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

It is currently 17 Oct 2019, 06:05

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 Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1001
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 31 Jul 2019, 23:07
6
22
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

83% (01:21) correct 17% (01:49) wrong based on 698 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world, so it would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provider.


(A) In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world, so it would be

(B) The breakup of the world's largest telephone company, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, was called for by a government advisory committee in Japan, so it would be

(C) A government advisory committee in Japan called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the world's largest telephone company, into

(D) The breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the world's largest telephone company, was called for by a government advisory committee in Japan, so it would be

(E) Called for by a government advisory committee, the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company in Japan, the world's largest telephone company, was to be into

According to Manhattan GMAT, "so" in A,B and D is wrong because the second clause is dependent on the first.Therefore, "so" is an inappropiate conjunction. Could someone explain, please?

_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Originally posted by metallicafan on 18 Apr 2011, 19:39.
Last edited by Bunuel on 31 Jul 2019, 23:07, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1564
Re: In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Apr 2011, 00:38
17
3
The second part, about the two local companies and one long-distance provider, describes the parts the company is supposed to be broken into. C describes this clearly: "committee . . . called for the breakup of NTTC . . . into two local phone companies and one long-distance provider."

The choices using "so" almost make part 2 into an independent clause, as Tim describes in our forum. Think of other sentences that use "so" to link. "My boss told me to send the email, so I sent it." "I didn't eat your sandwich, so stop bothering me." The part after "so" can always stand alone as its own sentence (this is the meaning of an independent clause.)

Let's look at the second clause as a stand-alone sentence. "The committee called for the breakup of NTTC. So it would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provider." The use of would is awkward if this part doesn't depend on the other. Why not "it will be"? If we put in the right word ("will"), the use of "so" makes it seem that because the committee called for the breakup, the second sentence *will* happen. In the credited response, we are told that the committee called for the breakup of the company into several parts, with no prediction of what will happen. This is a better description of the situation.

I hope this helps! Let me know if I can make any of this clearer.
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan Prep GMAT Instructor | San Diego


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews
General Discussion
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5095
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Apr 2011, 00:12
3
3
When two independent clauses with verbs of their own are presented, they have to be conjugated by a coordinate conjunction such as and, but, so etc (remember the fanboys?). Separating them with just j a comma renders them as run-ons. In this case, 'called for' and 'would be’ are the two verbs of their clauses with just a comma in between. Hence choices A, B and D are faulty. E is too awkward; C is crisp and right
_________________
If you can't sync with the vibe of GMAT, you had better think!!!
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 108
Re: In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jan 2013, 19:47
3
UrsTruly wrote:
In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world, so it would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provider.

Hi guys, I might be a little too late asking this question (almost 2 years) on this thread :) , but I still try my luck, as I am not understanding one of the comment from Daagh.

@Daagh, As you mentioned, all independent clauses should have "Fanboys" coordinating conjugations joining them. But then in this question, the two independent clauses
1) In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world
2) it would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provider.
already have a "so" joining them. Right? It doesn't seem to be a run-on to me. Can you help me understand why this is a case of run-on error?


Its good question that made me ponder.. :-D
already have a "so" joining them. Right? It doesn't seem to be a run-on to me. Can you help me understand why this is a case of run-on error?
Answer:
@UrsTruly, I really loved the explanation of DmitryFarber from MGMAT.
See, clause 1) is clearly independent clause, but clause 2) is not independent. 'it would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provide' In second clause 'it would be ' is the awkward part. Where does 'it' refers?
In the setence construction of X, so Y, it marely says that Y would happen if X has!
To correct the same, we can say, Govt Adv. committee called for the breakup of NTTC, so there will be two local...

All independent clauses should have "Fanboys" coordinating conjugations joining them.
FANBOYS stands for "For-And-Nor-But-Or-Yet-So", One of these will be used to join 2 independent clauses.

---------------------
Press Kudos if you liked my post :lol:
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Dec 2015
Posts: 50
Re: In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jul 2016, 02:29
DmitryFarber :

So you're saying with the use of illogical 'would' and two independent clauses instead of just one, A is awkward. But, grammatically, it is not faulty or run-on, right? I can clearly see two independent clauses properly connected by using a coordinating conjunction, so Thanks


DmitryFarber wrote:
The second part, about the two local companies and one long-distance provider, describes the parts the company is supposed to be broken into. C describes this clearly: "committee . . . called for the breakup of NTTC . . . into two local phone companies and one long-distance provider."

The choices using "so" almost make part 2 into an independent clause, as Tim describes in our forum. Think of other sentences that use "so" to link. "My boss told me to send the email, so I sent it." "I didn't eat your sandwich, so stop bothering me." The part after "so" can always stand alone as its own sentence (this is the meaning of an independent clause.)

Let's look at the second clause as a stand-alone sentence. "The committee called for the breakup of NTTC. So it would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provider." The use of would is awkward if this part doesn't depend on the other. Why not "it will be"? If we put in the right word ("will"), the use of "so" makes it seem that because the committee called for the breakup, the second sentence *will* happen. In the credited response, we are told that the committee called for the breakup of the company into several parts, with no prediction of what will happen. This is a better description of the situation.

I hope this helps! Let me know if I can make any of this clearer.
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2400
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 Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Nov 2017, 02:07
1
In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world, so it would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provider.

(A) In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world, so it would be - Run on sentence ; it has two possible antecedents

(B) The breakup of the world's largest telephone company, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, was called for by a government advisory committee in Japan, so it would be - same as A

(C) A government advisory committee in Japan called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the world's largest telephone company, into - Correct

(D) The breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the world's largest telephone company, was called for by a government advisory committee in Japan, so it would be - Same as A

(E) Called for by a government advisory committee, the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company in Japan, the world's largest telephone company, was to be into -- called for .. modifies the breakup

Answer C
_________________
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
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 May 2019
Posts: 22
CAT Tests
Re: In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2019, 19:46
daagh wrote:
When two independent clauses with verbs of their own are presented, they have to be conjugated by a coordinate conjunction such as and, but, so etc (remember the fanboys?). Separating them with just j a comma renders them as run-ons. In this case, 'called for' and 'would be’ are the two verbs of their clauses with just a comma in between. Hence choices A, B and D are faulty. E is too awkward; C is crisp and right

daagh

Isn't the construction in the form of IC, so IC. Also in the second IC (It would be... isn't this it a placeholder it?)
Eg: It is futile to resist temptation (Placeholder it)

How are A,B,D faulty then?
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1564
Re: In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2019, 23:25
I just noticed that someone asked a while back whether A is really wrong just because "would" is illogical. Yes, absolutely. One illogical idea kills the whole thing!
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan Prep GMAT Instructor | San Diego


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5095
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2019, 23:45
Top Contributor
Payal

Quote:
Is not the construction in the form of IC, so IC. Also in the second IC (It would be... isn't this it a placeholder it?)
Eg: It is futile to resist temptation (Placeholder it)

How are A,B,D faulty then?



I didn't get what you meant by " Isn't the construction in the form of IC, so IC". Please clarify.

If you realize that there are two ICs, then the comma between them is a comma splice (run-on)

In the case of the second IC, there are already two possible contenders for the pronoun "it", namely the committee and the company. Why do you want to muddle it further with another antecedent?

Very often, such placeholders are used at the beginnings of the sentences when there are no other possible ways of starting a sentence. However, here you have a full-fledged compound sentence with two ICs and the pronoun is used for the second IC where it might logically refer to the previously single company that is sought to be broken into three separate entities.

I would even concede that he ambiguity part is only secondary. The run-on is a more solid grammar error, which is enough to kill the three choices.
_________________
If you can't sync with the vibe of GMAT, you had better think!!!
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1564
Re: In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2019, 00:11
We don't have a run on, since "so" joins the two independent clauses. I think that was Payal's point. However, the logic in those choices is faulty, as I explained in my original post. I think my error was in phrasing things too mildly. It isn't just awkward--it's illogical.
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan Prep GMAT Instructor | San Diego


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 May 2019
Posts: 22
CAT Tests
Re: In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2019, 18:04
2
daagh wrote:
Payal

Quote:
Is not the construction in the form of IC, so IC. Also in the second IC (It would be... isn't this it a placeholder it?)
Eg: It is futile to resist temptation (Placeholder it)

How are A,B,D faulty then?



I didn't get what you meant by " Isn't the construction in the form of IC, so IC". Please clarify.

If you realize that there are two ICs, then the comma between them is a comma splice (run-on)

In the case of the second IC, there are already two possible contenders for the pronoun "it", namely the committee and the company. Why do you want to muddle it further with another antecedent?

Very often, such placeholders are used at the beginnings of the sentences when there are no other possible ways of starting a sentence. However, here you have a full-fledged compound sentence with two ICs and the pronoun is used for the second IC where it might logically refer to the previously single company that is sought to be broken into three separate entities.

I would even concede that he ambiguity part is only secondary. The run-on is a more solid grammar error, which is enough to kill the three choices.

daagh
IC1 - In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world
IC2 - it would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provider.

IC1 & IC2 connected via FANBOYS ('so' in this case). How is it a run on?
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5095
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2019, 19:14
Top Contributor
payal
It is a slip of my memory that I forgot to read 'so' as a fanboys conjunction.
As Dmitry clarified, you are correct in saying that there is no case of a run-on in these cases.
Thanks for reminding me.
_________________
If you can't sync with the vibe of GMAT, you had better think!!!
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5917
Re: In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2019, 23:04
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 Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni   [#permalink] 31 Jul 2019, 23:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni

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





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