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

 It is currently 15 Oct 2018, 01:52

### 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

# Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 334
Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jul 2006, 22:17
6
27
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (01:14) correct 44% (01:19) wrong based on 955 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.

A. of violating state laws for allowing

B. of their violating state laws to allow

C. that it violates state laws that allowed

D. that it violated state laws allowing

E. that state laws were being violated allowing
VP
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1080
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jul 2013, 02:07
6
fozzzy wrote:
Does "it" refer to county? Option D is better than the rest

The judge overturned a ban so you need "that" clearly refers to ban... A and B are out

Option C the second that isn't necessary ( I can see why its wrong but not sure what it is)

Option E being incorrect

Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.

"it" in C and D refers to the ban

C. that it (the ban) violates state laws that allowed
D. that it (the ban) violated state laws allowing

Let me just add that option C is not correct because of the verbs:
a judge overturned the ban: so this ban does not exist or is no more effective
C)that violates: present tense... so is this ban still valid? No sense
D)that violated: past => correct
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

##### General Discussion
VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1438
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jul 2006, 22:49
1
D. "on the ground that" is a correct expression. C/D/E are left.
E is awakward. C is in simple present. so D looks good for me.
SVP
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 2289
Schools: Darden
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2006, 13:33
4
1
Before I answer, I just wanted to point on in the not-underlined section 'ground' should probably be 'grounds'. Since this is sentence correction that just popped out at me; normally I'm not this anal.

OK, on to the question. The judge overturned 'the ban' so the correct answer must incorporate reference to the ban. C & D are both OK here, but A, B & E do not reference the ban so they cannot be correct.

Between C & D, the answer can be determined by checking the tense of the preceding phrase. A judge 'overturned' the ban so the answer must correlate to this verb tense. Only D has 'violated' which is the proper tense.

I choose D.
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1299
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2008, 10:47
Nihit wrote:
. Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.
A. of violating state laws for allowing
B. of their violating state laws to allow
C. that it violates state laws that allowed
D. that it violated state laws allowing
E. that state laws were being violated allowing

A changes the meaning as if state laws were do not allow the use of personal WC

D is correct. C is wrong for allowed. allow might have been a different issue.
Retired Moderator
Status: I wish!
Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 730
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2010, 23:36
2
Nihit wrote:
. Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.
A. of violating state laws for allowing
B. of their violating state laws to allow
C. that it violates state laws that allowed
D. that it violated state laws allowing
E. that state laws were being violated allowing

"Ground of" is a wrong idiom.

"of violating" and "for allowing" are wordy and awkward phrases. Keeping both in mind we can eliminate options A and B.

The pronoun "their" in option B is ambiguous because there's no logical plural noun for it to refer to, but "it" can logically refer to "the ban." The pronoun "it" isn't ambiguous here in option C and D; it refers to "the ban" unambiguously.

E is indeed wordy and distorts the meaning. C has a tense error ("violates"), so D is the only answer choice without a grammar error.
_________________

http://drambedkarbooks.com/

VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1187
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2010, 08:27
1
D for me.

"grounds for" is the correct idiom.

"grounds of" is incorrect.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Posts: 304
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2011, 02:24
icandy wrote:
Nihit wrote:
. Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.
A. of violating state laws for allowing
B. of their violating state laws to allow
C. that it violates state laws that allowed
D. that it violated state laws allowing
E. that state laws were being violated allowing

A changes the meaning as if state laws were do not allow the use of personal WC

D is correct. C is wrong for allowed. allow might have been a different issue.

How does A change the meaning??
WHy is allowed wrong in C?
Why is allowing right in D???

Manager
Status: GMAT BATTLE - WIN OR DIE
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 124
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT Date: 12-22-2011
GPA: 3.81
WE: General Management (Hospitality and Tourism)
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2011, 03:30
3
2
I would like to remined that we need find the best answer among og 5 answer choices.

C we eliminate because of use incorrect tanse "judge overturned" - past simple, so we have no reason to switch to present simple "it violates".

D correct use of tanse "judge overturned" and "it violated"

A and B incorrect use "ground of"

E "state laws were being" we have no reason to use "were being"

siddhans wrote:
icandy wrote:
Nihit wrote:
. Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.
A. of violating state laws for allowing
B. of their violating state laws to allow
C. that it violates state laws that allowed
D. that it violated state laws allowing
E. that state laws were being violated allowing

A changes the meaning as if state laws were do not allow the use of personal WC

D is correct. C is wrong for allowed. allow might have been a different issue.

How does A change the meaning??
WHy is allowed wrong in C?
Why is allowing right in D???

Director
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 788
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jul 2013, 01:56
Does "it" refer to county? Option D is better than the rest

The judge overturned a ban so you need "that" clearly refers to ban... A and B are out

Option C the second that isn't necessary ( I can see why its wrong but not sure what it is)

Option E being incorrect
_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html

Intern
Joined: 18 Aug 2014
Posts: 19
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2014, 03:36
2
Grounds of OR
Grounds that

Logic: Idiom: Grounds that.

So A and B and are eliminated.

C. It violates OR
D. It violated OR
E. Were being Violated

Logic: It says 'Judge overturned' referring to simple past tense hence we use 'It violated'
It violates- Simple present
Were being violated- GMAT prefers 'lack of being' and active voice over passive voice.

Hope it helps,
Ray
Manager
Joined: 05 Apr 2014
Posts: 140
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19, Fox"19
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GPA: 3
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2016, 09:51
choice (e) is TOTALLY wrong. if you can't kill choice (e) quickly, you should read through a large number of correct answers to SC questions in the official guides, just for the purpose of internalizing the writing style of the correct answers.
i can't overestimate the importance of becoming comfortable with the writing style of the gmat. in the same way you can classify language as 'shakespearean' or 'faulkner-esque' at a glance, you can also classify language as to whether you might see it on the gmat. once you achieve a certain degree of this familiarity, choice (e) and its ilk will begin to look ridiculous.

the formal reasons why choice (e) is wrong: 1, it uses the passive voice for no good reason whatsoever, and, 2, more importantly, it says only that state laws were being violated; it doesn't at all indicate the crucial fact that the ban violated the state laws. that's baaaaaadd bad bad.

choice (c) is wrong because the tenses don't make sense. 'violates' is in the present tense, but 'allowed' is in the past tense. either one of these tenses could potentially make sense individually, but the combination is absurd: you can't violate (present tense) a law that used to allow something (past tense). if you're going to violate the law in the present tense, then whatever part of the law was violated had better carry over into the present tense.
interestingly, all 3 other tense combinations make sense: violates/allows, violated/allows (if the law is still in effect), and violated/allowed (if the law is no longer in effect).

choice (d) circumvents this issue altogether by employing the participle form (-ing). despite its name (it's formally called the "present participle"), this form is NOT necessarily a present-tense construction; rather, it has no inherent tense at all, and merely adopts the tense of whatever verbs in the sentence do have a tense. therefore, in choice (d), 'allowing' takes place in the past tense, simultaneously with 'violated'.

Courtsey-
RonPurewal
Manhattan
Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 644
Location: United States
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2017, 05:22
3
"Ground of" is a wrong idiom.

"of violating" and "for allowing" are wordy and awkward phrases. Keeping both in mind we can eliminate options A and B.

The pronoun "their" in option B is ambiguous because there's no logical plural noun for it to refer to, but "it" can logically refer to "the ban." The pronoun "it" isn't ambiguous here in option C and D; it refers to "the ban" unambiguously.

In C, “violates” is in the wrong tense. The judge “overturned the ban” (in the past). It is not possible that the ban “violates state laws” (in the present). Keep all the verbs in the same tense unless a change in tense is required. Eliminate C.

The tenses in D are correct. At the time the judge “overturned” the ban (in the past), the ban “violated”(also in the past) state laws allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways. The present participle “allowing” indicates an action contemporaneous with “violated”; the two actions took place at the same time.

E is indeed wordy and distorts the meaning. C has a tense error ("violates"), so D is the only answer choice without a grammar error.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2093
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2017, 20:30
Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.

A. of violating state laws for allowing -- ground of is unidiomatic
B. of their violating state laws to allow -- ground of is unidiomatic
C. that it violates state laws that allowed -- tense issue -- 'violates' is in the present tense, but 'allowed' is in the past tense. either one of these tenses could potentially make sense individually, but the combination is absurd: you can't violate (present tense) a law that used to allow something (past tense). if you're going to violate the law in the present tense, then whatever part of the law was violated had better carry over into the present tense.
interestingly, all 3 other tense combinations make sense: violates/allows, violated/allows (if the law is still in effect), and violated/allowed (if the law is no longer in effect).
D. that it violated state laws allowing -- Correct --circumvents this issue altogether by employing the participle form (-ing). despite its name (it's formally called the "present participle"), this form is NOT necessarily a present-tense construction; rather, it has no inherent tense at all, and merely adopts the tense of whatever verbs in the sentence do have a tense. therefore, in choice (d), 'allowing' takes place in the past tense, simultaneously with 'violated'.
E. that state laws were being violated allowing -- changes meaning -- says only that state laws were being violated; it doesn't at all indicate the crucial fact that the ban violated the state laws

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1192
Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2018, 07:21

Official Explanation:

The phrasing in both (A) & (B) are awkward for expressing an action. The idiom "on grounds of X" works best when X is a simple noun, but for a gerund conveying an action, we need a "that" clause.

(C) the double "that" clauses in this is awkward; the rest of the sentence is in the past tense, so the switch the present is unusual here. This is incorrect.

(D) is direct and grammatically correct.

(E) the passive construction is unusual and unnatural. It is very natural to say "X violates the law," but it sounds quite peculiar to say "the law is violated." The use of the progressive makes the entire construction even more awkward. This is incorrect.

The only possible answer is (D).
_________________

Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases

Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water &nbs [#permalink] 22 May 2018, 07:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by