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

It is currently 18 Oct 2018, 19:36

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

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

Hide Tags

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 548
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jun 2005, 15:57
5
23
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

75% (01:21) correct 25% (01:33) wrong based on 554 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
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4871
Location: Singapore
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jun 2005, 17:42
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
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1731
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jun 2005, 17:46
A for me also.

C, D and E does not start with that and B does not end correctly.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 60
Location: India
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2005, 01:36
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.

The Answer is A.
_________________

Its not the fact its your attitude towards the fact

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 781
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 02 Jan 2017, 20:12
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, 10:08.
Last edited by Skywalker18 on 02 Jan 2017, 20:12, edited 1 time in total.
OA Added
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 158
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2007, 10:41
1
Answer is A

correct idiom is: owed restitution to X for Y
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2007
Posts: 552
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2007, 10:48
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
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2641
Location: New York City
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2007, 06:52
Is this question considered a subjunctive mood question?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 849
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2007, 07:53
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
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3255
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

New post 02 Aug 2007, 10:16
i dont think its subjenctive..however the idiom is "ruled ..that"..

A seems fine.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2447
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2007, 18:09
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!


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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 299
Location: Orange County, CA
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2007, 22:46
Narrowed down between A and B.

I liked answer A b/c it was less wordy than answer B.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2641
Location: New York City
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2007, 16:05
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
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 880
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Aug 2007, 03:09
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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 23
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 26 Aug 2013, 01:02
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

Please provide answer and description.
OA will be right here soon.

Thanks so much!!!

Originally posted by aMante on 16 Mar 2008, 03:36.
Last edited by mau5 on 26 Aug 2013, 01:02, edited 1 time in total.
Added OA
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 640
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Mar 2008, 06:24
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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 135
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Mar 2008, 09:34
1
I'll go A.

C and D have modification issues.
E is to wordy.
B has "their" which is ambigious
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 196
Reviews Badge
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Mar 2008, 12:22
Ill go for A here. Nothing wrong with the sentence. B uses "their" is ambiguous. C,D,E change the meaning.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2866
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Mar 2008, 06:17
I go for A

remember the idiom - "ruled that" (ruled on is incorrect) This leaves A and B. B has some ambiguous pronouns.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Struggling hard to maintain focus
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Posts: 94
Location: Kolkata
Schools: ISB, IIM
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2011, 13:45
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

Please provide answer and description.
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

GMAT Club Bot
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor &nbs [#permalink] 24 Sep 2011, 13:45

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

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.