Re: In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2014, 16:54
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4128
Re: In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2014, 15:35
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

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4128
Re: In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

Re: In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women   [#permalink] 27 Jun 2014, 11:41

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
8 Because the Supreme Court has ruled that 11 31 May 2016, 07:35
32 Although women’s wages are improving 18 11 Jun 2017, 09:40
In 1923, the Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women 0 29 Sep 2015, 06:11
In 1923, the supreme court declared a minimum wage for women 0 11 Dec 2015, 11:31
Although the Supreme Court ruled as long ago as 1880 that 7 29 May 2013, 19:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by