In the most bizarre court case this month, the judge ruled that two pi

Question

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

daagh · Accepted Answer

(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.

sevenplusplus · Answer

is "ruled" a subjunctive (order)? I chose C thinking this

DharLog · Answer

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.

Bunuel · Answer

MANHATTAN REVIEW OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Here the first thing you have to ask yourself is: what did the judge rule? Did he rule on two ping-pong ball manufacturers or on restitution? No, the judge ruled that they owed something. That means that A, B and C are the only possible answer choices. You have to also maintain an agreement in tenses. The judge ruled that somebody owed something, not owes. That eliminates choice C. One difference between choices A and B is the use of different idioms. The manufacturers owed restitution for something, not because of something. This is the correct idiomatic expression. The use of ‘their’ is B is also ambiguous. Choice A is the correct answer.

ChuHoaiNam2505 · Answer

i dont think that "their" in option B is ambiguous. Their must be referred to manufacturers because if "their" referred to teams, whole sentence makes non sense. The manufacturers owed restitution to the teams because of the fault of the teams? It sounds funny to me. Anyone has the same thought ?

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

In the most bizarre court case this month, the judge ruled that two pi

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

In the most bizarre court case this month, the judge ruled that two pi

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards