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

 It is currently 20 Jan 2019, 01:24

### 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
• ### FREE Quant Workshop by e-GMAT!

January 20, 2019

January 20, 2019

07:00 AM PST

07:00 AM PST

Get personalized insights on how to achieve your Target Quant Score.
• ### GMAT Club Tests are Free & Open for Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday!

January 21, 2019

January 21, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Mark your calendars - All GMAT Club Tests are free and open January 21st for celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday.

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 540
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2005, 14:57
5
23
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

74% (01:22) correct 26% (01:31) wrong based on 601 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4803
Location: Singapore
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2005, 16:42
2
(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
- 'their' does not have a clear referent

(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of
- ruled two NY counties to owe restitution is wrong.

(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized
- wrong. suggests indians unlawfully seized their own lands.

(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
- ruled on the restitution is wrong

A it is.
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1717
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2005, 16:46
A for me also.

C, D and E does not start with that and B does not end correctly.
Manager
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 58
Location: India
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2005, 00:36
2
The clause has to start with a proper subordinating coujunction - that. so C, D and E or out.

It is either A or B. ' X owed Y to Z for some reason ' is the idiomatic usage.

_________________

Its not the fact its your attitude towards the fact

Director
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 766
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 02 Jan 2017, 19:12
4
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

Can we have some explanations, please!

Originally posted by seofah on 23 Jul 2007, 09:08.
Last edited by Skywalker18 on 02 Jan 2017, 19:12, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 156
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2007, 09:41
1

correct idiom is: owed restitution to X for Y
Director
Joined: 08 Jun 2007
Posts: 546
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2007, 09:48
botirvoy 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

Can we have some explanations, please!

BCD has misplaced modifier. E is awkward and changes meaning.
A is the obvious choice.
CEO
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2598
Location: New York City
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2007, 05:52
Is this question considered a subjunctive mood question?
Director
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 822
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2007, 06:53
1
bmwhype2 wrote:
Is this question considered a subjunctive mood question?

I don't think so....
"owed" is past.

In subjunctive we say,

1. The company asked that employees not accept offers from other companies.

2. Teacher asked that James submit his project before Monday.

Regards,
Brajesh
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3222
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2007, 09:16
i dont think its subjenctive..however the idiom is "ruled ..that"..

A seems fine.
SVP
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2421
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2007, 17:09
1
botirvoy 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

Can we have some explanations, please!

Nothing wrong w/ A here.

B: insertion of "their" is ambigous
C: again "their" has no proper referent
D: they is ambigious
E: ruled on the restitution? NY ruled that X owes restitution, they didn't rule on it? it is akward.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 295
Location: Orange County, CA
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2007, 21:46
Narrowed down between A and B.

I liked answer A b/c it was less wordy than answer B.
CEO
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2598
Location: New York City
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2007, 15:05
b14kumar wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
Is this question considered a subjunctive mood question?

I don't think so....
"owed" is past.

In subjunctive we say,

1. The company asked that employees not accept offers from other companies.

2. Teacher asked that James submit his project before Monday.

Regards,
Brajesh

Thanks. I also went for A but wondered why it was in past tense.
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 866
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2007, 02:09
botirvoy 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

Can we have some explanations, please!

agreed with A.

B & C are wrong for the use of " because of being..." "for their unlawful..." usually wrong on the GMAT

D Who does "they" refer to ? the Indians? Doesn't clear refer back to the NY counties like it should

E very ackward structure. Seems to say the court ruled on the restitution.
Intern
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 22
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 26 Aug 2013, 00:02
1
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!!!

Originally posted by aMante on 16 Mar 2008, 02:36.
Last edited by mau5 on 26 Aug 2013, 00:02, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 637
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2008, 05:24
I go for A

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-> sounds good, hold it

b)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure -> their points Indians and this changes the meaning,eliminate it

c)two upstate NewYork counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of-> awkward usage, eliminate it

d)on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three triubes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized->awkward construction, they points to Indians and changes the meaning to Indians seizing the lands

e)on the restituition that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of->awkward construction
Manager
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 134
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2008, 08:34
1
I'll go A.

C and D have modification issues.
E is to wordy.
B has "their" which is ambigious
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 194
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2008, 11:22
Ill go for A here. Nothing wrong with the sentence. B uses "their" is ambiguous. C,D,E change the meaning.
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2838
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2008, 05:17
I go for A

remember the idiom - "ruled that" (ruled on is incorrect) This leaves A and B. B has some ambiguous pronouns.
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

24 Sep 2011, 12:45
1
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!!!

Hi,
Is this not a case of subjunctive verb "rule"?
Then why the idiom "owed restitution to X for Y" has been used?
_________________

* 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

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor &nbs [#permalink] 24 Sep 2011, 12:45

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 39 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

 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®.