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

It is currently 21 Nov 2019, 09:05

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 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior SC Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3681
In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2019, 00:46
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  15% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (01:07) correct 20% (01:27) wrong based on 146 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Project SC Butler: Day 189 Sentence Correction (SC2)


For SC butler Questions Click Here


In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.


A) Act; the court ruled that

B) Act, which ruled that

C) Act, with a ruling that

D) Act; they ruled that

E) Act and they ruled


Thank you!

_________________
SC Butler has resumed! Get two SC questions to practice, whose links you can find by date, here.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has -- Margaret Mead
Senior SC Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3681
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2019, 00:47
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Project SC Butler: Day 188 Sentence Correction (SC2)



• meaning?
In a particular case in 1997, the Supreme Court surprised some observers when the court invalidated some parts of a law because the law violated constitutional protection of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment.
[The ruling surprised some observers because the justices voted 9-0. At least five justices were ultra or moderately conservative. Conservatives usually vote FOR decency laws. The ruling against a decency law and for freedom of speech was unanimous.]

• structure?
Use a semicolon between closely related independent clauses that are not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction.
In this sentence, it is easiest to convey the two related ideas as separate and independent clauses.

THE PROMPT

Quote:
In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.


THE OPTIONS

Quote:
A) In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

• I see no errors
• "as" means "because"
• the semicolon separates the separate but related ideas, avoiding ambiguous, incorrect, or misleading modification
KEEP

Quote:
B) In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act, which ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

which usually refers to the immediately preceding noun or the main noun of an immediately preceding noun + prepositional phrase
which can sometimes modify nouns farther away, but which cannot "jump" back over a verb such as "struck"
• the provisions of the act (or the Act) did not "rule that [the Act] violated freedom of speech provisions." Wrong meaning
Eliminate B

Quote:
C) In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act, with a ruling that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

• Easiest way to eliminate is to compare to (A). (The comma + with issue is very difficult and GMAC is not very predictable.)
(A) is better (clearer, no repeat of "ruling" that makes meaning weird, and "with" is a tough call).
with a ruling that is wordy and is not a proper modifying phrase (Act, ruling that would be a proper modifying phrase)
Eliminate C

Quote:
D) In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; they ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

they is plural. The Supreme Court is singular.
At best, "they" illogically refers back to some observers and conveys the false impression that the observers made the ruling as opposed to the Supreme Court
Eliminate D

Quote:
E) In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act and they ruled the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

• same error as that in D
Eliminate E

The answer is A

COMMENTS

Good to see a couple of people whom I haven't seen in awhile.
I am rushing because I couldn't post for a few hours, but the tech team did an awesome job and I'm back up.

These answers are very good. Kudos to all. :)
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 23 Nov 2018
Posts: 229
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V28
GPA: 4
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 09 Nov 2019, 03:34
1
In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.


A) Act; the court ruled that---- Correct
the semicolon separates the two independent clauses.
and we clearly know that it is "the court" that gave the ruling

B) Act, which ruled that

which refers back to Communications Decency Act-- wrong!

C) Act, with a ruling that
the court did not pass the Act "with a ruling"- wrong!


D) Act; they ruled that
they illogically refers to "the court"

E) Act and they ruled
they illogically refers to the court
_________________
.

Originally posted by sampriya on 09 Nov 2019, 03:21.
Last edited by sampriya on 09 Nov 2019, 03:34, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 31 Oct 2015
Posts: 82
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2019, 03:24
1
The answer is A IMO.

A) Act; the court ruled that
No errors.

B) Act, which ruled that
which could refer to provisions of the Communications Decency Act or the Communications Decency Act. But both are incorrect.
We want to refer supreme court.

C) Act, with a ruling that
Hmm. A contender but the usage of with actually doesn't make sense. Lets try the slash-and-burn method and try to reduce the sentence.
A 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court surprised... with a ruling that.
“With” is used when the noun after “with” attaches to the subject of preceding clause.
Here the subject is 9-0 ruling and not the court . Therefore incorrect

D) Act; they ruled that
No antecedent for they

E) Act and they ruled
No antecedent for they
Director
Director
avatar
P
Joined: 24 Nov 2016
Posts: 823
Location: United States
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2019, 08:23
1
generis wrote:
In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

A) Act; the court ruled that
B) Act, which ruled that
C) Act, with a ruling that
D) Act; they ruled that
E) Act and they ruled


MEANING
A ruling surprised some as it [the ruling] struck down provisions of an Act.
Who ruled? The court, not the Act, the provisions, or they (observers);

B) "which" ref to "Act" or "provisions of the Act" imps one or the other "ruled", unintended;
C) "a ruling struck down X, with a ruling" unintended;
D) "they" who? observers? "a ruling" is singular, unintended;
E) "a ruling [sing] struck down… and they [plural]" sva error and unintended;

Ans (A)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 22 Feb 2018
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Healthcare
CAT Tests
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2019, 09:55
1
Imo. A

In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

A) Act; the court ruled that - Seems no error, noun - court mentioned appropriately and two independent clauses separated by semicolon. Hold it.

B) Act, which ruled that - Pronoun error, which refers to CDA - means CDA ruled that the law- nonsensical meaning.

C) Act, with a ruling that - preposition immediately preceding comma usually refers to the verb or action of preceding clause (in some cases noun of preceding clause). So, here usage of with is incorrect and it distorts the meaning also, e.g. ACLU surprised some people as it (ruling) struck down provisions of CDA, with a ruling that....

D) Act; they ruled that - Pronoun error as they can refer to observers, but it's not intended in the original sentence.

E) Act and they ruled - Parallelism and pronoun error.
_________________
Thanks in the forum can be expressed by hitting Kudos!!!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
P
Joined: 18 May 2019
Posts: 470
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2019, 13:55
1
In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

Meaning: The Supreme Court made a unanimous ruling in 1997. This ruling canceled an Act. The canceled Act, per the ruling, violated aspects of the freedom of speech.

Option A: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.
Because of the semi-colon, I expect to see a main clause and option A has a main clause after the semi-colon: the court ruled. That acts as a subordinating conjunction to appropriately sub-ordinate the main clause the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment. Everything is okay in option A. Lets keep A.

Option B: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act, which ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.
which ruled modifies the Communications Decency Act. It is not the Act which ruled, but rather the Court. That, on the other hand, subordinates the main clause the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment. Eliminate Option B because of the modifier error.

Option C: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act, with a ruling that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.
What does with a ruling modify? Is it intended to modify the Supreme Court? If it is intended to modify the Supreme Court, then there is a need to restate the court to precede with a ruling, in which case the that clause modifies ruling. Eliminate option C as a result of the incomplete modification.

Option D: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; they ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.
The logical antecedent for they, which is plural, is the Supreme Court, which is singular. There is a pronoun error in option D. Eliminate option D.

Option E: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act and[color=#ff0000] they[/color] ruled the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.
Just as in option D, option E also has a pronoun error. Instead of a singular pronoun, a plural pronoun they is used to refer to the singular noun The Supreme Court. Aside the pronoun error, option E also has a parallelism error. What is they ruled the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment parallel to? There are punctuation errors in option E which distorts the sentence. Eliminate option E.

The answer is option E.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Status: Student
Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 86
Location: United States
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
GPA: 3.9
WE: Education (Accounting)
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2019, 16:14
1
In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.


A) Act; the court ruled that>>> precise and correct. cannot find any problem.

B) Act, which ruled that>>> which denotes the Act, but the verb ruled is associated with the Supreme Court.

C) Act, with a ruling that>>>distorts the meaning of the original sentence. with should be after some verb which is missing here.

D) Act; they ruled that>>>they have no clear antecedent. If it is indicating observers, then the sentence will lose intended meaning.

E) Act and they ruled>>> same as D.

Correct answer is A.
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 18 Dec 2017
Posts: 727
Location: United States (KS)
Premium Member
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2019, 22:33
1
Quote:
In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.


A) Act; the court ruled that Looks good. 2 Independent clauses joined with semi-colon. "The court ruled" leaves no room for ambiguity. Looks fine overall.

B) Act, which ruled that - The Act did not rule anything. So this is wrong.

C) Act, with a ruling that - The usage of "with" is inappropriate here. I don't know what more to explain about this option. Sorry

D) Act; they ruled that - It is the Court that ruled. So They is incorrect.

E) Act and they ruled Same as D. Plus "and" creates a parallelism that is not needed.
_________________
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Software Tester currently in USA ( ;-) )

Learn from the Legend himself: All GMAT Ninja LIVE YouTube videos by topic
You are missing on great learning if you don't know what this is: Project SC Butler
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Jan 2019
Posts: 80
Location: Canada
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.24
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2019, 22:51
1
generis wrote:

Project SC Butler: Day 188 Sentence Correction (SC2)


For SC butler Questions Click Here


In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.


A) Act; the court ruled that

B) Act, which ruled that

C) Act, with a ruling that

D) Act; they ruled that

E) Act and they ruled

The OA will be automatically revealed on Sunday 10th of November 2019 11:46:50 AM Pacific Time Zone



Well, it’s a clear A. Whenever you see a semicolon ask yourself if it makes logical sense to have an independent clause because that is the only reason to have a semi colon as a separator.

In this question, the first clause speaks about the ruling and the other one says the court (sub) ruled out and blah blah.
Any pronoun replacing it (like mentioned in the other options) modifies the meaning by saying that the act ruled out. But the meaning is the court ruled out the act.

Go for A

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 231
GMAT 1: 610 Q43 V31
GMAT 2: 640 Q45 V32
GMAT 3: 640 Q47 V31
Premium Member
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Nov 2019, 10:47
1
For some reason, I could not submit the explanation with colors applied to text. I was getting some SQL errors and my message was not appearing even in Preview... So I ended up typing a new reply without using any colors (sorry for having a very dry post).

Quick read-through reveals that the sentence tests meaning and sentence structure. The first non-underlined part says that In 1997 a new ruling (law) surprised observers as it struck down provisions of some Act. The second portion of the sentence provides clarification (more information) regarding what happened. So, we deal with two independent clauses, which can be connected by a semicolon.

A) Act; the court ruled that
This option looks good. It matches our pre-thinking.

B) Act, which ruled that
The Act that was struck down did not rule anything. In fact, a new rule struck down the Act.

C) Act, with a ruling that
A modifier that starts with "with a ruling" is not as good as option (A).

D) Act; they ruled that
Who on Earth is they!? Observers? No, that makes no sense.

E) Act and they ruled
Same error as in (D). Also, we would need a comma to connect two independent clauses.
Senior SC Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3681
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Nov 2019, 19:31
The official explanation is here.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil   [#permalink] 10 Nov 2019, 19:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





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