It is currently 23 Feb 2018, 08:47

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Kansas Republican Nancy Kassebaum, one of only two women in

Author Message
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1373
Kansas Republican Nancy Kassebaum, one of only two women in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2008, 21:03
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

80% (00:27) correct 20% (00:22) wrong based on 28 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Kansas Republican Nancy Kassebaum, one of only two women in the U.S. Senate in 1992, said she did not so much wish for more women senators but more moderate Republican ones.

(A) did not so much wish for more women senators but more moderate Republican ones
(B) wished not so much for more senators who were women than moderate Republicans
(C) did not wish so much for more women senators as for more moderate Republicans
(D) did not wish for more women senators so much as moderate Republicans
(E) wished for more senators who are moderate Republicans than women

_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 85

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2008, 21:33
Kansas Republican Nancy Kassebaum, one of only two women in the U.S. Senate in 1992, said she did not so much wish for more women senators but more moderate Republican ones.

(A) did not so much wish for more women senators but more moderate Republican ones
(B) wished not so much for more senators who were women than moderate Republicans
(C) did not wish so much for more women senators as for more moderate Republicans-MEANING DISTORTED
(D) did not wish for more women senators so much as moderate Republicans-||LISM LACKING
(E) wished for more senators who are moderate Republicans than women

IMO E

I M NOT SURE BUT ALL OTHERS SEEM AWKWARD TO ME
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 322

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2008, 21:34
IMO C.

A. you need " for" after but
E. you need "for" after than
C. has the "but"
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1373

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2008, 08:50
OA is C
Anyways i would like to know the flaw in E
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Dallas, TX
Schools: McCombs 2011

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2008, 13:44
spriya wrote:
OA is C
Anyways i would like to know the flaw in E

(E) wished for more senators who are moderate Republicans than women

E changes the meaning saying that she outright wished for more moderate Republicans than women. But the original sentece says she would rather wish for more moderate Republicans than women. Sorry, this is my best explanation
SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1863
Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2008, 13:53
E changes the meaning. In the original, Kassebaum is wishing for one general thing: Senators, but wishing for different types of them. She doesn't want just women senators, she wants them to be moderate Republican ones.

How does E change this meaning?

In E, she wished for one thing: senators that are moderate Republicans. E presents the alternative as "women".

E tries to imply "than women [senators]." but doesn't get the job done. It is not clear. In E, Kassebaum seems to be wishing for moderate Republicans that are women OR men, but in the original sentence, she is wishing for women that are moderate REpublicans.

spriya wrote:
Kansas Republican Nancy Kassebaum, one of only two women in the U.S. Senate in 1992, said she did not so much wish for more women senators but more moderate Republican ones.

(A) did not so much wish for more women senators but more moderate Republican ones
(B) wished not so much for more senators who were women than moderate Republicans
(C) did not wish so much for more women senators as for more moderate Republicans
(D) did not wish for more women senators so much as moderate Republicans
(E) wished for more senators who are moderate Republicans than women

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a\$\$.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1373

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2008, 18:14
jallenmorris wrote:
E changes the meaning. In the original, Kassebaum is wishing for one general thing: Senators, but wishing for different types of them. She doesn't want just women senators, she wants them to be moderate Republican ones.

How does E change this meaning?

In E, she wished for one thing: senators that are moderate Republicans. E presents the alternative as "women".

E tries to imply "than women [senators]." but doesn't get the job done. It is not clear. In E, Kassebaum seems to be wishing for moderate Republicans that are women OR men, but in the original sentence, she is wishing for women that are moderate REpublicans.

spriya wrote:
Kansas Republican Nancy Kassebaum, one of only two women in the U.S. Senate in 1992, said she did not so much wish for more women senators but more moderate Republican ones.

(A) did not so much wish for more women senators but more moderate Republican ones
(B) wished not so much for more senators who were women than moderate Republicans
(C) did not wish so much for more women senators as for more moderate Republicans
(D) did not wish for more women senators so much as moderate Republicans
(E) wished for more senators who are moderate Republicans than women

1)She didnt wish so much for x as for y
2)she wished for y rather than for x

3)she wished for more z who are y than x

1) , 2) are same
but 3)is not .

got it .
good explanation
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Re: SC-kansas   [#permalink] 08 Aug 2008, 18:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by