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

 It is currently 17 Jan 2019, 23:38

### 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 January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### The winning strategy for a high GRE score

January 17, 2019

January 17, 2019

08:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Learn the winning strategy for a high GRE score — what do people who reach a high score do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we've collected from over 50,000 students who used examPAL.
• ### Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

January 19, 2019

January 19, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

# In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Status: Target MBA
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 134
Location: Singapore
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2011, 23:51
aMante wrote:
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

a)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Onedida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

b)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of

c)two upstate NewYork counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of

d)on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three triubes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized

e)on the restituition that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

OA will be right here soon.

Thanks so much!!!

There is nothing wrong in answer choice 'A'
B, C, and D - they/their is ambiguous.
E - "rules on" changes the meaning. "owed to" also changes the meaning.
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
GM.

Manager
Status: Struggling hard to maintain focus
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Posts: 91
Location: Kolkata
Schools: ISB, IIM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2011, 09:47
gautammalik wrote:
aMante wrote:
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

a)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Onedida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

b)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of

c)two upstate NewYork counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of

d)on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three triubes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized

e)on the restituition that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

OA will be right here soon.

Thanks so much!!!

There is nothing wrong in answer choice 'A'
B, C, and D - they/their is ambiguous.
E - "rules on" changes the meaning. "owed to" also changes the meaning.

As per the subjunctive structure-
]In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owe[strike]d[/strike] restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
_________________

* An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
** Every single second counts.
*** One KUDO earned is One step closer to GMAT. Help me in getting closer to GMAT.
**** http://gmatclub.com/forum/i-invite-you-in-my-gmat-journey-121396.html.

Test Description_______Date____Total___Quant_____ Verbal
GMAT PREP1_____________________610
GMAX online test 1____29.07.2011__540_____43________19
MGMAT CAT 1_________03.09.2011__580____42________28
MGMAT CAT 2_________02.10.2011__690____48________36
GMAX online test 2_____16.10.2011__640____48________32
MGMAT CAT 3_________23.11.2011__670____47________34
Veritas free CAT______ 31.10.2011___630___ 46________33
MGMAT CAT 4_________06.11.2011__690____48________36
MGMAT CAT 5_________13.11.2011__660____46________34
MGMAT CAT 6_________19.11.2011__680____51________33
GMAT PREP2__________23.11.2011__680
GMAT Exam___________24.11.2011__690____50________34

Manager
Status: Target MBA
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 134
Location: Singapore
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2011, 10:01
akbism wrote:
gautammalik wrote:
aMante wrote:
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

a)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Onedida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

b)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of

c)two upstate NewYork counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of

d)on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three triubes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized

e)on the restituition that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

OA will be right here soon.

Thanks so much!!!

There is nothing wrong in answer choice 'A'
B, C, and D - they/their is ambiguous.
E - "rules on" changes the meaning. "owed to" also changes the meaning.

As per the subjunctive structure-
]In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owe[strike]d[/strike] restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

@akbism, I am not sure whether "rule that" is command subjunctive
Can any expert comment on it?
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
GM.

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4616
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2011, 22:44
Although the main verb ‘ruled that’ may perfectly entail a subjunctive verb ‘owe’ in the subordinate clause, that choice is not there in the lot. Therefore, the author intends to exclude it from the purview of testing the subjunctive mood. On the contrary, this seems to be primarily a test of pronoun reference and idiom.

A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of -------- 1. the unlawful seizure safely dodges the pronoun ambiguity by using the definite article 'the' rather that the more specific pronoun 'their', which seems to be all at sundry as for as its reference is concerned . 1. ‘ruled that’ is the correct idiom – correct choice

b)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of ----pronoun error; the ununderlined 'their' refers to the Indians while the underlined 'their' refers to counties, a weird case of the same pronoun referring two different referents. Grammatically wrong

c)two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of --- same as in B

d)on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized --- 1.The pronoun they is in a fix. Whether it refers to the nearby Indians or the distant Counties is not clear. 2. ‘[color=#0000FF]ruled on’ is wrong idiom
[/color]
e) On the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of. ----- ‘Ruled on’ is wrong idiom
_________________

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

Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2012
Posts: 5
Location: United States
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2012, 08:24
Oh, the comparative value of the choices.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Oct 2011
Posts: 214
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 22 Mar 2012, 05:45
another correct use of idiom should also be noted here.

owed restitution to x for y
_________________

********************
Push +1 kudos button please, if you like my post.

Originally posted by GetThisDone on 21 Mar 2012, 22:10.
Last edited by GetThisDone on 22 Mar 2012, 05:45, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 118
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2012, 02:04
Definitely A

subjunctive mood should be used here , only A and B qualify for that.
B is weird with a null reference for theirs.
So A...

Experts please correct if i am wrong.
_________________

The Best Way to Keep me ON is to give Me KUDOS !!!
If you Like My posts please Consider giving Kudos

Shikhar

Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 237
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2012, 03:42
Only A remains ...........!!!
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

Manager
Status: May The Force Be With Me (D-DAY 15 May 2012)
Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 214
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2012, 04:09
IMAO A

2-3 split between (A,B) & (C,D,E)

Thus its (A & B)

A is the best option
_________________

Giving +1 kudos is a better way of saying 'Thank You'.

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 715
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2013, 12:21
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

a)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Onedida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

b)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of

I know that the correct idiom for the above question is

"Owed restitution to X for Y"

However, I am not convinced with the explanation that "their" in Option (B) is ambiguously referring to "Indians" because when we say

X owed restitution to Y: We know that X has done some damage to Y that is why it owes restitution to Y.

For instance : If (B) is changed to

that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of

It should be correct as "first their" in the underlined portion should correctly refer to X(counties) and "second their" present in the non-underlined portion correctly refers to "Indians".

If "THEIR" in the underlined part is incorrect , then the "THEIR" in the non-underlined part should also be incorrect. However, as the SECOND THEIR is present in non-underlined part it is presumed to be correct.

Please advise whether the usage of "FIRST THEIR" is correct or not and my reasoning is PROPER or not?

Quoted from MGMAT SC Guide for pronoun reference:

Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny
cellulose fibers, which THEYallege give THEM the strength of cast iron.

What nouns do they and them refer to? We might ~ that they refers to researchers (who
claim something) and that them refers to new "nano-papers" However, in reality, both they
and them have ambiguous antecedents. Either pronoun could refer to researchers or to "nanopapers.
"

After reading above explanation why is the case that "their" in the non-underlined part correctly refers to "Indians".

Rgds,
TGC!
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 793
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2013, 07:40
1
2
WinWinMBA wrote:
360. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

I'm responding to a PM on this question. There are plenty of interesting issues here.

First, let's tackle the issue with the subjunctive mood. The verb "rule" may be used in the subjunctive mood to give the impression of uncertainty, but in this sentence the author has chosen the indicative mood to imply the certainty of the ruling. We know that the subjunctive is not used because none of the answer choices have the proper subjunctive structure - subjunctive verb + that + infinitive verb form without "to" (example: I demand that he go to school.) The subjunctive structure is the same in present tense and past tense (example: I demanded that he go to school.) To have subjunctive, the sentence would have to read - ...the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties OWE...

Even though we aren't using the subjunctive mood, the structure of the sentence does require the use of "that". The ruling of the Supreme Court is a clause, so we need the "that" to set off a new clause. We can't say, "The Supreme Court ruled two counties" because that means the Supreme Court is now the ruler of the counties. If we say, "The Supreme Court ruled on the restitution/on the counties" the meaning has changed from the original and we are no longer talking about the ruling that required restitution from the two counties. We can eliminate C, D, and E on this basis.

Now on to the issue of pronoun ambiguity. I've posted several times that the GMAT seems to be ambivalent to pronoun ambiguity. What the GMAT seems to be consistent with is the requirement of the same antecedent with a pronoun. In answer choice B, the pronoun "their" appears 2 times ("...two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands..."). The first appearance is a bit ambiguous, but the meaning seems pretty clear that the counties were the ones to unlawfully seize ancestral lands, so the antecedant for "their" is the counties. The second occurance of "their" refers to ancenstral lands, which were clearly owned by the Oneida Indians, so the antecedant for "their" has switched from counties to Indians. That is a switch that is not allowed by the GMAT so we can eliminate answer choice B (this is also an issue in C & D).

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 715
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2013, 10:07
Hi Kyle,

because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands.....

In your post, you said that the Second THEIR refers to ancestral lands. However, indeed the 'ancestral lands'
is preceded by second THEIR.

Plz can you clarify that even if we omit FIRST THEIR why the SECOND THEIR present in the non-underlined portion
isn't ambiguous.

Per the meaning of the sentence as I explained in my OLD POSTS the FIRST THEIR perfectly refers to what it wants to refer.

Furthermore,

Can you apply MGMAT SC Guide suggested filtering for ambiguous pronouns here?

Number -> Gender - > Proximity -> Repeats -> Case.

Rgds,
TGC!
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 793
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2013, 19:49
TGC wrote:
Hi Kyle,

because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands.....

In your post, you said that the Second THEIR refers to ancestral lands. However, indeed the 'ancestral lands'
is preceded by second THEIR.

Plz can you clarify that even if we omit FIRST THEIR why the SECOND THEIR present in the non-underlined portion
isn't ambiguous.

Per the meaning of the sentence as I explained in my OLD POSTS the FIRST THEIR perfectly refers to what it wants to refer.

Furthermore,

Can you apply MGMAT SC Guide suggested filtering for ambiguous pronouns here?

Number -> Gender - > Proximity -> Repeats -> Case.

Rgds,
TGC!

The 2nd "their" is connected to the ancestral lands, but "lands" is not the antecedent. Those were the ancestral lands of the Oneida Indians, so the antecedent for the 2nd "their" is Oneida Indians. The problem in this sentence isn't with pronoun ambiguity. The meaning of the sentence would be pretty clear if either one of the two pronouns (their) were omitted. The problem is that "their" appears two times in the sentence and has a different antecedent each time. The GMAT does not allow for switching antecedents in the same sentence.

I really wouldn't worry about suggested filtering for ambiguity. Focus on pronoun number agreement, use pronoun replacement to ensure proper meaning and make sure that pronouns don't switch antecedents and you should be just fine.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Retired Moderator
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1010
Location: United States
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2013, 00:33
If we real full sentence, B, C and D are out immediately. Only A and E remain.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
Correct.

Complete (B)............ that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
Double "their" ==> clearly wrong.

Complete (C) ............two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
Double "their" ==> clearly wrong.

Complete (D) ............on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.
"they" and "their" are not clear ==> wrong.

(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of[/quote]
Wrong. Ruled that..... ==> correct idiom. But "ruled on the restitution that" changes meaning.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 63
Schools: IIMA
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jul 2014, 20:42
obviously A is winner

Let me trow some light on B and C if you closely look at b it is almost same as A except the part "because of their unlawful seizure of" their is ambiguous here . See non underlined part their unlawful seizure of . whose land and who sized ambiguous is not it ?

If a pronoun is used in sentence it will be have one antecedent wherever it is used. Also it is better to place modifiers as close to thing which it is modifying .
_________________

If you are not over prepared then you are under prepared !!!

Manager
Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Posts: 89
Schools: Rotman '17 (A)
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V38
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2014, 03:57
Remove the fluff and see :

A. that the two NY counties owed restitution .... for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands ....
B. that the two NY counties owed restitution .... because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands ...

A makes more sense!
Manager
Status: Manager
Affiliations: Manager
Joined: 06 Nov 2012
Posts: 130
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Sustainability
Schools: Boston U '19 (D)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V33
GPA: 3
WE: Supply Chain Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2014, 04:48
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of - Restitution to X for doing Y is correct
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of - Restitution to X because of Y is incorrect. ‘Because of’ is redundant. Always a 'Noun' or 'Noun phrase' comes after ‘Because of’. '[their] unlawful seizure of [their] ancestral lands' does not look right.
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of - 'Ruled Counties' looks wrong. Some connections word should come after ruled. '[their] unlawful seizure of [their] ancestral lands' does not look right.
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized - 'Ruled On' is not right in this context. 'Rule on' means ruling on somebody like ''British ruled on Indians''.
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of - Same as D.

Correct me if i am wrong....
_________________

Hard-work, Perseverance and Commitment.....

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2169
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2017, 19:18
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

We need that to introduce a clause to describe SC's ruling.

(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of - restitution .. because of its is unidiomatic
Also pronoun their and they are used to refer to 2 different antecedents - Incorrect
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of - Pronoun issue similar to B and that is needed
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized - Pronoun issue similar to B and that is needed
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of - that is needed to introduce a clause

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2016
Posts: 143
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2018, 11:01
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
Correct choice.
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of
Double use of "their" is ambiguous.
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of
Ruled that is the correct idiom.
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized
Ruled that is the correct idiom.
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
Ruled that is the correct idiom.
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two &nbs [#permalink] 19 Apr 2018, 11:01

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 39 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by