GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 16 Jan 2019, 21:00

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 in January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
  • The winning strategy for a high GRE score

     January 17, 2019

     January 17, 2019

     08:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Learn the winning strategy for a high GRE score — what do people who reach a high score do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we've collected from over 50,000 students who used examPAL.
  • Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

     January 19, 2019

     January 19, 2019

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

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

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

Hide Tags

 
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
P
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2794
Re: Most of Portugal's 250,000 university students boycotted classes in a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Dec 2017, 11:41
2
SidJainGMAT wrote:
Hello Verbal Experts,

The OA here is D. But, I am not convinced with it.

The idiom used here is X instead of Y, where X and Y both must be parallel.

Here in this option: to contribute $330 a year toward the cost of higher education, instead of the $7 per year required previously
X=$330 a year
Y=the $7 per year


Is the word 'the' before $7 creating a problem and violating parallelism?

Please let me know.

Thanks in advance! :-)




Hello SidJainGMAT,


I would be glad to help you out with this one. :-)


There is no parallelism issue in the correct answer choice.

X=$330 a year
Y=the $7 per year

Please note that both the entities are noun phrases. Usage of the article the before the second element does not violate the parallelism in any way.

The elements must have the same role in the sentence to qualify as grammatically parallel elements in the list. They need not be completely identical.


Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________








Everything you need to ace the GMAT and more
Basics of the GMAT
GMAT Exam Strategies
GMAT Study Plans
GMAT Verbal Subject Matter
GMAT AWA & IR




| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 27 Nov 2018
Posts: 38
Most of Portugal's 250,000 university students boycotted classes in a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2019, 17:25
sayantanc2k wrote:
Yet one could also say "previously 7 dollar," isn't it?

I think "previously $7 per year" sentence is grammatically correct but suffers from meaning issues.

For example, I'm pretty sure all of the following sentences are grammatically correct, but all have different meanings:

The students are required to drive the blue car, rather than the red car.
-- The only thing we know about the non-blue car is that it is red.

The students are required to drive the blue car, rather than the previously red car.
-- We know that the non-blue car was previously red, but we don't know what color it is now. Also, we don't know if it was required before. The meaning of this sentence is probably not the meaning that we intended. Also, this sentence is really awkward.

The students are required to drive the blue car, rather than the previous red car.
-- The non-blue car is a red car that was either previously seen, previously required, or previously something else. This is close, but still not what we want.

The students are required to drive the blue car, rather than the red car required previously.
-- We know that the non-blue car is red and that it was required previously. This is the sentence that we want.

Another example:

The students are required to wear a blue shirt, rather than the red shirt.
-- The non-blue shirt is red.

The students are required to wear a blue shirt, rather than the previously red shirt.
-- The non-blue shirt was previously red, but we don't know what color it is now.

The students are required to wear a blue shirt, rather than the previous red shirt.
-- The non-blue shirt is red and it was either previously seen, previously required, or previously something else. This is close, but still not quite what we want.

The students are required to wear a blue shirt, rather than the red shirt required previously.
-- The non-blue shirt is red and was required previously.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 27 Nov 2018
Posts: 38
Most of Portugal's 250,000 university students boycotted classes in a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jan 2019, 10:05
Quote:
A. year toward the cost of higher education, previously paying $7 per year

anairamitch1804 has a good explanation for why this option is wrong. In this option, it seems that the students are protesting while they are also previously paying $7 per year. Actions can't happen simultaneously if one of those actions happened previously.

Also, some people have pointed out that "paying" could either be modifying "students" or "law". I'm not sure what the rule is on this and I plan on doing some digging around to find an answer. The worst-case though is that "paying" could modify either "students" or "law", which would introduce only slight ambiguity. So slight that I don't think that this ambiguity alone would be enough to rule out (A).

Quote:
B. year toward the cost of higher education, for which was previously paid $7 per year

This option is actually not grammatical. The relative which clause has no subject. The clause can be read like this:
For [the cost of higher education] (blank subject) was previously paid $7 per year
Or like this:
(Blank subject) was previously paid $7 per year for [the cost of higher education]

Quote:
C. year, compared to the previously $7 per year, toward the cost of higher education

"Compared to" is not the same as "instead of" or "as opposed to". Thus, "compared to" changes the meaning of the sentence and we don't know that the $330/yr has been substituted for the $7/yr. We only know that they are compared.

Also, "previously $7 per year" is grammatically correct but gives the sentence a different meaning than the one we intend. See my previous post for a more in-depth explanation.

Quote:
D. year toward the cost of higher education, instead of the $7 per year required previously

This sentence looks good

Quote:
E. year as opposed to the $7 per year required previously for the cost of higher education

I think this one is pretty close to the right answer, but it seems to be inferior to choice (D).

"toward" is a little more exact than "for", but I think only slightly. I personally wouldn't eliminate (E) on that alone.

I think the most important issue with this option is that "as opposed to the $7 per year required previously" is not set off with commas. This really feels like a non-essential fragment. It doesn't the clarify the meaning of "$330 a year" and so I think it needs to be set off with commas. Grammarly calls these situations interrupters. Wiki calls them non-restrictive clauses.
I think this option would be much better if it instead read:
year, as opposed to the $7 per year required previously, for the cost of higher education

Finally, I'd like the "for the cost of higher education" to come before the "as opposed to...". I think this makes the sentence easier to read. In comparisons, we use ellipses quite a bit and I think the ellipses work better at the end of a clause - just like I think pronouns with antecedents are easier to read than pronouns with postcedents. Though, I wouldn't eliminate an option based on this alone.
GMAT Club Bot
Most of Portugal's 250,000 university students boycotted classes in a &nbs [#permalink] 16 Jan 2019, 10:05

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 43 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| 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®.