Members of Congress were surprised to learn that

Shouldn't the answer be (A)? The legislation had been used by felons up until the members of Congress found out about it (and may or may not continue from then on). The use of the words "demanding" and "while serving" seems to suggest duration, as each felon uses that legislation throughout his/her prison sentence, as opposed to just using that law at one time while serving. Answer (D) makes the law sound as if it's a simple one time event, when in reality, using legislation to one's benefit can be long-winded, even for non-convicts (e.g. the length of court cases, divorce law, etc.).

A cant be the answer since the convicted felons used the legislation... in essence the "use" followed" the legislation"..

Since "was passed " is used for the legislation we cant use "had been" for the usage by the felons... since "had been" should always preceed "was" in a timeline.

However I went with C... Maybe C is wrong because "serving out" is wrong usage..

But D looked like a run-on sentence to me..

Regards,
Dom.

I think that's what GMAT wants.

Anyway, how do you refer to two events, the first one in the past, and the second one that happens afterwards and continued for a while and stopped in the more recent past? With two simple past tenses?

Hi iPen,

Timeline means the sequence of events.. past... present.. future..

We can have two past tenses considering that both the events are over.. though it will still make sense since the meaning of the sentence conveys the order.

But a "past participle verb" could have been better for the preceding event usually... but in the context of the sentence... legislation "had been passed" would mean that it was a process that happened over a period of time.. but it was passed.. in one shot so was is okay.. a one time event.. so "was passed" is okay.

Hope its clear..

Regards,
Dom.

mikemcgarry
Narenn
Can you please explain why answer choice C is wrong??

"demanded" and "serving" should be made parallel = "demanding" and "serving"

Verb-ed and simple gerund noun should not be parallel.

that is so NOT true. different noun modifiers can be parallel even if they have different structures. For ex. -ed noun modifier can be parallel to -ing modifier.

I guess the only mistake with C is "serving out".
Note that "their" is not ambiguous here. The pronoun cannot refer to Members of Congress, because they cannot serve the terms of imprisonment. It is made clear that the convicted felons serve the terms of imprisonment.
Demanding and Serving should NOT be parallel, as these 2 have different structures. Demanding - is a noun modifier while serving is an action!
Those who chose on this specific reason - you are wrong... sorry...


Members of Congress were surprised to learn that
legislation (that was passed to prevent discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs)
had been used by convicted felons demanding special treatment while serving terms of imprisonment.

Had been used - is incorrect. the demonstrative pronoun that follows the noun legislation (Do not ignore the fluf, always take into consideration the whole sentence) clearly specifies that the legislation was passed some time ago. Convicted felons used this flaw in the legislation after it had been passed. We cannot modify the non-underlined portion of the sentence. Thus, had been used - is not correct.

A and B are out.

C was used by convicted felons who demanded special treatment while serving out their terms of imprisonment.
serving out - suspicious.
D was used by convicted felons demanding special treatment while serving terms of imprisonment.
looks good.

E was used by felonious convicts who had demanded special treatment while serving terms of imprisonment.
this choice has several errors. First, it changes the meaning of the sentence. Felonious convicts - oh my!
Second, had demanded - past perfect is not needed.

I think, perhaps, (C)'s use of "their" is redundant and "who" should be "whom". EDIT: I was referencing the wrong word, "convicted felons" instead of the verb following "who".

To me, it sounds strange that one "demanded" something previous to the relative present process of "serving" which began previous to one who "demanded". If there was a comma separating the two words and "serving" is used as a non-essential modifier, then I can see it working. Whereas, using "demanding" and "serving" work with the past tense "used by..." because the two modify convicted felons, and are within the idea of "used by..." (in other words, not parallel with "used by" and the other simple past tense verbs).

Members of Congress were surprised to learn that legislation that was passed to prevent discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs was used by convicted felons demanding special treatment while serving terms of imprisonment.

Members of Congress (simple past verb 1) X.... that (Simple past verb 2) Y.... (simple past verb 3) Z.... demanding P while serving Q.

demanding P while serving Q is within the ..., as opposed to being parallel to the simple past verbs X, Y, Z. Serving is not used as an absolute phrase within the idea of Z, so it should be made parallel to demanding.

That's my 2 cents.

Whom - cannot be used in this situation.
serving does not present a PRESENT process. The whole action happened in the past.

Relative present... not absolute present. So, it doesn't make sense to have done something in the past while that action occurs at the same time as performing something else. But, to rectify the tense error, a comma separating the absolute phrase "while serving terms of imprisonment" denotes that the past event occurred sometime during the serving, and not at the exact same moment. Otherwise, the sentence is temporally ambiguous, as intent and sentence structure conflict. That's my understanding... please correct me if I'm wrong.

And, I just need to get my who vs. whom down better lol... my previous-and-no-longer-de-facto understanding was to modify the noun it's referencing prior to it with either he/she/they or him/her/them. So, e.g., "...used by they, who demanded" vs. "...used by them, whom demanded". Conversely, "they demanded" is correct over "them demanded". So, he/she/they or him/her/them is the subject of the verb following who/whom. So, yeah, it should be "who".

This question is based on Tenses and Construction.

A vertical scan of the options gives us a choice between the past perfect tense – had been used - and the simple past tense – was used.
The other verbs in the sentence are ‘were surprised’ and ‘was passed’.

Since the action in the underlined portion does not convey an earlier action, it does not have to be in the past perfect tense. On the basis of this rule, Options A and B can be eliminated.

Option E also contains the past perfect tense – had demanded. Since this action did not take place before the other actions, this verb also does not have to be in the past perfect tense form. So, Option E can also be eliminated.

The difference between Options C and D is the difference in modifier.
Option C contains an adjective modifier that modifies the subject – convicted felons. While the subject of the modifier is appropriate, the time frame conveyed by the use of the simple past – demanded – is not. The modifier describes an action that is done by felons continually. So, a participle would be more appropriate.
Furthermore, the adverb ‘out’ is redundant. The phrase ‘serving terms of imprisonment’ is appropriate.
So, Option C can be eliminated.

Option D contains the appropriate verb and tense forms. This option also contains a participle modifier that conveys a sense of continual action. Therefore, D is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

Still confused here. Shouldn't the past perfect tense be required in D? "...was used" ...the simple past...indicates that this happened at the same time that Members of Congress were surprised (also simple past)

A question as well regarding modifiers:

Is there a difference between "convicted felons demanding" and "convicted felons who demanded"? The former involves an -ing modifier and the latter is couched more in terms of the felons doing an action.

Greetings, we meet again.

I have the same exact question (the 2nd question about “demanding” vs “who demanded)

AndrewN

You’ve helped me before, any thoughts on this question as a whole and the question above me?






Posted from my mobile device

Hello, Fdambro294. The issue of verb tense is more complicated than it appears to be at first glance. On the surface, the past perfect would seem to fit the shell of the sentence:

Members of Congress were surprised to learn that legislation... had been used by convicted felons.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the above usage of the past perfect. Members were surprised, a past-tense action, by news of an event that occurred further in the past. Complications arise, however, when you consider the verb tense within the clause that is modifying the legislation:

legislation that was passed to prevent discrimination

If the past perfect were going to be introduced to the sentence, I would expect it to fall here instead of later, as in,

legislation that had been passed to prevent discrimination... was used by convicted felons

Since this is not an option in any of the five answer choices, we should go with the safer bet and steer away from the past perfect.

Now, to address your question and that of CEdward above, there is a cosmetic difference, of course, between convicted felons demanding something and convicted felons who demanded something. CrackVerbalGMAT has more to say on that split above, right ahead of the two previous posts (well, three, if I count this post-to-be). Could convicted felons at one point in time come together and rally, more or less, to demand special treatment by pointing to the legislation in question? Yes. I cannot write off (C) on that split alone. Instead, I would start counting up my doubts in each answer:


Is out their necessary in (C) to convey the vital meaning of the sentence? I think (D) looks fine. Then, we have parallelism to lean on. Between who demanded... while serving and demanding... while serving, the latter is decidedly more parallel. If I have no doubts about (D) and two about (C), then I have no compelling reason not to choose (D).

Would I balk at seeing a sentence such as (C) if I read it in a (reputable) newspaper? Not at all. But in GMAT™ land, considerations of parallelism and conciseness carry more weight, and the safer answer in this 50/50 is (D).

I hope that helps address any doubts you may have had. Thank you for thinking to ask me.

- Andrew

Thank you very much, as always.

Posted from my mobile device

So as I read this, the first key point to me seems to be this: figure out what the order of the events should be. Your reference about using the past participle earlier in the sentence next to legislation is apt because what you are suggesting is that the passing of legislation comes before any use of it by convicted felons. Tricky, tricky indeed.

A second question regarding 'who demanded' and 'demanding' remains. What exactly is 'demanding' parallel to here?

Third, now that we are on the topic of past participles. One thing I still find perplexing is the use of multiple 'hads' in a sentence. Is this permissible, particularly with respect to defining the sequence of events?

Yes, CEdward. In a sentence that mixes different verb tenses, your goal is to straighten out the timeline. As for the second question, demanding is parallel to serving—the felons were demanding certain treatment at the same time that they were incarcerated. The modifier indicates an ongoing action. A who clause could work, but then we would be focusing on a point in time during such an incarceration. Concerning your third question, yes, you can see multiple uses of the past perfect in a sentence, but until you see an official question that tests this point, I would not worry about it, to be honest. If you start preparing yourself for all contingencies, you will never stop preparing. If you focus on the first consideration and figure out a clear timeline, then the rest of the pieces should fall into place.

- Andrew