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

Question

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,

Jue · Answer

GMATNinja   mikemcgarry

In option D and C can we say that 'it' is a clear referent to minimum wage? I immediately spotted the fact that D is passive, but I thought that given the structure of 'minimum wage...', the 'it' is referring to the subject of the previous clause and that therefore makes the sentence a tad bit clearer than C. Of course it turned out I was wrong.

GMATNinja · Answer

Good question! And a very good example of why using a confusing a pronoun as a decision point can be problematic.

In this case, both (C) and (D) contain the phrase "minimum wage," so they both have a logical referent for "it." I wouldn't spend any time agonizing over which placement of "minimum wage" is clearer. If a pronoun has a logical antecedent, it isn't an error.

It's better to rely on meaning. In (C), the construction, " The Supreme Court  declared ..., ruling that it was a form of price-fixing," it sounds as though the modifier "ruling" is giving us more info about what the Supreme Court declared. In other words, it's the Supreme Court doing the ruling. Makes sense.

Contrast that with (D) (with a few modifiers stripped out): " A minimum wage  was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, ruling that it was a form of price-fixing." Now we're getting more info about how the minimum wage was declared constitutional, so it sounds like the minimum wage is doing the ruling! That's not cool.

And if your instinctive response is "Hey! 'Supreme Court' shows up right before 'ruling' in (D). Why can't that work?"... well, you're in good company. But when we see "full clause + comma + -ING modifier," the -ING modifier will generally modify the entire previous  clause , giving us information about the action performed by the clause's  subject , rather than the noun it's right next to.

So (C) is better than (D) because it's more logical, not because the placement of a pronoun's antecedent is better.

I hope that helps!

Jue · Answer

GMATNinja , thank you for your clear explanation. The more I do SC questions the more I realise that even if there is a pronoun ambiguity issue, I should hold it till the last. But given that pronoun ambiguity is one of the prime suspects of incorrect answer choices, it is very difficult to discipline the mind to look for other errors. But that's the challenge.

ali267 · Answer

What I don't understand about C is that, to me, there is ambiguity as to whether it is referring to "a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia" or whether "the Supreme Court declared [it] unconstitutional in the District of Columbia".

Is this not a problem?

GMATNinja

Is this not a problem?

GMATNinja

GMATNinja · Answer

Good question! You've picked up on a legitimate ambiguity here. A prepositional phrase could modify a noun or an action. But ambiguity alone isn't a reason to eliminate an answer choice. If it were, we'd have to kill (A), (B), (C), and (E) on this issue alone.

But that leaves us with (D), which is illogical, as we explain  here .

Ambiguity sometimes shows up in the correct answer. But nonsense never does. As soon as you realize that (D) is out, you're stuck with the construction you were concerned about, and it's time to move on to other issues.

I hope that helps!

Dufa · Answer

according to TTP, Verb-ing modifier modifies the agent of the action preceding clause, which is the Supreme Court.

If that is so, does D really have a modifier issue?

Posted from my mobile device

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

egmat

Ok. I got it. It does not make sense as the sentence is in passive mode, meaning the subject is in right side of the verb. I saw so many 'inverted sentence' in official SC where the subject is in right side of the main verb. if we face that case with COMMA+verbING what should we do? Should we cross out the choice as COMMA+verbING is going to modify the object of the sentence? 
Thanks__

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

GMATNinja 
Sir, the highlighted part makes me a little confused! As there is a COMMA+AND before verbING then we can consider the sentence as list of at least 3 items, isn't it? This is something like  ......xING, yING , and  zING (ruling) . Is it the matter of parallelism (adverbial modifier)? If we make verbING as modifier issue shouldn't we remove COMMA before AND, sir? That could be something like .....  blah blah (independent clause), verbING and verbING (ruling)?  Am I missing anything? 
Thanks__

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

EducationAisle 
There is a COMMA before AND. So, should I think the explanation in that way you explained in highlighted part? Appreciating your help.

raaajx · Answer

the right answer uses the form "declared unconstitutional a ......" 
I feel the better one would be "declared x as unconstitutional" 
help me understand it a little better.

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Hello  raaajx ,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, both of these constructions are grammatically correct and convey the same meaning; "declared + adjective + noun" and "declared + noun + adjective" clearly and concisely convey that as per the declaration, the adjective applies to the noun.

For example, "I declare the park open." conveys the same meaning as "I declare that this park is open."

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Keshav1404 · Answer

Hi  egmat

I have narrowed down the options through POE to "C vs D".

I see only one error in D, that the sentence construction is passive which does not fit with the modifying clause.

However, I got confused with the sentence construction used in C. Everything was in the right place and even have the correct modifying clause.

IMO, if the sentence was of this construction as below it could be a better,

The Supreme Court declared a minimum wage for women and children in the District of
Columbia unconstitutional

Since, we have to select from the options provided and have to select the best option.

Can you please explain the Sentence Construction used in "C", so that i wont commit the same error again in future.

Thanks in Advance.

egmat · Answer

Hey  Keshav1404 ,

Thank you for the question. Happy to help.

First, you're right about the error in D.

Now, let's take a look at the Sentence Structure of choice C :
 
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 and, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract.

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.

Observations : 
This sentence uses the structure:  X declared Y  unconstitutional  . However,  owing to the length of Y, placing "unconstitutional" after Y makes it difficult for the reader to understand the role of "unconstitutional".

In such situations, we place this modifier before the object, and we get the structure:  X declared  unconstitutional  Y.  Now, yes, in this form, this structure looks weird, no doubt. But not when you replace Y with  a lengthy noun phrase .

Application  :
Notice that:
 Y = a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia

Now, when we place " unconstitutional " at the end of this phrase, we insert several nouns between " wage ", the intended modified entity, and its modifier " unconstitutional ".
   ...declared a minimum  wage  for women and children in the District of Columbia   unconstitutional

This makes the sentence awkward and potentially ambiguous . Hence, we place "unconstitutional" at the start, closer to "a minimum wage" and we get:
   ...declared   unconstitutional   a minimum  wage  for women and children in the District of Columbia

Conclusion : 
This is a case of a variation of a grammatical structure in order to reduce the ambiguity of a modifier by placing it closer to its modified entity.

I hope you're able to detect and apply this in future.

Happy Learning!

Abhishek

SKGM · Answer

Dear Experts,

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.

Why is it wrong to consider option a: the Supreme Court (Verb) + declared (main verb) + a minimum wage for women and children in the District of Columbia as unconstitutional (noun phrase 1) + and + ruling that it was a form of price-fixing and, as such, an abridgment of the right of contract ( noun phrase 2)

pratyush3284 · Answer

What i understand is "," + V-ing implies that it is a clause modifier.

Was declared unconstitutional is closest to V-ing in D. Thus, chose D.

How can i rectify my logic?

Anupama_1090 · Answer

What if there was no comma after the supreme court in option D?

GMATNinja · Answer

If we pair the second noun phrase with the main verb, we get: "The Supreme Court declared  ruling  that it was..." And that's not great.

What does it mean to "declare ruling"? Is that like showing up with your flag and saying, "We declare ruling this land!"? Even if that's an acceptable usage, it doesn't seem to work in this context.

Perhaps you could declare   a   ruling, but even with the article, that's a stretch: "The Supreme Court   ruled   that it was..." would be a much clearer way to express that meaning.

Also, the word "ruling" makes a lot more sense as a modifier. The court didn't declare "a ruling". Instead, the court declared "a minimum wage to be unconstitutional". In doing so, they ruled that the minimum wage was a form of price-fixing, etc. (Also, note that "to be" works better than "as" in this context, giving us one last vote against (A)).

(C) correctly uses "ruling" as a modifier, and it's our best option.

GMATNinja · Answer

Here, have an example:

"Despite spending a ton of money on his campaign, Tim was defeated in the election, proving that money can't buy a victory."

In this case, the -ing modifier ("proving...") logically modifies the clause: the fact that Tim was defeated proves that money can't buy a victory. In other words, the main clause ("Tim was defeated") is what proved something, so the modifier works.

So what about this one?

"A minimum wage was declared unconstitutional, ruling that it was a form of price-fixing..."

This one's a bit different. The fact that a minimum wage was declared unconstitutional doesn't  rule  that a minimum wage was a form of price-fixing. In other words, the main clause ("A minimum wage was declared unconstitutional") didn't "rule" anything.

In this context, we're looking for a noun to pair with "rule" -- someone or something who did the ruling. A natural place to look is the subject of the main clause. In choice (C), the subject of the main clause is "the Supreme Court," and that makes perfect sense: the court is the entity that did the ruling. In choice (D), the subject of the main clause is "the minimum wage," and of course "the minimum wage" is NOT what did the ruling.

So, the modifier in (D) doesn't fit with the entire main clause or even with the subject of the main clause. Can we figure out the logical meaning in (D)? Sure... but (C) expresses the logical meaning in a much clearer way.

I hope that helps!

mialanknox · Answer

Option A -  (1) Parallelism issue.  The SC declared .... , and ruling....  (2) Tense issue  - both happened at the same time so declared and ruling don’t work together.

Option B -  Same reasons of elimination as A.

Option C -  (1) Tense  - Use of "in 1923" specifies time therefore use of simple past tense "declared" is correct.  (2) Modifier  - Use of "present participle phrase" at the "end of the sentence" is correct as it modifies the preceding clause (refer note).  (3) Active voice  - Here it is important to put focus on the subject I.e. Supreme Court because generally SC’s rulings are considered important because it is the highest authority.  Therefore,  active voice is correctly used here.

Note: When the closing present participle phrase describes the events that are related to the events described in the preceding clause and were occurring while the events described in the preceding clause were occurring and a comma is used before the present participle then the structure is correct.

Option D -  (1) Tense  - Correct, same as option C,  (2) Modifier  - Correct, same as option C,  (3) Passive voice  - Between option C & D, which voice works best is the decision maker. We use passive voice, when we want to emphasise the receiver of the action, in this case Tthat would be "a minimum wage for women and children". Between the doer and the receiver, focusing on doer would make more sense for 2 reasons - one bcoz of "in 1923", one may ask what was so important about this event? The fact that Supreme Court declared "a minimum wage..." unconstitutional or that "a minimum wage..." was declared unconstitutional?  We would want to remember this ruling because it was SC’s ruling.  We would not only remember it because of the subject matter. Because of the above, we would eliminate option D.

Option E -  There is no finite verb, no independent clause.  "When....unconstitutional" - is a dependent clause, and "ruling..." - is a dependent clause - present participle phrase. Eliminate E.

Therefore, the correct answer is  Option C .

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards