It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 03:25

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 the most bizarre court case this month,

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

Hide Tags

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 13

GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V33
In the most bizarre court case this month, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2015, 00:55
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

55% (01:01) correct 45% (00:58) wrong based on 106 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In the most bizarre court case this month, the judge ruled that two ping-pong ball
manufacturers owed restitution to four national ping-pong teams for the illegal
weighting of the ping-pong balls in an effort to fix the tournament.

(A) that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owed restitution to four national ping-pong teams for the illegal weighting of
(B) that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owed restitution to four national ping-pong teams because of their illegal weighting of
(C) that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owe restitution to four national ping- pong teams for their illegal weighting of
(D) on two ping-pong ball manufacturers that owed restitution to four national ping-pong teams because they illegally weighted
(E) on the restitution that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owed to four national ping-pong teams for the illegal weighting of

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 13

1 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4288

Kudos [?]: 7868 [1], given: 363

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In the most bizarre court case this month, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2015, 08:27
1
This post received
KUDOS
(A) that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owed restitution to four national ping-pong teams for the illegal weighting of – correct choice

(B) that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owed restitution to four national ping-pong teams because of their illegal weighting of -- ‘their’ is ambiguous. Does it refer to the teams or manufacturers?

(C) that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owe restitution to four national ping- pong teams for their illegal weighting of --same as B

(D) on two ping-pong ball manufacturers that owed restitution to four national ping-pong teams because they illegally weighted – ‘ruled on’ is wrong diction. It should be ‘ruled that' and the ltter part should be amended accordingly ’

(E) on the restitution that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owed to four national ping-pong teams for the illegal weighting of – same as in D.
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Kudos [?]: 7868 [1], given: 363

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Jun 2016
Posts: 99

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 43

CAT Tests
Re: In the most bizarre court case this month, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2017, 11:33
is "ruled" a subjunctive (order)? I chose C thinking this :(

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 43

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Posts: 104

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 172

Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE: Information Technology (Other)
In the most bizarre court case this month, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2017, 11:57
zrezre wrote:
In the most bizarre court case this month, the judge ruled that two ping-pong ball
manufacturers owed restitution to four national ping-pong teams for the illegal
weighting of
the ping-pong balls in an effort to fix the tournament.

(A) that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owed restitution to four national ping-pong teams for the illegal weighting of
(B) that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owed restitution to four national ping-pong teams because of their illegal weighting of
(C) that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owe restitution to four national ping- pong teams for their illegal weighting of
(D) on two ping-pong ball manufacturers that owed restitution to four national ping-pong teams because they illegally weighted
(E) on the restitution that two ping-pong ball manufacturers owed to four national ping-pong teams for the illegal weighting of

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A


You had not to choose C, because as daagh has already said it is not clear in this case to whom "their" refers to - to manufactures or to teams.

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 172

In the most bizarre court case this month,   [#permalink] 14 Aug 2017, 11:57
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In the most bizarre court case this month,

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


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®.