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

 It is currently 19 Oct 2019, 13:51

### 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

# In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning ro

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Status: PLAY HARD OR GO HOME
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Posts: 133
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Mannheim
GMAT 1: 560 Q46 V22
GPA: 3.1
In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning ro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 19 Nov 2018, 00:57
1
5
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

71% (01:34) correct 29% (01:49) wrong based on 204 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning rod for controversy, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee went on record as one of the first and most senior government officials to consider controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing with so-called unlawful enemy combatants.

A) controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing

B) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing

C) controversial interrogation tactics as permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing

D) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions to be irrelevant in dealing

E) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions as irrelevant in dealing

_________________
ITS NOT OVER , UNTIL I WIN ! I CAN, AND I WILL .PERIOD.

Originally posted by vards on 13 Jul 2014, 15:43.
Last edited by Bunuel on 19 Nov 2018, 00:57, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Intern
Joined: 12 May 2013
Posts: 48
Re: In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning ro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2014, 04:07
vards wrote:
In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning rod for controversy, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee went on record as one of the first and most senior government officials to consider controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing with so-called unlawful enemy combatants.

A) controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
B) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
C) controversial interrogation tactics as permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
D) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions to be irrelevant in dealing
E) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions as irrelevant in dealing

All the best guys...GRANTING KUDOS is the best way to show gratitude

can you please provide OE ?

Thank you
Manager
Status: PLAY HARD OR GO HOME
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Posts: 133
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Mannheim
GMAT 1: 560 Q46 V22
GPA: 3.1
Re: In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning ro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2014, 04:23
1
vards wrote:
In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning rod for controversy, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee went on record as one of the first and most senior government officials to consider controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing with so-called unlawful enemy combatants.

A) controversial interrogation tactics to be permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
B) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
C) controversial interrogation tactics as permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant in dealing
D) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions to be irrelevant in dealing
E) controversial interrogation tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions as irrelevant in dealing

All the best guys...GRANTING KUDOS is the best way to show gratitude

can you please provide OE ?

Thank you

Hello friend,

here u go mate-
When using the word consider to mean believe or contend, the word as or to be should not be used. Consequently, the sentence structure with consider controversial interrogation...to be permissible should be changed such that to be is removed. The correct idiom is: to consider W X

The two things being considered (as well as how they are considered) should be parallel:
to consider W X and [to consider] Y Z where the second to consider is understood or implied and X and Z are parallel
to consider controversial integration tactics permissible and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions irrelevant

A.)the words to be should be eliminated as they are unnecessary and break the proper idiom to consider W X
B.)the idiom to consider W X and Y Z is properly used as to be has been removed
C.)the sentence structure (to consider W as X and Y Z) is neither parallel nor idiomatic
D.)the sentence structure (to consider W X and Y to be Z) is neither parallel nor idiomatic
E.)the sentence structure (to consider W X and Y as Z) is neither parallel nor idiomatic

Please consider KUDOS,if my post helped
_________________
ITS NOT OVER , UNTIL I WIN ! I CAN, AND I WILL .PERIOD.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5930
Re: In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning ro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jan 2018, 12:02
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.
_________________
Re: In an August 1, 2002 legal memo that would later become a lightning ro   [#permalink] 26 Jan 2018, 12:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by