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

It is currently 23 Oct 2019, 01:34

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 upstate New Yor

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 500
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 25 Jan 2019, 03:34
7
28
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  15% (low)

Question Stats:

75% (01:23) correct 25% (01:29) wrong based on 938 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

Originally posted by WinWinMBA on 15 Jun 2005, 15:57.
Last edited by Bunuel on 25 Jan 2019, 03:34, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 3761
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 48
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
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5117
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Sep 2011, 23:44
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
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't make out how to pole-vault above the 630-barrier, you can do so with my one-to-one lessons. (+919884544509)
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 658
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

New post 25 Aug 2013, 13:21
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
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 787
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Sep 2013, 08:40
1
3
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).

That leaves answer choice A...

KW
_________________
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 658
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

New post 04 Sep 2013, 11:07
Hi Kyle,

Glad that you replied.

However, I have one more query concerned to your reply.

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
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 787
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Sep 2013, 20:49
TGC wrote:
Hi Kyle,

Glad that you replied.

However, I have one more query concerned to your reply.

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
_________________
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 988
Location: United States
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2013, 01:33
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
Manager
avatar
Status: Manager
Affiliations: Manager
Joined: 06 Nov 2012
Posts: 127
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

New post 20 Nov 2014, 05:48
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.... :roll:
_________________
Hard-work, Perseverance and Commitment.....
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jan 2017, 20:18
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

Answer A
_________________
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
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5946
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jan 2019, 03:35
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor   [#permalink] 25 Jan 2019, 03:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor

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





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