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

It is currently 17 Aug 2018, 10:12

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 many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t

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

Hide Tags

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4666
Re: In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Mar 2017, 11:31
sleepynut wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry,
I have no objection with the correct answer.
However,can you please elaborate more on the shift of tense in option (A).
IMHO,the second part after "but" explains the condition of criminal law.If this condition is met,something happens.
Why the tense are not all in present tense in this part?

Thanks :-)

Dear sleepynut

I'm happy to respond. :-)

This is a somewhat unusual construction. It sounds perfectly natural to a native speaker, but I can see that it would be puzzling to a non-native speaker.

The basic idea is that there's a time lag between the actions and the evaluation of the actions. You see, if someone steal a car or breaks into a house, these actions are unambiguously crimes, and so the crime is the same as the action and they both happen at the same time. With a complex corporate situation, it's much more ambiguous. Several actors are doing several different things, some responding to direct orders, some responding to company protocols, some acting on their own initiative. A set of consequences arises from all these actions that fall outside what ordinarily would result from legal behavior. Somebody has to investigate, and it may be weeks or months later before this investigator reaches the conclusion that what happened much earlier constituted a crime. The verbs "commits" are in the present, because the judgment that it is a crime is in the present: really, it's a general rule, which is always spoken in the present. The verbs after the comma, about the individual actions themselves, are in the past because invariably they happened long before any judgment is rendered.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 21
Re: In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Feb 2018, 00:07
1
mikemcgarry wrote:
Chemerical71 wrote:
In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United States today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

A. a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted

B. a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting

C. corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts

D. corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting

E. the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted

Dear Chemerical71,
A great question! I'm happy to respond! :-)

A. a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted
This choice is flawless, a promising candidate.

B. a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting
The present progressive "is committing" is awkward, and it mismatches the tense of "committed"--those two should have the same tense, because they are simultaneous actions. This is incorrect.

C. corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts
Mismatch between antecedent & pronoun: "corporations . . . its employees." This is incorrect.

D. corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting
This is is logically flaw: how can a single employee be an employee of multiple corporations? Also, after the comma, this one uses "it" to refer to the employee! This is incorrect.

E. the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted
A logical mismatch: how many employees are committing crimes here? We have multiple criminal employees before the comma, but only a singular example after the comma. This is incorrect.

The only possible answer is (A).

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


PLEASE HELP ME IN UNDERSTANDING THE STRUCTURE OF SENTENCE A??
BSchool Forum Moderator
avatar
P
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 471
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
CAT Tests
Re: In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2018, 08:44
Sankalp92 wrote:
mikemcgarry wrote:
Chemerical71 wrote:
In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United States today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

A. a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted

B. a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting

C. corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts

D. corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting

E. the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted

Dear Chemerical71,
A great question! I'm happy to respond! :-)

A. a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted
This choice is flawless, a promising candidate.

B. a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting
The present progressive "is committing" is awkward, and it mismatches the tense of "committed"--those two should have the same tense, because they are simultaneous actions. This is incorrect.

C. corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts
Mismatch between antecedent & pronoun: "corporations . . . its employees." This is incorrect.

D. corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting
This is is logically flaw: how can a single employee be an employee of multiple corporations? Also, after the comma, this one uses "it" to refer to the employee! This is incorrect.

E. the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted
A logical mismatch: how many employees are committing crimes here? We have multiple criminal employees before the comma, but only a singular example after the comma. This is incorrect.

The only possible answer is (A).

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


PLEASE HELP ME IN UNDERSTANDING THE STRUCTURE OF SENTENCE A??


Hey,

The structure is as follows

[prepositional phrase], [Clause] , but [prepositional phrase] , [clause], [phrase]

Please note that the end of the sentence is a phrase because there is no verb in the entire sentence. Hope this is clear.
_________________

My journey From 410 to 700 :-)
Here's my experience when I faced a glitch in my GMAT Exam
Don't do this mistake when you give your GMATPrep Mock!
NEW GMATPrep software analysis by Bunuel

VP
VP
User avatar
D
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1217
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Operations
GMAT 1: 480 Q38 V22
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Consulting)
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2018, 10:57
KC wrote:
In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United Stated today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.


(A) a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted

(B) a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting

(C) corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts

D) corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting

(E) the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted

It's A.
_________________

"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Posts: 128
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Nonprofit
WE: Analyst (Non-Profit and Government)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2018, 10:25
Quote:
In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United States today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

A. a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted

B. a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting

C. corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts

D. corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting

E. the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted


mikemcgarry, is the usage of "whose" in choice E correct?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 186
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2018, 01:26
egmat , , the "if part " is in past tense here : if ... acted....
then shouldnt according egmat sc >> if (past tense ), then (simple past)/ (would ) , is the structure. But in A then construction is > if (simple past), then (simple present){fact}...

plz explain egmat
Re: In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t &nbs [#permalink] 24 Jul 2018, 01:26

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 27 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


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®.