GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 28 Feb 2020, 23:28

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

Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 193
Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 09 Oct 2019, 19:53
8
59
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (01:20) correct 40% (01:21) wrong based on 1324 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

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/06/us/in-puget-sound-a-county-s-prohibition-on-jet-skis-is-overruled.html

Nine months after San Juan County imposed the nation's first ban on jet skis and other water bikes from its tranquil waters in the upper Puget Sound, a judge has overturned the ban on the ground that it violated state laws allowing the use of the personal watercraft on common waterways.

Originally posted by zoom612 on 29 Jul 2006, 21:17.
Last edited by Bunuel on 09 Oct 2019, 19:53, edited 3 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Community Reply
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1002
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2013, 01:07
13
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
General Discussion
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1028
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jul 2006, 21:49
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
SVP
avatar
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 2217
Schools: Darden
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2006, 12:33
5
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.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 851
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Sep 2008, 09:47
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

Please explain as well



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
User avatar
Status: I wish!
Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 708
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2010, 22:36
3
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

Please explain as well



"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/
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 736
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Aug 2010, 07:27
1
1
D for me.

"grounds for" is the correct idiom.

"grounds of" is incorrect.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Posts: 233
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jul 2011, 01:24
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

Please explain as well



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???


PLease explain your answer ... PLEASE DO NOT JUST POST VOTES
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: GMAT BATTLE - WIN OR DIE
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 91
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 motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jul 2011, 02:30
3
2
I would like to remined that we need find the best answer among og 5 answer choices.

we need elliminate 4 answers.

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

Please explain as well



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???


PLease explain your answer ... PLEASE DO NOT JUST POST VOTES
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 677
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2013, 00:56
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
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 89
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.9
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Aug 2014, 07:26
PiyushK wrote:
NEW PROJECT!: Back to basic => Give your explanation- Get Kudos Point for best explanation

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



Hey Piyush,

Can you help me understand why "violated" is correct and "violates" is wrong ??
Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 691
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Aug 2014, 09:58
2
prabhakarsharma wrote:
Hey Piyush,

Can you help me understand why "violated" is correct and "violates" is wrong ??


I also got this wrong.

In very simple term : violates in present term means something which is a fact or habit , or in general is also true as of now. Which cannot be true because the ban cannot be violating the ban now as it has been overturned.

On the other hand violated in past correctly delivers the intended meaning.

Hope this helps.

Thanks[/quote]

Sure, "Judge overturned" <- action is in past tense; therefore, effect of the ban can not exist in present or at the time when third person wrote this sentence.

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[/quote]
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 976
Location: United States
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2014, 10:32
9
Hello. Here is my 2 cents.

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
Wrong. Correct use is "laws allowing something" <-- "allowing" is verb-ING modifier. "laws for allowing the use of...." is not correct.

B. of their violating state laws to allow
Wrong. 2 problems.
- "their" is wrong because the band is singular.
- "laws to allow" is ungrammatical. The Verb-ING modifier, "allowing" should be used.

C. that it violates state laws that allowed
Wrong. 2 problems.
- The action "violate" happened in the past (not occurs in present anymore), so the judge "overturned" the ban.
- Past tense "allowed" is wrong. The laws still allow the use of personal watercraft. It means the laws are still effective.

D. that it violated state laws allowing
Correct.

E. that state laws were being violated allowing
Wrong. Awkward and ungrammatical.

Hope it helps.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2014
Posts: 16
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Nov 2014, 02:36
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
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 05 Apr 2014
Posts: 134
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, International Business
Schools: ISB '19, Fox"19
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GPA: 3
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2016, 08:51
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
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 596
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
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 bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2017, 04:22
5
1
"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.
The correct answer is D.
_________________
Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2455
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Dec 2017, 19:30
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

Answer D
_________________
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
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1711
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 May 2018, 06:21
2
1

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

Want to improve your Score:
GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Director
Director
avatar
P
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 967
Re: Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 May 2019, 07:32
in the dictionary, we see
ground for somthing
ground of something
grount+that clause.

I think all of them are correct on gmat land. but not all noun can be fit in "ground for/of something". which noun can be fit , depending on meaning of the noun. this point is tested many times on gmat.

there is another point
law to do
law that do

both patterns above is correct. which pattern is used depend on meaning.
the law to learn english in vietnam. this is correct. the agent who do "learning" is a general person, not the law.
the law that allow the use of water. this is correct. the law do the action of "allowing".
"noun to do" is a popular pattern, but few books explain this pattern.
VP
VP
User avatar
D
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1369
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 7: 710 Q47 V41
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2019, 20:48
A is incorrect because "on the ground of violating state laws" implies that the ban was based on the violation of state laws when instead it should communicate that the ban was overturned because the ban violates state laws
B is incorrect for similar reasons - "their violating" also doesn't make sense as the agent is either the judge or the ban (both are singular)
C is incorrect for the verb tense issue - "laws that allowed" - the laws would need to be current if the ban was overturned because of the state laws. You wouldn't overturn a state law if it is superseded.
D is correct - the relative clause correctly communicates the message
E is incorrect for a number of reasons but the most clear reason to me is that E says the violating of the state laws is what allowed the use of personal watercraft.

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.

Between C and D

If something violates another EXISTING law, then that existing law must still be in force, so we must convey the tense correctly - the state laws "allow" not "allowed" and the ban violated, not violates, since the ban is no longer in effect (non-existent) we must convey that it is a figment of the past with past tense.

(C) that it violates state laws that allowed


(D) that it violated state laws allowing
_________________
Here's how I went from 430 to 710, and how you can do it yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGY5vxqMeYk&t=
GMAT Club Bot
Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro   [#permalink] 06 Oct 2019, 20:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro

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





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne