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

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 ban violated state laws that allow the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Idioms + Tenses

• “grounds + that” and “grounds + for” are the correct, idiomatic construction.
• The simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.
• The simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.
• Present participles (“verb+ing” – “allowing” in this case) are used to modify nouns, refer to ongoing events in any time period, and (when preceded by a comma) express cause-effect relationships.

A: This answer choice incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction “grounds + of”; please remember, “grounds + that” and “grounds + for” are the correct, idiomatic construction. Further, Option A uses the needlessly wordy phrase “for allowing”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “to allow”; the use of the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb” – “to + allow” in this sentence) incorrectly implies that the ban violated state laws in order to allow the use of personal watercraft on common waterways; the intended meaning is that the ban violated state laws that allow the use of personal watercraft on common waterways. Further, Option B incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction “grounds + of”; please remember, “grounds + that” and “grounds + for” are the correct, idiomatic construction.

C: Trap. This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple present tense verb “violates” to refer to an action that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past, and the simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb “allowed” to refer to an action that is currently ongoing; please remember, the simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing, and the simple past tense is only used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

D: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrase “it violated state laws allowing”, conveying the intended meaning – that the ban violated state laws that allow the use of personal watercraft on common waterways. Further, Option D correctly uses the simple past tense verb “violated” to refer to an event that concluded in the past. Moreover, Option D avoids the second tense error seen in Option C, as it uses the present participle (“verb+ing” – “allowing” in this case) to refer to a currently ongoing action; please remember, present participles (“verb+ing” – “allowing” in this case) are used to modify nouns, refer to ongoing events in any time period, and (when preceded by a comma) express cause-effect relationships. Additionally, Option D correctly uses the idiomatic construction “grounds + that”. Besides, Option D is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

E: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “state laws were being violated allowing“; the construction of this phrase leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that the ban violated state laws that allow the use of personal watercraft on common waterways. Further, Option E uses the passive voice construction “were being violated”, rendering it awkward and needlessly indirect.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Simple Continuous Tenses", you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

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.

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.

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.

"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.

D for me.

"grounds for" is the correct idiom.

"grounds of" is incorrect.

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

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"

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

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]

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

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

"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.

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

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).

ON GROUND OF SOMETHING exist in english. but after "of" a noun or doing as a pure noun is used. we can not use doing referring to an agent in the sentence to place it in this position.

"violating" can not work as a noun logically because if it work as a noun, it refer to no agent . this means we dont know who violate.

this is hard point of grammar. doing as a pure noun which refer to no agent. doing as participle refers to an agent who perform action of doing.

leaning in this country is bad
learning gmat well, I go to Havard.

the first, learning is a pure noun, refering to no agent. in the second sentence, learning is participle, which refers to the agent, I, who perform action of learning.

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.