Most of Portugal's 250,000 university students boycotted classes in a

Most of Portugal’s 250,000 university students boycotted classes in a one-day strike to protest a law that requires them to contribute $330 a year toward the cost of higher education, previously paying $7 per year.

A. year toward the cost of higher education, previously paying $7 per year
B. year toward the cost of higher education, for which was previously paid $7 per year
C. year, compared to the previously $7 per year, toward the cost of higher education
D. year toward the cost of higher education, instead of the $7 per year required previously
E. year as opposed to the $7 per year required previously for the cost of higher education

A. year toward the cost of higher education, previously paying $7 per year
The clause before the comma + verbing is "that (refers to law) requires them to contribute $330 a year toward the cost of the higher education"
so verb+ing should modify the previous clause and should make sense with the subject of the clause. Definitely "law" is not paying.

B. year toward the cost of higher education, for which was previously paid $7 per year
who previously paid ? not clear

C. year, compared to the previously $7 per year, toward the cost of higher education
Previously is an adverb so it should modify a verb. we don't have a verb here.

D. year toward the cost of higher education, instead of the $7 per year required previously
Looks least of the devils

E. year as opposed to the $7 per year required previously for the cost of higher education
"as opposed to" is not a comparison marker but it is a contrast marker . We need a comparison marker.

Hey guys,

An interesting point about your preference for "last year" over "previously" - the two mean significantly different things:

"Last year" is a fixed point in time
"Previously" means "beforehand" - it's not fixed and may well have been over a longer period than just that one year

What I mean is that "previously" has a proper use, just as "being" and other words that we tend to fear on the GMAT do. The key is to be systematic in eliminating the big-picture errors first, and then going down to the more stylistic, feel-based items. The GMAT loves to use your own inertia against you to reward "thinking" and "problem solving" over assumptions and quick feelings, so get used to seeing questions like this that try to get you to dislike a word or phrase that isn't really wrong.

No. Note the disconnect.

... students boycotted classes in a one-day strike to protest a law that ...

Now everything after 'that' is telling us more about that particular law.

What does the sentence tell us about the law? It tells us the following:
The law requires them to contribute $330 a year toward the cost of higher education, instead of the $7 per year required previously.

This modifies the law. A part of it cannot refer back to the students, a noun from which it is very far.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that the law requires students to contribute $330 a year toward the cost of higher education, rather than the $7 per year that the students used to have to pay.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Modifiers + Awkwardness/Redundancy

A: This answer choice incorrectly modifies "the cost of higher education" with "previously paying $7 per year", illogically implying that "cost of higher education" was practically paying $7 per year; the intended meaning is that the students used to have to pay $7 per year for higher education; please remember, in a “noun + comma + phrase” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning through the phrase "for which was previously paid $7 per year"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that the students practically used to pay $7 per year; the intended meaning is that the students were required to pay $7 per year. Further, Option B uses the passive voice construction "for which was previously paid", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: Trap. This answer choice incorrectly modifies "$330 a year" with "compared to the previously $7 per year", illogically implying that the law requires students to pay $330 a year towards higher education when compared to the previous $7 per year; the intended meaning is that the law requires students to pay $330 a year towards higher education rather than the previous fee of $7 per year; please remember, in a “noun + comma + phrase” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the adverb "previously" to modify the noun "$7 per year"; please remember, an adverb can only be used to modify a verb or an adjective.

D: Correct. This answer choice correctly modifies "cost of higher education" with "instead of the $7 per year required previously", conveying the intended meaning - that the law requires students to pay $330 a year towards higher education rather than the previous fee of $7 per year. Further, Option D correctly uses the adverb "previously" to modify the verb "required". Additionally, Option D is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

E: This answer choice uses the needlessly wordy phrase "as opposed to", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

Additional Note: Please note that the phrase "as opposed to" is used to indicate difference or contrast, so it conveys the same meaning as "instead of" in this context.

To understand the concept of "Phrase Comma Subject" and "Subject Comma Phrase" on the GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

A tricky question!! Here is my analysis.

The sentence has a main clause and a relative ‘that clause’.
… students boycotted classes to protest a law that requires them to contribute …

The underlined ‘that clause’ tells us about the law. We basically need to focus on the ‘that clause’ since the underlined part is second half of ‘that clause.’
What does the ‘that clause’ tell us about the law?
The law requires them to contribute $330 a year toward the cost of higher education instead of the $7 that they paid previously.

(A) year toward the cost of higher education, previously paying $7 per year

The law requires them to contribute $330 a year toward the cost of higher education, previously paying $7 per year.
Note that the comma + verb-ing present participle modifier seems to be modifying ‘the law requires them to contribute $330 a year toward the cost of higher education.’ So it is modifying the subject ‘the law’ of this clause and hence it seems that the law is the one paying $7 per year.
Hence, this option is incorrect.

(B) year toward the cost of higher education, for which was previously paid $7 per year

The law requires them to contribute $330 a year toward the cost of higher education, for which was previously paid $7 per year.

‘was previously paid $7 per year’ makes no sense.
If we want to use passive, we should say ‘$7 per year was previously paid …’
If we want to use active, we should say ‘the students paid $7 per year previously…’
If we are to use a construct ‘was previously paid $7 per year,’ we need to say ‘the university was previously paid $7 per year’ or something like that. But the subject is missing in this option.

Hence (B) is incorrect.

(C) year, compared to the previously $7 per year, toward the cost of higher education

We cannot use an adverb ‘previously’ with a noun ‘$7 per year.’

(D) year toward the cost of higher education, instead of the $7 per year required previously

Everything seems good. The adverb ‘previously’ modifies the past participle ‘required.’

(E) year as opposed to the $7 per year required previously for the cost of higher education

‘for the cost of higher education’ is not the best way to express what we want to say and neither is it placed at the right spot in the sentence.
We pay $$ for higher education.
We pay $$ toward the cost of higher education.
But we do not say ‘pay $$ for the cost of higher education.’ After ‘for,’ we need to put that thing which we are getting in return.

e.g.
I paid $500k for this house. (I got the house in return) – Acceptable
I have paid $100k toward the cost of this house. – Acceptable
I paid $500k for the cost of this house. – Not good

Also, it is better to place ‘toward the cost …’ before the comparison so that we know that both the amounts are toward the same cause. Consider the two sentences:

The law requires them to contribute $330 a year toward the cost of higher education, instead of $7 per year required previously.
(both amounts are toward the cost of higher education)

The law requires them to contribute $330 a year instead of $7 per year required previously toward the cost of higher education.
This tells us that the law requires them to pay $330 instead of $7 that they used to pay toward the cost of higher education. It could very well be that the law requires them to pay $330 toward infrastructure cost instead of $7 that they used to pay toward the cost of higher education.

The point is that it is not as clear as option (D).

Answer (D)

Prof could you please explain why 'compared to' is wrong...

Thanks in advance.

"compare to" is used to compare unlike things and "compare with" for similar or like things. here the comparision is between like things. therefore it is wrong.

I believe the answer is D.

Reasoning:
There are no grammatical flaws in sentences D or E that I notice. I even believe that sentence E sounds better because it goes along with the sentence. Students boycotting, leads you to believe that the new amount of money that students are forced to pay opposes the old amount.

However, putting "as opposed to" into the sentence changes the meaning of the original. The original only indicates that there are new amounts to be paid. It doesn't offer that the amounts are "opposing" each other

shouldn't we have "towards" instead of "toward" here ? sm1 pls. throw some light on this.
E eliminates the word "toward" here, therefore IMO E is correct.
what do you say guys ?

I actually thought this at first so I looked it up.

Toward and Towards are interchangable. Toward is usually used in America where towards is usually used in Britain.

Though the right answer is D but sentence could have been lot better if "last year" would have used instead of previously.

I used to think on similar lines previously. Apparently, GMAC knows this and lures students with wrong answers similar to the ones they expect.

Here comes in handy the split : toward VS the rest

So A B and C go out right away (toward makes any sense)

E is ackward and redundant (per year and previously basically are the same thing

D just to check: the meaning of the sentence is to hvae 300$ in sostitution of 7 payed before (instead of is used just for this purpose)

D is the answer.

PS: is not a good question after all, I suppose is not from official material

Idiom tested here is "contribute to/toward" v/s "contribute for"
And the correct idiom is "contribute to X".

Per year and previously are not same thing. So we can't eliminate E based on this.

I was actually confused between C and D. But we use "compared to" to draw similarity between different things. So use of "compared to" in C is incorrect.

A. year toward the cost of higher education, previously paying $7 per year "previously paying" is a modifier but a comparative clause is needed. Otherwise, "previously paying" conveys an effect of the action in the main clause OR modifying the law OR modifying the university students.

B. year toward the cost of higher education, for which was previously paid $7 per year A comparative clause is needed to complete the comparison between today's cost and yesterday's cost; "for which" modifies "the cost" and is not the correct way to construct a comparison.

C. year, compared to the previously $7 per year, toward the cost of higher education Not a correction construction for a comparison since the comparative clause is embedded as a non-essential phrase


D. year toward the cost of higher education, instead of the $7 per year required previously OK - x instead of y idiom logically completes the comparison

E. year as opposed to the $7 per year required previously for the cost of higher education Not a correction construction of comparison; "for the cost of higher education" must follow "year" as modifier does not distribute backwards. The comparison is now "$330 a year" and "$7 per year...for the cost of higher eduction."

Isn't the option (A). has a VERB-Ing modifier which modifies the whole clause and makes sense with the subject 'students'?

Previously paying $7 per year, the students blah blah blah.....

There should be some other error to reject (A).

Please advise !

In (A), the noun needs to be next to the modifier.

"previously paying $7 per year" - the question is - who was paying $7 per year? The students! So this modifier should be next to the students. Here it seems that the cost of higher education was previously paying $7 per year. Hence (A) is incorrect.