It is currently 17 Nov 2017, 11:07

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

3 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 584

Kudos [?]: 287 [3], given: 0

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
3
This post received
KUDOS
18
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

73% (00:59) correct 27% (01:04) wrong based on 285 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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 287 [3], given: 0

1 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5032

Kudos [?]: 452 [1], given: 0

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
1
This post received
KUDOS
(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.

Kudos [?]: 452 [1], given: 0

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

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.

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 61

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

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
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 855

Kudos [?]: 501 [0], given: 7

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

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2007, 10:08
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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!

Last edited by Skywalker18 on 02 Jan 2017, 20:12, edited 1 time in total.
OA Added

Kudos [?]: 501 [0], given: 7

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 169

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

Show Tags

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

correct idiom is: owed restitution to X for Y

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2007
Posts: 575

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 0

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.

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 0

CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2734

Kudos [?]: 1075 [0], given: 4

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?

Kudos [?]: 1075 [0], given: 4

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 901

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 0

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2007, 07:53
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 0

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3345

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 2

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.

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 2

CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2553

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 0

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.

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 318

Kudos [?]: 155 [0], given: 0

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.

Kudos [?]: 155 [0], given: 0

CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2734

Kudos [?]: 1075 [0], given: 4

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.

Kudos [?]: 1075 [0], given: 4

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 909

Kudos [?]: 291 [0], given: 0

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.

Kudos [?]: 291 [0], given: 0

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 26

Kudos [?]: 11 [1], given: 0

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Mar 2008, 03:36
1
This post received
KUDOS
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!!!

Last edited by mau5 on 26 Aug 2013, 01:02, edited 1 time in total.
Added OA

Kudos [?]: 11 [1], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 684

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 0

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
_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 0

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 8 [1], given: 7

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
This post received
KUDOS
I'll go A.

C and D have modification issues.
E is to wordy.
B has "their" which is ambigious

Kudos [?]: 8 [1], given: 7

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 209

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

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.

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2947

Kudos [?]: 674 [0], given: 210

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.

Kudos [?]: 674 [0], given: 210

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 30

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Mar 2008, 00:17
Definitely it is A :) .

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor   [#permalink] 31 Mar 2008, 00:17

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 40 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  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.